Resolution of the Congress, of September 13, 1788, Fixing Date for Election of a President, and the Organization of the Government Under the Constitution, in the City of New York. Saturday Sept 13. 1788 Congress assembled present New hampshire Massachusetts Connecticut New York New Jersey Pensylvania Virginia North Carolina South Carolina & Georgia & from Rhodeisland Mr. Arnold & from Delaware Mr. Kearney. Whereas the Convention assembled in Philadelphia pursuant to the resolution of Congress of the 21st of Feby 1787 did on the 17th of Sept in the same year report to the United States in Congress assembled a constitution for the people of the United States, Whereupon Congress on the 28 of the same Sept did resolve unanimously " That the said report with the resolutions & letter accompanying the same be transmitted to the several legislatures in order to be submitted to a convention of Delegates chosen in each state by the people thereof in conformity to the resolves of the convention made and provided in that case " And whereas the constitution so reported by the Convention and by Congress transmitted to the several legislatures has been ratified in the manner therein declared to be sufficient for the establishment of the same and such ratifications duly authenticated have been received by Congress and are filed in the Office of the Secretary therefore Resolved That the first Wednesday in Jany next be the day for appointing Electors in the several states, which before the said day shall have ratified the said Constitution; that the first Wednesday in feby next be the day for the electors to assemble in their respective states and vote for a president; And that the first Wednesday in March next be the time and the present seat of Congress the place for commencing proceedings under the said constitution- Notes on Sources: (1) Reprinted from Documentary History of the Constitution, Vol II (1894), pp. 262, 263, 264. (2) From the"Rough"Journal of Congress (No. I, Vol. 39.). Source: Documents Illustrative of the Formation of the Union of the American States. Government Printing Office, 1927. House Document No. 398.

Great Britain : Parliament - The Quartering Act; May 15, 1765 An act to amend and render more effectual, in his MajestyÂ’s dominions in America, an act passed in this present session of parliament, intituled, An act for punishing mutiny and desertion, and for the better payment of the army and their quarters. WHEREAS in and by an act made in the present session of parliament, intituled, An act for punishing mutiny and desertion, and for the better payment of the army and their quarters; several regulations are made and enacted for the better government of the army, and their observing strict discipline, and for providing quarters for the army, and carriages on marches and other necessary occasions, and inflicting penalties on offenders against the same act, and for many other good purposes therein mentioned; but the same may not be sufficient for the forces that may be employed in his MajestyÂ’ dominions in America: and whereas, during the continuance of the said act, there may be occasion for marching and quartering of regiments and companies of his MajestyÂ’s forces in several parts of his MajestyÂ’s dominions in America: and whereas the publick houses and barracks, in his MajestyÂ’s dominions in America, may not be sufficient to supply quarters for such forces: and whereas it is expedient and necessary that carriages and other conveniences, upon the march of troops in his MajestyÂ’s dominions in America, should be supplied for that purpose: be it enacted by the KingÂ’s most excellent majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the lords spiritual and temporal, and commons, in this present parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, That for and during the continuance of this act, and no longer, it shall and may be lawful to and for the constables, tithingmen, magistrates, and other civil officers of villages, towns, townships, cities, districts, and other places, within his MajestyÂ’s dominions in America, and in their default or absence, for any one justice of the peace inhabiting in or near any such village, township, city, district or other place, and for no others; and such constables, tithingmen, magistrates, and other civil officers as aforesaid, are hereby required to quarter and billet the officers and soldiers, in his MajestyÂ’s service, in the barracks provided by the colonies; and if there shall not be sufficient room in the said barracks for the officers and soldiers, then and in such case only, to quarter and billet the residue of such officers and soldiers, for whom there shall not be room in such barracks, in inns, livery stables, ale-houses, victualling-houses, and the houses of sellers of wine by retail to be drank in their own houses or places thereunto belonging, and all houses of persons selling of rum, brandy, strong water, cyder or metheglin, by retail, to be drank in houses; and in case there shall not be sufficient room for the officers and soldiers in such barracks, inns, victualling and other publick alehouses, that in such and no other case, and upon no other account, it shall and may be lawful for the governor and council of each respective province in his MajestyÂ’s dominions in America, to authorize and appoint, and they are hereby directed and impowered to authorize and appoint, such proper person or persons as they shall think fit, to take, hire and make fit, and, in default of the said governor and council appointing and authorizing such person or persons, or in default of such person or persons so appointed neglecting or refusing to do their duty, in that case it shall and may be lawful for any two or more of his MajestyÂ’s justices of the peace in or near the said villages, town, townships, cities, districts, and other places, and they are hereby required to take, hire, and make fit for the reception of his MajestyÂ’s forces, such and so many uninhabited houses, outhouses, barns or other buildings, as shall be necessary, to quarter therein the residue of such officers and soldiers for whom there should not be rooms in such barracks and publick houses as aforesaid, and to put and quarter the residue of such officer and soldiers therein. II. And it is hereby declared and enacted, That there shall be no more billets at any time ordered, than there are effective soldiers present to be quartered therein: and in order that this service may be effectually provided for, the commander in chief in America, or other officer under whose orders any regiment or company shall march, shall, from time to time, give, or cause to be given, as early notice as conveniently may be, in writing, signed by such commander or officer of their march, specifying their numbers and time of marching as near as may be, to the respective governors of each province through which they are to march; in order that proper persons may be appointed and authorized, in pursuance of this act, to take up and hire, if it shall be necessary, uninhabited houses, outhouses, barns, or other buildings, for the reception of such soldiers as the barracks and publick houses shall not be sufficient to contain or receive. III. And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That if any military officer shall take upon himself to quarter soldiers, in any of his MajestyÂ’s dominions in America, otherwise than is limited and allowed by this act; or shall use or offer any menace or compulsion to or upon any justice of the peace, constable, tithingman, magistrate, or other civil officer before mentioned, in his MajestyÂ’s dominions in America, tending to deter and discourage any of them from performing any part of the duty hereby required or appointed; such military officer, for every such offence, being thereof convicted before any two or more of his MajestyÂ’s justices of the peace living within or near such villages, towns, townships, cities, districts or other places, by the oaths of two or more credible witnesses, shall be deemed and taken to be ipso facto cashiered, and shall be utterly disabled to have or hold any military employment in his MajestyÂ’s service, upon a certificate thereof being transmitted to the commander in chief in America; unless the said conviction shall be reserved upon an appeal brought, within six months, in the proper court for hearing appeals against convicting by justices of the peace: and in case any person shall find himself aggrieved, in that such constable, tithingman, magistrate, or other civil officer, shall have quartered or billeted in or upon his house a greater number of soldiers than he ought to bear in proportion to his neighbours, and shall complain thereof to one or more justice or justices of the peace of the village, town, township, city, district, or other place, where such soldiers are quartered, such justice or justices has or have hereby power to relieve such person, by ordering such and so many of the soldiers to be removed, and quartered upon such other person or persons, as they shall see cause; and such other person or persons shall be obliged to receive such soldiers accordingly. IV. Provided also, and be it further enacted, That no justice or justices of the peace, having or executing any military office or commission in his MajestyÂ’s regular forces in America, may, during the continuance of this act, directly or indirectly, act or be concerned in the quartering, billeting or appointing any quarters, for any soldier or soldiers, according to the disposition made for quartering of any soldier or soldiers by virtue of this act (except where there shall be no other justice or justices of the peace) but that all warrants, acts, matters, or things, executed or appointed by such justice or justices of the peace for or concerning the same, shall be void; any thing in this act contained to the contrary notwithstanding.. V. Provided nevertheless, and it is hereby enacted, That the officers and soldiers so quartered and billeted as aforesaid (except such as shall be quartered in the barracks, and hired uninhabited houses, or other buildings as aforesaid) shall be received and furnished with diet, and small beer, cyder, or rum mixed with water, by the owners of the inns, livery stables, alehouses, victualling-houses, and other houses in which they are allowed to be quartered and billeted by this act; paying and allowing for the same the several rates herein after mentioned to be payable out of the subsistence-money, for diet and small beer, cyder, or rum mixed with water. VI. Provided always. That in case any innholder, or other person, on whom any non-commission officers or private men shall be quartered by virtue of this act, in any of his MajestyÂ’s dominions in America (except on a march, or employed in recruiting, and likewise except the recruits by them raised, for the space of seven days at most, for such non-commission officers and soldiers who are recruiting, and recruits by them raised) shall be desirous to furnish such non-commission officers or soldiers with candles, vinegar, and salt, and with small beer or cyder, not exceeding five pints, or half a pint of rum mixed with a quart of water, for each man per diem, gratis, and allow to such non-commission officers or soldiers the use of fire, and the necessary utensils for dressing and eating their meat, and shall give notice of such his desire to the commanding officer, and shall furnish and allow the same accordingly; then, and in such case, the non-commission officers and soldiers so quartered shall provide their own victuals; and the officer to whom it belongs to receive, or that actually does receive, the pay and subsistence-money, for diet and small beer, to the non-commission officers and soldiers aforesaid, and not to the innholder or other person on whom such non-commission officers and soldiers are quartered; any thing herein contained to the contrary notwithstanding. VII. And whereas there are several barracks in several places in his MajestyÂ’s said dominions in America, or some of them provided by the colonies, for the lodging and covering of soldiers in lieu of quarters, for the ease and convenience as well of the inhabitants of and in such colonies, as of the soldiers; it is hereby further enacted, That all such officer and soldiers, so put and placed in such barracks, or hired uninhabited houses, out-houses, barns, or other buildings, shall, from time to time be furnished and supplied there by the persons to be authorized or appointed for that purpose by the governor and council of each respective province, or upon neglect or refusal of such governor and council in any province, then by two or more justices of the peace residing in or near such place, with fire, candles, vinegar, and salt, bedding, utensils for dressing their victuals, and small beer or cyder, not exceeding five pints, or half a pint of rum mixed with a quart of water, to each man, without paying any thing for the same. VIII. And that the several persons who shall so take, hire, and fit up as aforesaid, such uninhabited houses, out-houses, barns, or other buildings, for