274 



THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



peril, and laugh at commotions which, 

 fraught as they may seem with possi- 

 bilities of general disaster, he gayly 

 hopes will not dislodge him, personally, 

 from his position of vantage. 



The old doctrine was, that there 

 could be but one tyrant in a state, one 

 usurper of power; but if it be agreed 

 that the essence of tyranny consists not 

 in the extent of power usurped and 

 abused, but in the fact of usurpation 

 and abuse, we may perhaps be led to 

 see that there may be as many usurpers 

 or tyrants in the state as there are 

 depositaries of power. He that is un- 

 faithful in a little would be only too 

 likely to be unfaithful in much, if he 

 had the chance ; at any rate he is in the 

 same position morally and socially as 

 though he had been unfaithful in much : 

 he has done evil to the extent of his 

 ability. 



Let us look at the word "usurp" 

 for a moment. The common and, as 

 we think, correct etymology represents 

 it as compounded of the two words 

 Usui and rapere, "to snatch for (one's 

 own) use." Certainly a very happy 

 mode of expressing the essential char- 

 acteristic of tyranny. We load with 

 opprobrium the monarchies of the past 

 because they snatched to their own use 

 and advantage powers which they could 

 only righteously have wielded for the 

 general good. We exult ovar the suc- 

 cessive revolutions by which personal 

 rulers have been shorn of their powers ; 

 and we look forsvard to the time when 

 democracy in the fullest sense shall be 

 co-extensive with civilization. Then no 

 man will be the depositary of any wide 

 powers except strictly as a matter of 

 delegation. Then the whole people ev- 

 erywhere will co-operate in the mak- 

 ing, and largely control the execution, 

 of the laws ; and tyranny will forever 

 be at an end. 



The prospect is a cheering one, but 

 the subject will bear a little closer look- 

 ing into. Let us suppose that a certain 

 monarch of past times — an Alfred let 



us say, an Edward III, a William III, 

 or, going further back, an Antonine 

 or a Trajan — finding himself in the pos- 

 session of supreme power in the state, 

 had faithfully endeavored, according to 

 his best lights, to use that power for 

 the benefit of his subjects, regarding 

 himself as responsible to some higher 

 power enshrined in his own conscience 

 — could such a ruler, acting on such 

 principles, properly be called a tyrant ? 

 His reply to the charge, were it made, 

 would be : "I have not made a selfish 

 or irresponsible use of power; I have 

 not sacrificed others to myself, rather 

 have I sacrificed myself to others ; I have 

 done my duty to the best of my knowl- 

 edge and ability." Now the question 

 arises. Can the individual citizen, who 

 disposes of his ballot and his social in- 

 fluence, always say as much? If not, 

 what are we to say of him ? Are we to 

 say that, because political power which 

 was once possessed in the lump by one 

 man has been broken into fragments 

 and distributed to all men, all need for 

 responsibility in the use of it has van- 

 ished ? We fail to see it. Formerly one 

 man had much, and he was required to 

 be faithful in much ; now each of us 

 has a little — of the very same thing be 

 it remembered, power, power not over 

 ourselves only, but over others as well 

 — and surely we are required to be 

 faithful in the exercise of that little. If 

 we are not, what are we but each a 

 petty tyrant in his way — fragments of 

 one big tyrant, dkjectl meinhra tyranni, 

 if we may be allowed to alter a well- 

 known Iloratian phrase. 



The man who sells his vote for 

 money, what is he but a usurper in the 

 strict sense — one who snatches a pub- 

 lic function, and applies it to his purely 

 private advantage? What is he, again, 

 but a traitor, seeing that, for money, 

 he hands over the government, so far 

 as he can do it, to a public enemy— t?ie 

 purchaser of votes being of absolute 

 necessity a public enemy ? Well, every 

 man will not exchange his vote for 



