241 



different from that of the term "organism," as denoting animal and vegetable beings. 

 This method of using the term is admirably illustrated by the sober, accurate and able 

 Coiirs de Droit Naturel of Mr. Ahrens ; which is avowedly an exposition of The Organic 

 Theory of Krause ; and in which the author is not misled by the associations of the term, 

 nor indeed, except in one particular, by any of the prevailing delusions as to the nature 

 of the State. With regard to the exception alluded to, Mr. Ahrens appears to be emanci- 

 pated altogether from the prevailing doctrine of sovereignty, and admits that the power 

 of the State is not only limited, but is also divisible in its practical application ; yet he 

 adheres to the notion that it is indivisible in its source, namely, the State, which con- 

 stitutes the national sovereignty {Coars de Droit Naturel, Vol. ii, pp. 359, 360). Bat this, 

 as we have observed, is also a meaningless assertion. 



(c) Thus, one of the characteristics of the State alleged by Mr. Burgess is, that " the 

 State is permanent ;" by which, from the context, it appears that he means to assert, 

 either that it cannot, or that it ought not to be dissolved, otherwise than by natanil 

 causes. "It does not lie," he says, "within the power of man to create it to-day and 

 to destroy it to-morrow, as caprice may move liim." And the same notion is expressed 

 by Dr. Mulford {The Ndtion, p. 6). But if reference be made to the fact, nothing has 

 been more common in history than the dismemberment and destruction of nations by 

 external foes, or even by the people of the State itself, and if to the right, it is difiicult to 

 perceive any grounds upon which we can assert it to be universally true. That in 

 general a State should not be disrupted, is an obvious proposition. But numerous cases 

 have occurred in history in which it may be safely said that the State ought to have been 

 dissolved. Thus, the Roman empire was in fact formally. dissolved upon the partition 

 of the east and the west by Arcadius and Honorius, and it is very probable that, had this 

 partition been deliberately made a hundred years before, good results would have fol- 

 lowed. And, indeed, it is not unreasonable to suppose that in the decadence of the 

 Roman empire, after its great work had been accomplished, it would have been for the 

 interests of the human race had a more general partition taken place, as for instance, in 

 the west, between Italy and the western provinces, and in the east, between the 

 European and Asiatic provinces. And it is certainly to be hoped that at least one great 

 State of modern times (I refer to Russia) may, at some future period, be dissolved, as 

 otherwise, sooner or later, it will dominate the world. 



Other instances of faulty definition, though of less importance, are the following : 

 Sidgwick defines the State, as "a body of human beings deriving its corporate unity 

 from the fact that its members acknowledge permanent obedience to the same govern- 

 ment, vvhich represents the society in its collective capacity, and ought to aim in all its 

 actions at the promotion of their common interests " (Elements of Politics, pp. 211, 212). The 

 last clause, though perhaps true, is not appropriate to a definition, but is to be established 

 by an investigation of the principles of jurisprudence. 



Similar faults are also presented by the following definitions ; all of thsm by approved 

 authorities. 



" A State, in the meaning of public law, is a complete, or self-sufficient body of persons 

 united together in one community, for the defense of their rights, and to do right to 

 foreigners" (Bynkershock, N. J. Pub., Bk. i. Chap. xvii). 



" The State (civitas) is a perfect (that is, independent) collection of free men associated, 

 for the sake of enjoying the advantages of right or justice, and for common utility " {Grotius, 

 Bk. i. Sec. 14). 



" Nations or States are bodies politic, societies of men united together to procure their 

 mutual safety and advantage by means of their union "' ( Vattel, Introduction, Sec. 1 ). 



"The State (is to be regarded) as an association /or the purpose of establishing right " 

 (Como la sociedad para derecho) (Krause, The Ideal of Humanity, Trans, of Sauz. del 

 Rio, p. 48). 



In all of these definitions the end or duty of the State to provide for the rights and for 

 the welfare of its citizens, is inserted as an element of the definition, to which it is not 

 appropriate. What is the true end or fun tion of the State, is, indeed, an important 

 question, and I do not say that it is not here correctly stated, but to insert it in the defi- 

 nition makes the definition in fact false. For States are formed either by natural causes 