the reception of the officers and soldiers, and who shall so furnish the same, and also the said barracks, with fire, candles, vinegar, and salt, bedding, utensils for dressing victuals, and small beer, cyder, or rum, as aforesaid, may be reimbursed and paid all such charges and expences they shall be put to therein, be it enacted by the authority aforesaid, That the respective provinces shall pay unto such person or persons all such sum or sums of money so by them paid, laid out, or expended, for the taking, hiring, and fitting up, such uninhabited houses, out-houses, barns, or other buildings, and for furnishing the officers and soldiers therein, and in the barracks, with fire, candles, vinegar, and salt, bedding, utensils for dressing victuals, and small beer, cyder, or rum, as aforesaid; and such sum or sums are hereby required to be raised, in such manner as the publick charges for the provinces respectively are raised. IX. Provided always, and be it enacted by the authority aforesaid, That if any officer, within his MajestyÂ’s said dominions of America, shall take, or cause to be taken, or knowingly suffer to be taken, any money, of any person, for excusing the quartering of officers or soldiers, or any of them, in any house allowed by this act; every such officer shall be cashiered, and be incapable of serving in any military employment whatsoever. X. And whereas some doubts may arise, whether commanding officers of any regiment or company, within his MajestyÂ’s said dominions in America, may exchange any men quartered in any village, town, township, city, district, or place, in his MajestyÂ’s said dominions in America, with another man quartered in the same place, for the benefit of the service; be it declared and enacted by the authority aforesaid, That such exchange as above mentioned may be made by such commanding officers respectively, provided the number of men do not exceed the number at that time billeted on such house or houses; and the constables, tithingmen, magistrates, and other chief officers of the villages, towns, townships, cities, districts, or other places where any regiment or company shall be quartered, are hereby required to billet such men so exchanged accordingly. XI. And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That if any constable, tithingman, magistrate, or other chief officer or person whatsoever, who, by virtue or colour of this act, shall quarter or billet, or be employed in quartering or billeting, any officers or soldiers, within his MajestyÂ’s said dominions in America, shall neglect or refuse, for the space of two hours, to quarter or billet such officers of soldiers, when thereunto required, in such manner as is by this act directed, provided sufficient notice be given before the arrival of such forces; or shall receive, demand, contract, or agree for, any sum or sums of money, or any reward whatsoever, for or on account of excusing, or in order to excuse, any person or persons whatsoever from quartering, or receiving into his, her, or their house or houses, any officer or soldier, or in case any victualler, or any other person within his MajestyÂ’s dominions in America, liable by this act to have any officer or soldier billeted or quartered on him or her, shall refuse to receive or victual any such officer or soldier so quartered or billeted upon him or her as aforesaid; or in case any person or persons shall refuse to furnish or allow, according to the directions of this act, the several things herein before directed to be furnished or allowed to officers and soldiers, so quartered or billeted on him or her, or in the barracks, and hired uninhabited houses, out-houses, barns or other buildings, as aforesaid, at the rate herein after mentioned; and shall be thereof convicted before one of the magistrates of any one of the supreme chief or principal common law courts of the colony where such offence shall be committed, either by his own confession, or by the oath of one or more credible witness or witnesses (which oath such magistrate of such court is hereby impowered to administrate) every such constable, tithingman, magistrate, or other chief officer or person so offending shall forfeit, for every such offence, the sum of five pounds sterling, or any sum of money not exceeding five pounds, nor less than forty shillings, as the said magistrate (before whom the matter shall be heard) shall in his discretion think fit; to be levied by distress and sale of the goods of the person offending, by warrant under the hand and seal of such magistrate before whom such offender shall be convicted, to be directed to a constable or other officer within the village, town, township, city, district, or other place, where the offender shall dwell; and shall direct the said sum of five pounds, or such other sum as shall be ordered to be levied in pursuance of this act as aforesaid, when levied, to be paid into the treasury of the province or colony where the offence shall be committed, to be applied towards the general charges of the said province or colony. XII. And, that the quarters both of officers and soldiers, in his MajestyÂ’s said dominions in America, may hereafter be duly paid and satisfied, be it enacted by the authority aforesaid, That from and after the twenty fourth day of March, in the year one thousand seven hundred and sixty five, every officer to whom it belongs to receive, or that does actually receive, the pay or subsistence-money either for a whole regiment, or particular companies, or otherwise, shall immediately, upon each receipt of every particular sum which shall from time to time be paid, returned, or come to his or their hands, on account of pay or subsistence, give publick notice thereof to all persons keeping inns, or other places where officers or soldiers are quartered by virtue of this act: and shall also appoint the said innkeepers and others to repair to their quarters, at such times as they shall appoint for the distribution and payment of the said pay or subsistence money to the said officers or soldiers, which shall be within four days at farthest after receipt of the same as aforesaid, and the said inn-keepers and other shall then and there acquaint such officer or officers with the accounts or debts (if any shall be) between them and the officers and soldiers so quartered in their respective houses; which account the said officer or officers are hereby required to accept of, and immediately pay the same, before any part of the said pay or subsistence be distributed either to the officers or soldiers; provided the accounts exceed not for a commissions officer of foot, being under the degree of a captain, for such officers diet and small beer per diem, one shilling, and if such officer shall have a horse or horses, for each horse or horses, for their hay and straw per diem, six pence, nor for one foot soldierÂ’s diet and small beer, cyder, or rum mixed as aforesaid, per diem, four pence: and if any officer or officers as aforesaid shall not give notice as aforesaid, and not immediately, upon producing such account stated, satisfy, content, and pay the same, upon complaint and oath made thereof by any two witnesses, before two of his MajestyÂ’s justices for the village, town, township, city, district, or other place where such quarters were (which oath such justices are hereby authorized and required to administer) the paymaster or paymasters of his MajestyÂ’s guards and garrisons, upon certificate of the said justices before whom such oath was made, of the sum due upon such accounts, an the persons to whom the same is owing, are hereby required and authorized to pay and satisfy the said sums out of the arrears due to the said officer or officers; upon penalty that such paymaster or paymasters shall forfeit their respective place or places of paymaster, and be discharged from holding the same for the future; and in case there shall be no arrears due to the said officer or officers, then the said paymaster or paymasters are hereby authorized and required to deduct the sums, he or they shall pay pursuant to the certificates of the said justices, out of the next pay or subsistence money of the regiment to which such officer or officers shall belong: and such officer or officers shall, for every such offence, or for neglecting to give notice of the receipt of such pay or subsistence money as aforesaid, be deemed and taken, and is hereby declared, to be ipso facto cashiered. XIII. And, where it shall happen that the subsistence money due to any officer or soldier, within his MajestyÂ’s said dominions in America, shall, by occasion of any accident, not be paid to such officer or soldier, or such officer or soldier shall neglect to pay the same, so that quarters cannot be or are not paid as this act directs; and where any forces shall be upon their march, in his MajestyÂ’s dominions in America, so that no subsistence can be remitted to them to make payment as this act directs: or they shall neglect to pay the same; in every such case, it is hereby further enacted, That every such officer shall before his or their departure out of his or their quarters, where such regiment, troop, or company shall remain for any time whatsoever, make up the accounts with every person with whom such regiment or company shall have quartered, and sign a certificate thereof, and give the said certificate, so by him signed, to the party to whom such money is due, with the name of such regiment or company to which he or they shall belong, to the end the said certificate may be forthwith transmitted to the paymaster of his MajestyÂ’s guards and garrisons, who is hereby required immediately to make payment thereof to the person or persons to whom such money shall be due, to the end the same may be applied to such regiment or company respectively; under pain as before in this act directed for nonpayment of quarters. XIV, And, for better preventing abuses in quartering or billeting the soldiers in his MajestyÂ’s dominions in America, in pursuance of this act, be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That it shall and may be lawful to and for any one or more justices of the peace, or other officer, within their respective villages, towns, townships, cities, districts, or other places, in his MajestyÂ’s said dominions in America, by warrant or order under his or their hand and seal, or hands or seals, at any time or times during the continuance of this act, to require and command any constable, tithingman, magistrate, or other chief officer, who shall quarter or billet any soldiers in pursuance of this act, to give an account in writing unto the said justice or justices, or other officer requiring the same, of the number of officers and soldiers who shall be quartered or billeted by them and also the names of the house-keepers or persons upon whom, and the barracks and hired uninhabited houses, or other buildings as aforesaid, in which and where every such officer of soldiers shall be quartered or billeted, together with an account of the street or place where every such house-keeper or person dwells, and where every such barrack or hired uninhabited house or building is or are, and of the signs (if any) which belong to their houses; to the end that it may appear to the said justice or justices; or other officer, where such officers or soldiers are quartered or billeted, and that he or they may thereby be the better enabled to prevent or punish all abuses in the quartering or billeting them. XV. And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That for the better and more regular provision of carriages for his MajestyÂ’s forces in their marches, or for their arms, clothes, or accoutrements, in his MajestyÂ’s said dominions in America, all justices of the peace within their several villages, town, townships, cities, districts, and places, being duly required thereunto by an order from his Majesty, or the general of his forces, or of the general commanding, or the commanding officer there shall, as often as such order is brought and shewn unto one or more of them, by the quarter-master, adjutant, or other officer of the regiment, detachment, or company, so ordered to march, issue out his or their warrants to the constables, tithingmen, magistrates, or other officers of the villages, towns, townships, cities, districts, and other places, from, through, near, or to which such regiment, detachment, or company, shall be ordered to march, requiring them to make such provision for carriages, with able men to drive the same, as shall be mentioned in the said warrant: allowing them reasonable time to do the same, that the neighbouring parts may not always bear the burthen: and in case sufficient carriages cannot be provided within any such village, town, township, city, district, or other place, then the next justice, or justices of the peace of the village, town, township, city, district, or other place, shall, upon such order as aforesaid being brought or shewn to one or more of them, by any of the officers as aforesaid, issue his or their warrants to the constables, tithingman, magistrate, or other officers, of such next village, town, township, city, district, or other place, for the purposes aforesaid, to make up such deficiency; and such constable, tithingman, magistrate, or other officer, shall order or appoint such person or persons, having carriages, within their respective villages, towns, townships, cities, districts, or other places, as they shall think proper to provide and furnish such carriages and men, according to the warrant aforesaid; who are hereby required to provide and furnish the same accordingly. XVI. And be it further enacted, That the pay or hire for a New York wagon, carrying twelve hundred pounds gross weight, shall be seven pence sterling for each mile; and for every other carriage in that and every other colony in his MajestyÂ’s said dominions in America, in the same proportion; and at or after the same rate or price for what weight every such other carriage shall carry; and that the first dayÂ’s pay or hire for every such carriage, shall be paid down by such officer to such constable, tithingman, magistrate, or other civil officer, who shall get or procure such carriages, for the use of the owner or owners thereof; and the pay or hire for every such carriage after the first day, shall be paid every day, from day to day, by such officer as aforesaid, into the hands of the driver or drivers of such carriages respectively, until such carriages shall be discharged from such service, for the use of the owner and owners thereof. XVII. Provided always, and be it further enacted, That no such wagon, cart, or carriage, impressed by authority of this act, shall be liable or obliged, by virtue of this act, to carry above twelve hundred weight; any thing herein contained to the contrary notwithstanding. XVIII. Provided also, That no such wagon, cart, or carriage, shall be obliged to travel more than one dayÂ’s march, if, within that time, they shall arrive at any other place where other carriages may be procured; but, in case other sufficient carriages cannot be procured, then such carriages shall be obliged to continue in the service till they shall arrive at such village, town, township, city, district, or other place, where proper and sufficient carriages, for the service of the forces, may be procured. XIX. And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That if any constable, tithingman, magistrate, or other civil officer, within his MajestyÂ’s dominions in America, shall willfully neglect or refuse to execute such warrants of the justices of the peace, as shall be directed unto them for providing carriages as aforesaid; or if any person or persons appointed by such constable, tithingman, magistrate, or other civil officer, to provide or furnish any carriage and man, shall refuse or neglect to provide the same, or any other person or persons whatsoever shall willfully do any act or thing whereby the execution of the said warrants shall be delayed, hindered, or frustrated; every such constable, tithingman, magistrate, civil officer, or other person so offending, shall, for every such offence, forfeit any sum not exceeding forty shillings sterling, no less than twenty shillings, to be paid into the treasury of the province where any such offence shall be committed; to be applied towards the aforesaid contingent charges of the province: and all and every such offence or offences, and all and every other offence or offences, in this act mentioned, and not otherwise provided, shall and may be inquired of, heard, and fully determined, by two of his majestyÂ’s justices of the peace dwelling in or near the village, town, township, city, district, or place, where such offence shall be committed; who have hereby power to cause the said penalty to be levied by distress and sale of the offenders goods and chattels, rendering the overplus (if any) to the owner. XX. And whereas the allowance hereby provided, for the payment of the carriages that may be necessary in the marching of troops, may not be a sufficient compensation for the same, to satisfy the constables, tithingmen, magistrates, and other civil officer, their charges and expences therein; for remedy whereof, be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That the constables, tithingmen, magistrates, and civil officers, procuring such carriages, shall pay a reasonable expence or price for every carriage so procured; and that every such constable, tithingman, magistrate, civil officer, or other person, shall be repaid what he or they shall so expend, together with his or their own charges and expences attending the same, by the province or colony where the same shall arise. XXI. Provided always, and be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That where it shall be necessary to take wagons or other carriages for long marches, beyond the settlements, an appraisement shall be made of the value of such horses and carriages, at the time of the taking them up to be employed in such marches beyond the settlements, by two indifferent persons, one to be chosen by the commanding officer of such forces, and the other by the owner of such cattle or carriages; a certificate of which appraisement shall be given to the owner or owners of such cattle or carriages respectively: and in case any of the cattle or carriages, so taken up for such service, shall in the execution thereof, be lost or destroyed; that then and in every such case, upon producing the said certificate and proper vouchers upon oath of such loss or destruction, to the paymaster general of his majestyÂ’s guards and garrisons, the said paymaster shall, and he is hereby required to pay to the respective owners of such cattle or carriages, the sums specified, in such certificates and vouchers, to be the value of such cattle or carriages so lost or destroyed. XXII. And whereas several soldiers, being duly enlisted in his MajestyÂ’s service, do often desert such service; for remedy whereof, be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That it shall and may be lawful to and for the constable, tithingman, magistrate, or other civil officer, of the village, town, township, city, district, or place, within the said dominions in America, where any person, who may be reasonably suspected to be such a deserter, shall be found, to apprehend, or cause him to be apprehended; and to cause such person to be brought before any justice of the peace or other chief magistrate living in or near such village, town, township, city, district, or place, who hath hereby power to examine such suspected person; and if by his confession, or testimony of one or more witness or witnesses upon oath, or the knowledge of such justice of the peace, or other magistrate, it shall appear, or be found, that such suspected person is a lifted soldier, and ought to be with the regiment or company to which he belongs, such justice of the peace or other magistrate shall forthwith cause him to be conveyed to the gaol of the village, town, township, city, district, county, or place where he shall be found, or to the house of correction or other publick prison in such village, town, township, city, district, county, or place, where such deserter shall be apprehended, and transmit an account thereof to the commander in chief of his MajestyÂ’s forces in the said dominions in America, or to the commanding officer of the forces posted nearest to such justice or justices, or other magistrate or magistrates, for the time being, to the end that such person may be proceeded against according to law: and the gaoler or keeper of such gaol, house of correction, or prison, shall receive the full subsistence of such deserter or deserters during the time that he or they shall continue in his custody for the maintenance of such deserter or deserters: but shall not be intitled to any fee or reward on account of the imprisonment of such deserter or deserters; any law, usage, or custom to the contrary notwithstanding. XXIII. Provided always, That if any person shall harbour, conceal, or assist, any deserter for his MajestyÂ’s service within his MajestyÂ’s said dominions in America, knowing him to be such, the person so offending, shall forfeit for every such offence, the sum of five pounds; or if any person shall knowingly detain, buy or exchange, or otherwise receive, any arms, clothes, caps, or other furniture belonging to the King, from any soldier or deserter, or any other person, upon any account or pretence whatsoever, within his MajestyÂ’s dominions in America, or cause the colour of such clothes to be changed; the person so offending shall forfeit, for every such offence, the sum of five pounds; and upon conviction upon the oath of one or more credible witness or witnesses, before any of his MajestyÂ’s justices of the peace, the said respective penalties of five pounds, and five pounds, shall be levied by warrant under the hands of the said justice or justices of the peace, by distress and sale of the goods and chattels of the offenders; one moiety of the said first-mentioned penalty of five pounds to be paid to the informer, by whose means such deserter shall be apprehended; and one moiety of the said last mentioned penalty of five pounds to be paid to the informer; and the residue of the said respective penalties to be paid to the officer to whom any such deserter or soldier did belong: and in case any such offenders, who shall be convicted as aforesaid, of harbouring or assisting any such deserter or deserters, or having knowingly received any arms, clothes, caps, or other furniture belonging to the King; or having caused the colour of such clothes to be changed, contrary to the intent of this act, shall not have sufficient goods and chattels, whereon distress may be made, to the value of the penalties recovered against him for such offence, or shall not pay such penalties within four days after such conviction; then, and in such case, such justice of the peace shall and may, by warrant under his hand and seal, commit such offender to the common gaol, there to remain, without bail or mainprize, for the space of three months, or cause such offender to be publickly whipt, at the discretion of such justice. XXIV. And be it further enacted, That no commission officer shall break open any house, within his MajestyÂ’s dominions in America, to search for deserters, without a warrant from a justice of the peace, and in the day-time; and that every commission officer who shall, in the night, or without warrant from one or more of his MajestyÂ’s justices of the peace (which said warrants the said justice or justices are hereby impowered to grant) forcibly enter into, or break open, the dwelling-house or out-houses of any person whatsoever under pretence of searching for deserters, shall, upon due proof thereof, forfeit the sum of twenty pounds. XXV. And whereas several crimes and offenses have been and may be, committed by several person, not being soldiers, at several forts or garrisons, and several other places within his MajestyÂ’s dominions in America, which are not within the limits or jurisdiction of any civil government there hitherto established; and which crimes and offenses are not properly cognizable or triable and punishable, by a court-martial, but by the civil magistrate; by means whereof several great crimes and offenses may go unpunished, to the great scandal of government; for remedy whereof, be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That from and after the twenty fourth day of March, one thousand seven hundred and sixty five, and for so long afterwards as this act shall continue in force, if any person or persons, not being a soldier or soldiers, do or shall commit any crime or crimes, or offence or offenses, in any of the said forts, garrisons, or places, within his MajestyÂ’s dominions in America, which are not within the limits or jurisdiction of any civil government hitherto established, it shall and may be lawful for any person or persons to apprehend such offender or offenders, and to carry, him, her, or them, before the commanding officer for the time being of his MajestyÂ’s forces there; and such offender being charged upon oath in writing, before the said commanding officer, and which oath the said commanding officer is hereby impowered to administer, that then, and in every such case, the said commanding officer shall receive and take into his custody, and safely keep, every such offender, and shall convey and deliver, or cause to be conveyed and delivered, with all convenient speed, every such offender to the civil magistrate of the next adjoining province, together with the cause of his or her detainer, to be committed and dealt with by such civil magistrates or magistrate according to law; and every such civil magistrate is hereby commanded and required to commit every such offender, that he or she may be dealt with according to law; and in every such case, it shall and may be lawful to prosecute and try every such offender in the court of such province or colony, where crimes and offenses of the like nature are usually tried, and where the same would be properly tried in case such crime or offence had been committed within the jurisdiction of such court, and such crime shall and may be alleged to be committed within the jurisdiction of such court; and such court shall and may proceed therein to trial, judgment, and execution, in the same manner as if the such crime or offence had been really committed within the jurisdiction of such court; any law, usage, custom, matter, or thing, whatsoever to the contrary notwithstanding, XXVI. And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That every bill, plaint, action, or suit, against any person or persons, for any act, matter, or thing, to be acted or done in pursuance of this act, or the said other in part recited act, in any of his MajestyÂ’ dominions in America, shall be brought and prosecuted in and before some principal court of record in the colony where such matter or thing shall be done or committed; and in case the same shall not be done or committed within the jurisdiction of any such court, then in the court of the colony next to the place where the same shall be done and committed, and in no other court whatsoever. XXVII. And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That where any troops or parties upon command have occasion in their march, in any of his MajestyÂ’s dominions in America, to pass regular ferries, it shall and may be lawful for the commanding officer either to pass over with his party as passenger, or to hire the ferry-boat entire to himself and his party, debarring others for that time in his option; and in case he shall chuse to take passage for himself and party as passengers he shall only pay for himself and for each person, officer, or soldier, under his command, half of the ordinary rate payable by single persons at any such ferry; and in case he shall hire the ferry-boat for himself and party, he shall pay half of the ordinary rate for such boat or boats; and in such places where there are no regular ferries, but that all passengers hire boats at the rate they can agree for, officers with or without parties are to agree for boats at the rates that other persons do in the like cases. XXVIII. And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That all sum and sums of money mentioned in this act, and all penalties and forfeitures whatsoever to be incurred or forfeited for any offence, cause, matter, or thing whatsoever, to be done, committed, or omitted to be done in his MajestyÂ’s colonies and dominions in America, contrary to the true intent and meaning of this act, shall be, and shall be paid and forfeited in lawful money of the colony or place where the same shall be forfeited or become due, at the rate of four shillings and eight pence sterling money for a Spanish milled dollar, and not otherwise. XXIX. And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That if any action, bill, plaint, or suit, shall be brought or commenced against any person or persons for any act, matter, or thing, done or acted in pursuance of this act, that it shall and may be lawful to and for all and every person or persons so sued to plead thereto the general issue that he or they are not guilty, and to give the special matter in evidence to the jury who shall try the cause; and if the verdict therein shall pass for the defendant or defendants, or the plaintiff or plaintiffs therein shall become nonsuit, or suffer a discontinuance, or by any other means judgment therein shall be given for the defendants or defendant therein; that in every such case the justice or justices, or other judge or judges of the court in which such action shall be brought; shall by force and virtue of this act allow unto such defendant or defendants his or their treble costs, which he or they shall have sustained, or be put to, by reason of the defence of such suit, for which cost such defendant and defendants shall have the like remedy as in other cases where costs are by the law given to defendants. XXX. And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That this act and every thing herein contained, shall continue and be in force in all his MajestyÂ’s dominions in America, from the twenty fourth day of March, in the year one thousand seven hundred and sixty five, until the twenty fourth day of March in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and sixty seven. Source: Great Britain The statutes at large ... [from 1225 to 1867] by Danby Pickering Cambridge : Printed by Benthem, for C. Bathhurst ; London, 1762-1869

The Sugar Act : April 5,1764 An act for granting certain duties in the British colonies and plantations in America, for continuing, amending, and making perpetual, an act passed in the sixth year of the reign of his late majesty King George the Second, (initituled, An act for the better securing and encouraging the trade of his MajestyÂ’s sugar colonies in America;) for applying the produce of such duties, and of the duties to arise by virtue of the said act, towards defraying the expences of defending, protecting, and securing the said colonies and plantations; for explaining an act made in the twenty fifth year of the reign of King Charles the Second, (intituled, An act for the encouragement of the Greenland and Eastland trades, and for the better securing the plantation trade;) and for altering and disallowing several drawbacks on exports from this kingdom, and more effectually preventing the clandestine conveyance of goods to and from the said colonies and plantation, and improving and securing the trade between the same and Great Britain. Whereas it is expedient that new provisions and regulations should be established for improving the revenue of this kingdom, and for extending and securing the navigation and commerce between Great Britain and your MajestyÂ’s dominions in America, which, by the peace, have been so happily enlarged: and whereas it is just and necessary, that a revenue be raised, in your MajestyÂ’s said dominions in America, for defraying the expences of defending, protecting, and securing the same; we, your MajestyÂ’s most dutiful and loyal subjects, the commons of Great Britain, in parliament assembled, being desirous to make some provision, in this present session of parliament, towards raising the said revenue in America, have resolved to give and grant unto your Majesty the several rates and duties herein after-mentioned; and do most humbly beseech your Majesty that it may be enacted; and be it enacted by the KingÂ’s most excellent majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the lords spiritual and temporal, and commons, in this present parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, That from and after the twenty ninth day of September, one thousand seven hundred and sixty four, there shall be raised, levied, collected, and paid, unto his Majesty, his heirs and successors, for and upon all white or clayed sugars of the produce or manufacture of any colony or plantation in America, not under the dominion of his Majesty, his heirs and successors; for and upon indigo, and coffee of foreign produce or manufacture; for and upon wines (except French wine;) for and upon all wrought silks, bengals, and stuffs, mixed with silk or herbs of the manufacture of Persia, China, or East India, and all callico painted, dyed, printed, or stained there; and for and upon all foreign linen cloth called Cambrick and French Lawns, which shall be imported or brought into any colony or plantation in America, which now is, or hereafter may be, under the dominion of his Majesty, his heirs and successors, the several rates and duties following; that is to say, For every hundred weight avoirdupois of such foreign white or clayed sugars, one pound two shillings, over and above all other duties imposed by any former act of parliament. For every pound weight avoirdupois of such foreign indigo, six pence. For every hundred weight avoirdupois of such foreign coffee, which shall be imported from any place, except Great Britain, two pounds, nineteen shillings, and nine pence. For every ton of wine of the growth of the Madeiras, or of any other island or place from whence such wine may be lawfully imported, and which shall be so imported from such islands or place, the sum of seven pounds For every ton of Portugal, Spanish, or any other wine (except French wine) imported from Great Britain, the sum of ten shillings. For every pound weight avoirdupois of wrought silks, bengals, and stuffs, mixed silk or herbs, of the manufacture of Persia, China, or East India, imported from Great Britain, two shillings. For every piece of callico painted, dyed, printed, or stained, in Persia, China, or East India, imported from Great Britain, two shillings and six pence. For every piece of foreign linen cloth, called Cambrick, imported from Great Britain, three shillings. For every piece of French lawn imported from Great Britain, three shillings. And after those rates for any greater or lesser quantity of such goods respectively. II. And it is hereby further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That from and after the said twenty ninth day of September, one thousand seven hundred and sixty four, there shall also be raised, levied, collected, and paid, unto his Majesty, his heirs and successors, for and upon all coffee and pimento of the growth and produce of any British colony or plantation in America, which shall be there laden on board any British ship or vessel, to be carried out from thence to any other place whatsoever, except Great Britain, the several rates and duties following; that is to say, III. For every hundred weight avoirdupois of such British coffee, seven shillings. For every pound weight avoirdupois of such British pimento, one halfpenny. And after those rates for any greater or lesser quantity of such goods respectively. IV. And whereas an act was made in the sixth year of the reign of his late majesty King George the Second, intituled, An act for the better securing and encouraging the trade of his MajestyÂ’s sugar colonies in America, which was to continue in force for five years, to be computed from the twenty fourth day of June, one thousand seven hundred and thirty three, and to the end of the then next session of parliament, and which, by several subsequent acts made in the eleventh, the nineteenth, the twenty sixth, and twenty ninth, and the thirty first years of the reign of his said late Majesty, was, from time to time, continued; and, by an act made in the first year of the reign of his present Majesty, was further continued until the end of this present session of parliament; and although the said act hath been found in some degree useful, yet it is highly expedient that the same should be altered, enforced, and made more effectual; but, in consideration of the great distance of several of the said colonies and plantations from this kingdom, it will be proper further to continue the said act for a short space, before any alterations and amendments shall take effect, in order that all persons concerned may have due and proper notice thereof; be it therefore enacted by the authority aforesaid, That the said act made in the sixth year of the reign of his late majesty King George the Second, intituled, An act for the better securing and encouraging the trade of his MajestyÂ’s sugar colonies in America, shall be, and the same is hereby further continued, until the thirtieth day of September, one thousand seven hundred and sixty four. V. And it be further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That from the twenty ninth day of September, one thousand seven hundred and sixty four, the said act, subject to such alterations and amendments as are herein after contained, shall be, and the same is hereby made perpetual. VI. And it be further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That in lieu and instead of the rate and duty imposed by the said act upon molasses and syrups, there shall, from and after the said twenty ninth day of September, one thousand seven hundred and sixty four, be raised, levied, collected, and paid, unto his Majesty, his heirs and successors, for and upon every gallon of molasses or syrups, being the growth, product, or manufacture, of any colony or plantation in America, not under the dominion of his Majesty, his heir or successors, which shall be imported or brought into any colony or plantation in America, which now is, or hereafter may be, under the dominion of his Majesty, his heirs or successors, the sum of three pence. VII. And it be hereby further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That the said rates and duties hereby charged upon such foreign white or clayed sugars, foreign indigo, foreign coffee, wines, wrought silks, bengals, and stuffs, mixed with silk or herbs, callico, cambricks, French lawns, and foreign molasses or syrups, imported into any British American colony or plantation shall be raised, levied, collected, and paid, in the same manner and form, and by such rules, ways and means, and under such penalties and forfeitures (not otherwise altered by this act) as are mentioned and expressed in the said act of parliament, made in the sixth year of the reign of his late majesty King George the Second, with respect to the raising, levying, collecting, and payment, of the rates and duties thereby granted; and that the aforesaid duties hereby charged upon British coffee and pimento, exported from any British colony or plantation, shall be raised, levied, collected, and paid, in the same manner and form, and forfeitures, as are mentioned and referred unto in an act of parliament, made in the twenty fifth year of the reign of King Charles the Second, intituled, An act for the encouragement of the Greenland and Eastland trades, and for the better securing the plantation trade, with respect to the raising, levying, collecting, and payment of the rates and duties thereby granted upon the several goods therein particularly enumerated: and that all powers, penalties, provisions, articles, and clauses, in those acts respectively contained and referred unto (except in such cases where any alteration is made by this act) shall be observed, applied, practised, and put in execution, for the raising, levying, collecting, and answering, the respective rates and duties granted by this act, as fully and effectually, as if the same were particularly and at large re-enacted in the body of this present act, and applied to the rates and duties hereby imposed; and as fully and effectually, to all intents and purposes, as the same could have been at any time put in execution, for the like purposes, with respect to the rates and duties granted by the said former acts. VIII. Provided always, and it is hereby further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That if the importer of any wines shall refuse to pay the duties hereby imposed thereon, it shall and may be lawful for the collector, or other proper officer of the customs where such wines shall be imported, and he is hereby respectively required to take and secure the same, with the casks or other package thereof, and to cause the same to be publickly sold, within the space of twenty days at the most after such refusal made, and at such time and place as such officer, shall, by four or more days publick notice, appoint for that purpose; which wine shall be sold to the best bidder, and the money arising by the said duties, together with the charges that shall have been occasioned by the said sale; and the overplus, if any, shall be paid to such importer, or any other person authorized to receive the same. IX. Provided also, That if the money offered for the purchase of such wine shall not be sufficient to discharge the duty and charges aforesaid, then, and in every such case, the collector, or other proper officer, shall cause the wine to be staved, split, or otherwise destroyed, and shall return the casks or other package wherein the same was contained to such importer. X. And it is hereby declared and enacted, That every piece of callico intended to be charged with the duty herein beforementioned, if of the breadth of one yard and a quarter or under, shall not exceed in length ten yards; and if above that breadth, shall not exceed six yards in length, and that every piece of cambrick and French lawn shall contain thirteen ells each, and shall pay duty for the same in those proportions for any greater or lesser quantity, according to the sum herein before charged upon each piece of such goods respectively. XI. And it is hereby further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That all the monies which, from and after the twenty ninth day of September, one thousand seven hundred and sixty four shall arise by the several rates and duties herein before granted; and also by the duties which, from and after the said twenty ninth day of September, one thousand seven hundred and sixty four, shall be raised upon sugars and paneles, by virtue of the said act made in the sixth year of the reign of his said late majesty King George the Second (except the necessary charges of raising, collecting, levying, recovering, answering, paying, and accounting for the same) shall be paid into the receipt of his MajestyÂ’s Exchequer, and shall be entered separate and apart from all other monies paid or payable to his Majesty, his heirs or successors: and shall be there reserved, to be, from time to time, disposed of by parliament, towards defraying the necessary expences of defending, protecting, and securing, the British colonies and plantations in America, XII. And it is hereby further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That from and after the tenth day of September, one thousand seven hundred and sixty four, upon the exportation of any sort of wine (except French wines) from this kingdom to any British colony or plantation in America, as merchandize, the exporter shall be paid, in lieu of all former drawbacks, a drawback or allowance of all the duties paid upon the importation of such wine, except the sum of three pounds ten shillings per ton, part of the additional duty of four pounds per ton, granted by an act made in the last session of parliament (intituled, An act for granting to his Majesty several additional duties upon wines imported into this kingdom, and certain duties upon all cyder and perry, and for raising the sum of three millions five hundred thousand pounds, by way of annuities and lotteries, to be charged on the said duties) and also except such part of the duties paid upon wines imported by strangers or aliens, or in foreign ships, as exceeds what would have been payable upon such wines, if the same had been imported by British subjects and in British ships; any law, custom, or usage, to the contrary notwithstanding; which drawback or allowance shall be made in such manner, and under such rules, regulations, penalties, and forfeitures, in all respects, as any former drawback or allowance, payable out of the duties of customs upon the exportation of such wine, was, could, or might be made, before the passing of this act. XIII. Provided always, and it is hereby further enacted, That upon the entry of any such wine for exportation to any British colony or plantation in America, and before any debenture shall be made out for allowing the drawback thereon, the exporter shall give bond, with sufficient security, to his Majesty, his heirs and successors, to be approved of by the collector, or other principal officer of the customs at the port of exportation, in treble the amount of the drawback payable for the goods, that the same, and every part thereof, shall (the danger of the seas and enemies excepted) be really and truly exported to, and landed in, some British colony or plantation in America, and that the same shall not be exported, or carried to any other place or country whatsoever, nor relanded in any part of Great Britain, Ireland, or the islands of Guernsey, Jersey, Alderney, Sark, or Man or either of them: and such bonds shall not be delivered up nor discharged, until a certificate shall be produced, under the hands and seals of the collector or other principal officer of the customs at the port or place where such goods shall be landed, testifying the landing thereof: and the condition of such bond shall be, to produce such certificate in eighteen months from the date of the bonds (the dangers of the seas and enemies excepted.) And it is hereby further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That from and after the first day of May, one thousand seven hundred and sixty four, no part of the rate or duty, commonly called The old subsidy, shall be repaid or drawn back for any foreign goods of the growth, production, or manufacture, of Europe, or the East Indies, which shall be exported from this kingdom to any British colony or plantation in America (wines, white callicoes, and muslins, only excepted;) any law, custom, or usage, to the contrary notwithstanding. XIV. And it is hereby further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That from and after the tenth day of September, one thousand seven hundred and sixty four, upon the exportation of any sort of white callicoes or muslins, except as herein after is mentioned, from this kingdom to any British colony or plantation in America, besides the one half of the rate or duty commonly called The old subsidy, which now remains, and is not drawn back for the same, there also shall not be repaid or drawn back the further sum of four pounds fifteen shillings for every hundred pounds of the true and real value of such goods, according to the gross price at which they were sold at the sale of the united company of merchants trading to the East Indies, being the third part of the net duties granted thereon respectively by two several acts of parliament, the one made in the eleventh and twelfth year of the reign of King William the Third, intituled, An act for the laying further duties upon wrought silks, muslins, and some other commodities of the East Indies, and for enlarging the time for purchasing certain reversionary annuities therein mentioned; and the other made in the third and fourth year of the reign of Queen Anne, intituled, An act for continuing duties upon low wines, and upon coffee, tea, chocolate, spice, and pictures, and upon hawkers, pedlars, and petty chapmen, and upon muslins; and for granting new duties upon several of the said commodities, and also upon callicoes, China-ware, and drugs; any law, custom, or usage to the contrary notwithstanding. XV. Provided always, and be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That until the first day of March, one thousand seven hundred and sixty five, upon the exportation from this kingdom, to any British colony or plantation in America of white callicoes or muslins only as were sold on or before the twenty fifth day of March, one thousand seven hundred and sixty four, at the sale of the united company of merchants trading to the East Indies, such and the same drawbacks shall be allowed as are now payable upon the exportation of the said goods. XVI. And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That if any merchant or other person, shall from and after the said fifth day of May, one thousand seven hundred and sixty four, enter any goods for exportation to parts beyond the seas, in order to obtain any drawback not allowed by this act upon the exportation of such goods to the said British colonies or plantations in America, and the said goods shall nevertheless be carried to any British colony or plantation in America, and landed there contrary to the true intent and meaning hereof, that then, and in such case, the drawback shall be forfeited, and the exporter of such goods, and the master of the ship or vessel on board which the same were loaden and exported, shall forfeit double the amount of the drawback paid or to be paid for the same, and also treble the value of the said goods. XVII. And it is further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That from and after the said first day of May, one thousand seven hundred and sixty four, if any goods, not allowed to draw back any part of the old subsidy, or any other duty by this act, shall be entered for exportation from this kingdom to any other place beyond the seas, except to some British colony or plantation in America, in every case where the exporter is required, by any law now in force, to swear that such goods are not landed or intended to be landed in Great Britain, Ireland, or the isle of Man, there shall also be added to and included in, the oath upon the debenture, for such goods, "any British colonies or plantations in America." XVIII. And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That from and after the twenty ninth day of September, on thousand seven hundred and sixty four, no rum or spirits of the produce or manufacture of any of the colonies or plantations in America, not in the possession or under the dominion off his Majesty, his heirs or successors, shall be imported or brought into any of the colonies or plantations in America which now are, or hereafter may be, in the possession or under the dominion of his Majesty, his heirs or successors, upon forfeiture of all such rum or spirits, together with the ship or vessel in which the same shall be imported, with the tackle, apparel, and furniture thereof; to be seized by any officer or officers of his MajestyÂ’s customs, and prosecuted in such manner and form as herein after is expressed; any law, custom, or usage, to the contrary notwithstanding. XIX. And it is hereby further enacted and declare by the authority aforesaid, That from and after the twenty ninth day of September, one thousand seven hundred and sixty four, nothing in the before-recited act made in the fifth year of the reign of his late majesty King George the Second, or any other act of parliament, shall extend, or be construed to extend, to give liberty to any person or persons whatsoever to import into the kingdom of Ireland any sort of sugars, but such only as shall be fairly and bona fide loaden and shipped in Great Britain, and carried directly from thence in ships navigated according to law. XX. And, for the better preventing frauds in the importation of foreign sugars and paneles, rum and spirits, molasses and syrups, into any of his MajestyÂ’s dominions, under pretence that the same are the growth, produce, or manufacture, of the British colonies or plantations, it is further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That from and after the twenty ninth day of September, one thousand seven hundred and sixty four, every person or persons loading on board any ship or vessel, in any of the British colonies or plantations in America, any rum or spirits, sugars or paneles, molasses or syrups, as of the growth, product, or manufacture, of any British colony or plantation, shall, before the clearing out of the said ship or vessel, produce and deliver to the collector or other principal officer of the customs at the loading port, an affidavit signed and sword to before some justice of the peace in the said British colonies or plantation, either by the grower, maker, or shipper, of such goods, or his or their known agent or factor, expressing, in words at length and not in figure, the quality of the goods so shipped, with the number and denomination of the packages, and describing the name or names of the plantation or plantations, and the name of the colony where the same grew or were produced and manufactured; which affidavit shall be attested, under the hand of the said justice of the peace, to have been sworn to in his presence; who is hereby required to do the same without fee or reward: and the collector or other principal officer of the customs to whom such affidavit shall be delivered, shall thereupon grant to the master, or other person having the charge of the ship or vessel, a certificate under his hand and seal of office (without fee or reward) of his having received such affidavit pursuant to the directions of this act; which certificate shall express the quality of the goods shipped on board such ship or vessel, with the number and denomination of the packages: and such collector or other principal officer of the customs shall also (without fee or reward) within thirty days after the sailing of the ship or vessel, transmit an exact copy of the said affidavit to the secretaryÂ’s office for the respective colony or plantation where the goods were shipped, on forfeiture of five pounds. XXI. And it is further enacted, That upon the arrival of such ship or vessel into the port of her discharge, either in Great Britain or any other port of his MajestyÂ’s dominions, where such goods may be lawfully imported, the master or other person taking the charge of the ship or vessel shall, at the time he makes his report of his cargo, deliver the said certificate to the collector or other principal officer of the customs, and make oath before him, that the goods so reported are the same that are mentioned in the said certificate, on forfeiture of one hundred pounds; and if any rum or spirits, sugars or paneles, molasses or syrups, shall be imported or found on board any such ship or vessel, for which no such certificate shall be produced, or which shall not agree therewith, the same shall be deemed and taken to be foreign rum and spirits, sugar and paneles, molasses and syrups, and shall be liable to the same duties, restrictions, regulations, penalties, and forfeitures, in all respects, as rum, spirits, sugar, paneles, molasses, and syrups, of the growth, produce, or manufacture, of any foreign colony or plantation, would respectively be liable to by law. XXII. Provided always, That if any rum of spirits, sugar or paneles, molasses or syrups, shall be imported into Great Britain from any British colony or plantation in America, without being included in such certificate as is herein before directed, and it shall be made to appear, to the satisfaction of the commissioners of his MajestyÂ’s customs at London or Edinburgh respectively, that the goods are really and truly the produce of such British plantation or colony, and that no fraud was intended, it shall and may in such case be lawful for the said respective commissioners to permit the said goods to be entered, upon the payment of the like duties as such goods would be liable to if this law had not been made. XXIII. And whereas by an act of parliament made in the twelfth year of the reign of King Charles the Second, intituled, An act for encouraging and increasing of shipping and navigation, and several subsequent acts of parliament which are now in force, it is amongst other things, directed, that for every ship or vessel that shall load any commodities, in those acts particularly enumerated, at any British plantation, being the growth, product, or manufacture thereof, bonds shall be given with one surety, to the value of one thousand pounds, if the ship be of less burthen than one hundred tons, and of the sum of two thousand pounds; if the ship be of greater burthen, that the same commodities shall be brought by such ship or vessel to some other British plantation, or to some port in Great Britain; notwithstanding which, there is great reason to apprehend such goods are frequently carried to foreign parts, and landed there: and whereas great quantities of foreign molasses and syrups are clandestinely run on shore in the British colonies, to the prejudice of the revenue, and the great detriment of the trade of this kingdom, and itÂ’s American plantations: to remedy which practices for the future, be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That from and after the twenty ninth day of September, one thousand seven hundred and sixty four, bond and security, in the like penalty, shall also be given to the collector or other principal officer of the customs at any port or place in any of the British American colonies or plantations, with one surety besides the master of every ship or vessel that shall lade or take on board there any goods not particularly enumerated in the said acts, being the product or manufacture of any of the said colonies or plantations, with condition, that, in case any molasses or syrups, being the produce of any of the plantations, not under the dominions of his Majesty, his heirs or successors, shall be laden on board such ship or vessel, the same shall (the danger of the seas and enemies excepted) be brought, without fraud or wilful diminution, by the said ship or vessel to some of his MajestyÂ’s colonies or plantations in America, or to some port in Great Britain; and that the master or other person having the charge of such ship or vessel, shall, immediately upon his arrival at every port or place in Great Britain, or in the British American colonies and plantations, make a just and true report of all the goods laden on board such ship or vessel under their true and proper denominations; and if any such non-enumerated goods shall be laden on board any such ship or vessel before such bond shall be given, the goods so laden together with the ship or vessel and her furniture shall be forfeited, and shall and may be seized by any officer of the customs, and prosecuted in the manner herein after directed. XXIV. And it is hereby further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That every master or person having the charge of any ship or vessel shall, before he departs from any British colony or plantation where he receives his lading, take a certificate under the hands and seals of the collector or other principal officer of the customs there (which certificate such officers are hereby required to grant without fee or reward) that bond hath been given, pursuant to the directions of this or any other act of parliament, as the case shall require; and the master or person having the charge of such ship or vessel, shall keep such certificate in his custody till the voyage is compleated, and shall then deliver the same up to the collector or other chief officer of the customs at the port or place where he shall discharge his lading, either in Great Britain, or any British American colony or plantation, on forfeiture of one hundred pounds for each and every offence. XXV. And it is hereby further enacted, That if any British ship or vessel laden, as aforesaid, with any goods of the produce or manufacture of any British colony or plantation in America, or having on board any molasses or syrups the produce of any foreign colony or plantation, shall be discovered by any officer of his MajestyÂ’s customs within two leagues of the shore of any British colony or plantation in America, and the master or person taking charge of such ship or vessel shall not produce a certificate that bond has been given, pursuant to the direction of this or any other act of parliament, as the case may require; or if he shall not produce certificate to the collector or other chief officer of the customs where he shall arrive, either in Great Britain or any British American colony or plantation, such ship or vessel, with her tackle, apparel, and furniture, and all the goods therein laden, shall be forfeited, and shall and may be seized and prosecuted as herein after is directed. XXVI. And it is hereby further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That the said bond directed to be given by this act with respect to such non-enumerated goods, shall continue in force for one year from and after the completion of the voyage; and in case no fraud shall appear within that time, it shall be lawful for the commissioners of his MajestyÂ’s customs, or any four or more of them, to direct the said bond to be delivered up. XXVII. And it is hereby enacted by the authority aforesaid, That from and after the twenty ninth day of September, one thousand seven hundred and sixty four, all coffee, pimento, cocoa nuts, whale fins, raw silks, hides and skins, pot and pearl ashes, of the growth, production, or manufacture, of any British colony or plantation in America, shall be imported directly from thence into this kingdom, or some other British colony or plantation, under the like securities, penalties, and forfeitures, as are particularly mentioned in two acts of parliament made in the twelfth and twenty fifth years of the reign of King Charles the Second, the former intituled, An act for the encouraging and increasing of shipping and navigation, and the latter intituled, An act for the encouragement of the Greenland and eastland trades and for the better securing the plantation trade, or either of them, with respect to the goods in those acts particularly enumerated; any law, custom, or usage, to the contrary notwithstanding. XXVIII. And it is hereby further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That from and after the twenty ninth day of September, one thousand seven hundred and sixty four, no iron, nor any sort of wood, commonly called Lumber, as specified in an act passed in the eighth year of the reign of King George the First, intituled, An act for giving further encouragement of the importation of naval stores, and for other purposes therein mentioned, of the growth, production, or manufacture, of any British colony or plantation in America, shall be there loaden on board any ship of vessel to be carried from thence, until sufficient bond shall be given, with one surety besides the master of the vessel, to the collector or other principal officer of the customs at the loading port in a penalty of double the value of the goods, which condition, that the said goods shall not be landed in any part of Europe except Great Britain; which bonds shall be discharged in the manner hereafter mentioned; that is to say, for such of the said goods as shall be entered for, or landed in, Great Britain, the condition of the bonds shall be, to bring a certificate in discharge thereof within eighteen months from the date of the bond; and within eighteen months from the date of the bond; and within six months for such of the said goods as shall be entered for, or landed in, any of the British colonies or plantations in America; which respective certificates shall be under the hands and seals of the collector or other principal officer of the customs resident at the port or place where such goods shall be landed, testifying the landing thereof; and for such of the said goods as shall be entered for, or landed at, any other place in America, Africa, or Asia, to bring the like certificate within twelve months, under the common seal of the chief magistrate, or under the hands and seals of two known British merchants residing there; or such bond or bonds shall be discharged, in either of the said cases, by proof upon oath made by credible persons, that the said goods were taken by enemies, or perished in the seas. XXIX. And, for the better preventing frauds in the importation or exportation of goods that are liable to the payment of duties, or are prohibited, in the British colonies or plantations in America, it is further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That from and after the twenty ninth day of September, one thousand seven hundred and sixty four, no goods, wares, or merchandizes, of any kind whatsoever, shall be shipped or laden on board any ship or vessel in any of the British colonies or plantations in America, to be carried from thence to any other British colony or plantation, without a sufferance or warrant first had and obtained from the collector or other proper officer of the customs at the port or place where such goods shall be intended to be put on board; and the master of every such ship or vessel shall, before the same be removed or carried out from the port or place where he takes in his lading, take out a cocket or cockets expressing the quantity and quality of the goods, and marks of the package, so laden, with the merchants names by whom shipped and to whom consigned; and if they are goods that liable to the payment of any duty, either upon the importation into, or upon the exportation from, the said colonies or plantation, the said cocket or cockets shall likewise distinctly specify that the duties have been paid for the same, referring to the times or dates of entry and payment of such duties, and by whom they were paid; which cocket or cockets shall be produced by the master of such ship or vessel, to the collector or other principal officer of the customs at the port of place where such ship or vessel shall arrive in any of the British colonies or plantations in America, before any part of the goods are unladen or put on shore: and if any goods or merchandizes shall be shipped as aforesaid without such sufferance, or the vessel shall depart and proceed on her voyage without such cocket or cockets are produced at the port of place of discharge, or if the goods do not agree in all respects therewith, the goods, in any of either of those cases, shall be forfeited and lost; and any office of his MajestyÂ’s customs is hereby empowered to stop any such ship or vessel, bound aforesaid, which shall be discovered within two leagues of the shore of any of the said British colonies of plantations in America, and to seize and take from thence all the goods which shall be found on board such ship or vessel for which no such cocket or cockets shall be produced to him. XXX. And whereas British vessels arriving from foreign parts at several of the out ports of this kingdom, fully or in part laden abroad with goods that are pretended to be destined to some foreign plantation, do frequently take on board some small parcels of goods in this kingdom which are entered outwards for some British colony or plantation, and a cocket and clearance thereupon granted for such goods, under cover of which the whole cargoes of such vessels are clandestinely landed in the British American dominions, contrary to several acts of parliament now in force, to the great prejudice of the trade and revenue of the kingdom; for remedy whereof, be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That from and after the first day of May, one thousand seven hundred and sixty four, no ship or vessel shall, upon any pretence whatsoever, be cleared outwards from any port of this kingdom, for any land, island, plantation, colony, territory, or place, to his Majesty belonging, or which shall hereafter belong unto or be in the possession or under the dominion of his Majesty, his heirs or successors, in America, unless the whole and entire cargo of such ship or vessel shall be bona fide, and without fraud, laden and shipped in this kingdom; and any officer of is MajestyÂ’s customs is hereby empowered to stop any British ship or vessel arriving from any part of Europe, which shall be discovered within two leagues of the shore of any of the said British colonies or plantations in America, and to seize and take from thence, as forfeited, any goods (except as herein after mentioned) for which the master or other person taking the charge of such ship or vessel shall not produce a cocket or clearance from the collector or proper officer of his MajestyÂ’s customs, certifying that the said goods were laden on board the said ship or vessel in some port of Great Britain. XXXI. Provided always, That this act shall not extend, nor be construed to extend, to forfeit, for want of such cocket or clearance, any salt laden in Europe for the fisheries in New England, Newfoundland, Pennsylvania, New York, and Nova Scotia, or any other place to which salt is or shall be allowed by law to be carried; wines laden in the Madeiras, of the growth thereof; and wines of the growth of the Western Islands, or Azores, and laden there; nor any horses, victuals, or linen cloth, of and from Ireland, which may be laden on board such ships or vessels. XXXII. And it is hereby further enacted, That if any person or persons shall counterfeit, raise, alter, or falsify, any affidavit, certificate, sufferance, cocket, or clearance, required or directed by this act, or shall knowingly or willingly make use of any affidavit, certificate, sufferance, cocket, or clearance, so counterfeited, raised, altered, or falsified, such person or persons shall knowingly or willingly , or every such offence, forfeit the sum of five hundred pounds; and such affidavit, certificate, sufferance, cocket, or clearance, shall be invalid and of no effect. XXXIII. And whereas by an act of parliament, made in the ninth year of the reign of his late majesty King George the Second, intituled, An act for indemnifying persons who have been guilty of offences against the laws made for securing the revenue of customs and excise, and for enforcing those laws for the future, and by other acts of parliament since made, which are now in force, in order to prevent the clandestine landing of goods in this kingdom from vessels which hover upon the coasts thereof, several goods and vessels, in those laws particularly mentioned and described, are declared to be forfeited, if such vessels are found at anchor, or hovering within two leagues of the shore of this kingdom, without being compelled thereto by necessity or distress of weather; which laws have been found very beneficial to the publick revenue: and whereas, if some provision of that sort was extended to his MajestyÂ’s American dominions, it may be a means of preventing an illicit trade therewith, and tend to enforce an act made in the twelfth year of the reign of King Charles the Second, intituled, An act for the encouraging and increasing of shipping and navigation, and another act made in the seventh and eighth years of the reign of King William the Third, intituled, An act for preventing frauds, and regulating abuses in the plantation trade, so far as those laws do prohibit any goods or commodities to be imported into or exported out of any British colony or plantation in America, in any foreign ship or vessel; to which end therefore, be it enacted by the authority aforesaid, That from and after the twenty ninth day of September, one thousand seven hundred and sixty four, if any foreign ship or vessel whatsoever shall be found at anchor, or hovering within two leagues of the shore of any land, island, plantation, colony, territory, or place, which shall or may be in the possession or under the dominion of his Majesty, his heirs or successors, in America, and shall not depart from the coast, and proceed upon her voyage to some foreign port or place, within forty eight hours after the master or other person taking the charge of such ship or vessel shall be required so to do by any officer of his MajestyÂ’s customs, unless in case of unavoidable necessity and distress of weather, such ship or vessel, with all the goods therein laden, shall be forfeited and lost, whether bulk shall have been broken or not; and shall and may be seized and prosecuted by any officer of his MajestyÂ’s customs, in such manner and form as herein after is expressed. XXXIV. Provided always, that nothing herein contained shall extend, or be construed to extend, to any ship or vessel belonging to the subjects of the French king, which shall be found fishing, and not carrying on any illicit trade, on that part of the island of Newfoundland, which stretches from the place called Cape Bonavista to the northern part of the said island, and from thence running down to the western side, reaches as far as the place called Point Riche. XXXV. And, in order to prevent an illicit trade or commerce between his MajestyÂ’s subjects in America, and the subjects of the crown of France in the islands of Saint Pierre and Miquelon, it is hereby further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That from and after the twenty ninth day of September, one thousand seven hundred and sixty four, if any British ship or vessel shall be found standing into, or coming out from, either of those islands, or hovering or at anchor within two leagues of the coasts thereof, or shall be discovered to have taken any goods or merchandizes on board at either of them, or to have been there for the purpose; such ship or vessel, and all the goods so taken on board there, shall be forfeited and lost, and shall and may be seized and prosecuted by any officer of his MajestyÂ’s customs; and the master or other person having the charge of such ship or vessel, and every person concerned in taking any such goods on board, shall forfeit treble the value thereof. XXXVI. And, to prevent the concealing any goods in false packages, or private places, on board any ship or vessel arriving at any of the British colonies or plantations in America, with intent to their being clandestinely landed there, be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That from and after the twenty ninth day of September, one thousand seven hundred and sixty four, all goods which shall be found concealed in any place whatsoever on board any such ship or vessel, at any time after the master thereof shall have made his report to the collector or other proper officer of the customs, and which shall not be comprized or mentioned in the said report, shall be forfeited and lost, and shall and may be seized and prosecuted by any officer of the customs; and the master or other person having the charge or command of such ship or vessel (in case it can be made appear, that he was any wise consenting or privy to such fraud or concealment) shall forfeit treble the value of the goods so found. XXXVII. And it is hereby further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That from and after the twenty ninth day of September, one thousand seven hundred and sixty four, if any goods or merchandizes whatsoever, liable to the payment of duties in any British colony or plantation in America by this or any other act of parliament, shall be loaded on board any ship or vessel outward bound, or shall be unshipped or landed from any ship or vessel inward bound, before the respective duties due thereon are paid, agreeable to law; or if any prohibited goods whatsoever shall be imported into, or exported out of, any of the said colonies or plantations, contrary to the true intent and meaning of this or any other act of parliament; every person who shall be assisting, or otherwise concerned, either in the loading outwards, or in the unshipping or landing inwards, such goods, or to whose hands the same shall knowingly come after the loading or unshipping thereof, shall, for each and every offence, forfeit treble the value of such goods, to be estimated and computed according to the best price that each respective commodity bears at the place where such offence was committed; and all the boats, horses, cattle, and other carriages whatsoever, made use of in the loading, landing, removing, carriage, or conveyance, of any of the aforesaid goods, shall also be forfeited and lost, and shall and may be seized and prosecuted, by any officer of his MajestyÂ’s customs, as herein after mentioned. XXXVIII. And it is hereby further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That from and after the twenty ninth day of September, one thousand seven hundred and sixty four, if any officer of his MajestyÂ’s customs shall, directly or indirectly, take or receive any bribe, recompence, or reward, in any kind whatsoever; or connive at any false entry, or make any collusive seizure or agreement; or do any other act or deed whatsoever by which his Majesty, his heirs or successors, shall or may be defrauded in his or their duties, or whereby any goods prohibited shall be suffered to pass either inwards or outwards, or whereby the forfeitures and penalties inflicted by this or any other act of parliament relating to his MajestyÂ’s customs in America may be evaded; every such officer therein offending shall, for each and every offence, forfeit the sum of five hundred pounds, and be rendered incapable of serving his Majesty in any office or employment civil or military: and if any person or persons whatsoever shall give, any officer, or promise to give, any bribe, recompence, or reward, to any officer of the customs, to do, conceal, or connive at, any act, whereby any of the provisions made by this or any other act of parliament relating to his MajestyÂ’s customs in America may be evaded or broken, every such person or persons shall, for each and every such offence (whether the same offer, proposal, or promise, be accepted or performed, or not) forfeit the sum of fifty pounds. XXXIX. And whereas by an act of parliament made in the seventh and eighth year of the reign of King William the Third, intituled, An act for preventing frauds, and regulating abuses, in the plantation trade, all governors or commanders in chief of any of his MajestyÂ’s colonies or plantations, are required to take a solemn oath, to do their utmost that all the clauses, matters, and things, contained in that act, and several other acts of parliament therein referred to, relating to the said colonies and plantations, be punctually and bona fide observed, according to the true intent and meaning thereof: and whereas divers other good laws have been since made, for the better regulating and securing the plantation trade: be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That all the present governors or commanders in chief of any British colony or plantation shall, before the twenty ninth day of September, one thousand seven hundred and sixty four, and all who hereafter shall be made governors or commanders in chief of the said colonies or plantations, or any of them, before their entrance into their government, shall take a solemn oath, to do their utmost that all the clauses, matters, and things, contained in any act of parliament heretofore made, and now in force, relating to the said colonies and plantations, and that all and every the clauses contained in this present act, be punctually and bona fide observed, according to the true intent and meaning thereof, so far as appertains unto the said governors or commanders in chief respectively, under the like penalties, forfeitures, and disabilities, either for neglecting to take the said oath, or for wittingly neglecting to do their duty accordingly, as are mentioned and expressed in the said recited act made in the seventh and eighth year of the reign of King William the Third; and the said oath, hereby required to be taken, shall be administered by such person or persons as hath or have been, or shall be, appointed to administer the oath required to be taken by the said act made in the seventh and eighth year of the reign of King William the Third. XL. And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That all penalties and forfeitures herein before mentioned, which shall be incurred in Great Britain, shall and may be prosecuted, sued for, and recovered, in any of his MajestyÂ’s courts of record at Westminister, or in the court of Exchequer in Scotland, respectively; and (all necessary charges for the recovery thereof being first deducted) shall be divided and applied, one moiety to and for the use of his Majesty, his heirs and successors, and the other moiety to the seizor or prosecutor. XLI. And it is hereby further enacted and declared, That from and after the twenty ninth day of September, one thousand seven hundred and sixty four, all sums of money granted and imposed by this act, and by an act made in the twenty fifth year of the reign of King Charles the Second, intituled, An act for the encouragement of the Greenland and Eastland trades, and for the better securing the plantation trade, as rates or duties; and also all sums of money imposed as penalties or forfeitures, by this or any other act of parliament relating to the customs, which shall be paid, incurred, or recovered, in any of the British colonies or plantations in America; shall be deemed, and are hereby declared to be sterling money of Great Britain, and shall be collected, recovered, and paid, to the amount of the value which such nominal sums bear in Great Britain; and that such monies shall and may be received and taken according to the proportion and value of five shillings and six pence the ounce in silver; and that all the forfeitures and penalties inflicted by this or any other act or acts of parliament relating to the trade and revenues of the said British colonies or plantations where such offence shall be appointed over all America (which court of admiralty or vice admiralty are hereby respectively authorized and required to proceed, hear, and determine the same) at the election of the informer or prosecutor. XLII. And it is hereby further enacted, That all penalties and forfeitures so recovered there, under this or any former act of parliament, shall be divided, paid, and applied, as follows; that is to say, after deducting the charges of prosecution from the gross produce thereof, one third part of the net produce shall be paid into the hands of the collector of his MajestyÂ’s customs at the port or place where such penalties or forfeitures shall be recovered, for the use of his Majesty, his heirs and successors; one third part to the governor or commander in chief of the said colony or plantation; and the other third part to the person who shall seize, inform, and sue for the same; excepting such seizures as shall be made at sea by the commanders or officers of his MajestyÂ’s ships or vessels of war duly authorized to make seizures; one moiety of which seizures, and of the penalties and forfeitures recovered thereon, first deducting the charges of prosecution from the gross produce thereof, shall be paid as aforesaid to the collector of his MajestyÂ’s customs, to and for the use of his Majesty, his heirs and successors, and the other moiety to him or them who shall seize, inform, and sue for the same; any law, custom, or usage, to the contrary notwithstanding; subject nevertheless to such distribution of the produce of the seizures so made at sea, as well with regard to the moiety herein before granted to his Majesty, his heirs and successors, shall think fit to order and direct or by any order or orders of council, or by any proclamation or proclamations, to be made for that purpose. XLIII. Provided always, and it is hereby further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That if the produce of any seizure made in America, shall not be sufficient to answer the expences of condemnation and sale; or if, upon the trial of any seizure of any ship or goods, a verdict or sentence shall be given for the claimant, in either of those cases, the charges attending the seizing and prosecuting such ship or goods shall and may, with the consent and approbation of any four of the commissioners of his MajestyÂ’s customs, be paid out of any branch of the revenue of customs arising in any of the British colonies or plantations in America; any thing in this or any other act of parliament to the contrary notwithstanding. XLIV. And it is hereby further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That from and after the said twenty ninth day of September, one thousand seven hundred and sixty four, no person shall be admitted to enter a claim to any ship or goods seized in pursuance of this or any other act of parliament, and prosecuted in any of the British colonies or plantations in America, until sufficient security be first given, by persons of known ability, in the court where such seizures is prosecuted, in the penalty of sixty pounds, to answer the costs and charges of prosecution; and, in default of giving such security, such ship or goods shall be adjudged to be forfeited, and shall be condemned. XLV. And it is hereby further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That from and after the twenty ninth day of September, one thousand seven hundred and sixty four, if any ship or goods shall be seized for any cause of forfeiture, and any dispute shall arise whether the customs and duties for such goods have been paid, or the same have been lawfully imported or exported, or concerning the growth, product, or manufacture, of such goods, or the place from whence such goods were brought, then, and in such cases, the proof thereof shall lie upon the owner or claimer of such ship or goods, and not upon the officer who shall seize or stop the same; any law, custom, or usage, any law, custom, or usage, to the contrary notwithstanding. XLVI. And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That from and after the twenty ninth day of September, one thousand seven hundred and sixty four, in case any information shall be commenced and brought to trial in America, on account of any seizure of any ship or goods as forfeited by this or any other act of parliament relating to his MajestyÂ’s customs, wherein a verdict or sentence shall be given for the claimer thereof; and it shall appear to the judge or court before whom the same shall be tried, that there was a probable cause of seizure, the judge or court before whom the same shall be tried shall certify on the record or other proceedings, that there was a probable cause for the prosecutors seizing the said ship or goods; and, in such case, the defendant shall not be intitled to any costs of suit whatsoever; nor shall the person who seized the said ship or goods, be liable to any action, or other suit or prosecution, on account of such seizure: and in any case any action, or other suit or prosecution, shall be commenced and brought to trial against any person or persons whatsoever, on account of the seizing any such ship or goods, where no information shall be commenced or brought to trial to condemn the same, and a verdict or sentence shall be given upon such action or prosecution against the defendant or defendants, if the court or judge before whom such action or prosecution, shall certify in like manner as aforesaid that there was a probable cause for such seizure, then the plaintiff besides his ship or goods so seized, or the value thereof, shall not be intitled to above two pence damages, nor to any costs of suit; nor shall the defendant in such prosecution be fined above one shilling. XLVII. And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That if any action or suit shall be commenced, either in Great Britain or America, against any person or persons for any thing done in pursuance of this or any other act of parliament relating to his MajestyÂ’s customs, the defendant or defendants in such action or suit may plead the general issue, and give the said acts, and the special matter, in evidence at any trial to be had thereupon, and that the same was done in pursuance and by the authority of such act; and if it shall appear so to have been done, the jury shall find for the defendant or defendants; and if the plaintiff shall be non-suited, or discontinue his action after the defendant or defendants shall have appeared, or if judgment shall be given upon verdict or demurrer against the plaintiff, the defendant or defendants shall recover treble costs, and have the like remedy for the same as defendants have in other cases by law. Source: https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/sugar_act_1764.asp

Direct Representation, Separate Checks & Balances of Powers & Legislative Supremacy By Mark Shubert What is a government that represents the people? What does it mean for the three branches of government to be separate from one another? What are the proper checks and balances on the powers of each branch? What is the theory of legislative supremacy? These are the questions I address in this essay. Representation During the Stamp Act Crisis of 1765, the issue of “no taxation without representation” became a near daily debate between colonists, even loyalists like Daniel Dulany, and defenders of Parliamentary jurisdiction. The issue was not actually between representation and no representation but instead between two different types of representation. Parliament argued in favor of virtual representation and colonists like John Adams argued in favor of direct representation. Direct representation means suffrage or the right to vote in representatives directly to Parliament. These representatives would be made up of colonists, elected by colonists, for colonial interests. Suffrage is the only civil institution designed to gather the consent of the governed making it a requisite for a representative government to be legitimate. Parliament disagreed with the idea of direct representation; they argued that the King and Parliament had the authority to regulate the colonists as they deem fit due to the charters and various legislation that had been in effect for decades prior to the crisis. Since Parliament benefited from the colonies they claimed to have an interest in the success of the colonies which meant that they were looking after the interests of the colonies. To them, the colonies already had representatives in Parliament, themselves. This did not succeed in winning over the hearts and minds of the colonists as history has shown, neither is virtual representation consistent with the civil theory I have been developing in my various essays on political theory. Alexander Hamilton’s first published political essay, when he was still in college, was called A Full Vindication of the Measures of the Congress, &c. where he argues that the right of authority over another originates from that other person who is to be governed. That Americans are intitled to freedom, is incontestible upon every rational principle. All men have one common original: they participate in one common nature, and consequently have one common right. No reason can be assigned why one man should exercise any power, or pre-eminence over his fellow creatures more than another; unless they have voluntarily vested him with it. Since then, Americans have not by any act of their’s impowered the British Parliament to make laws for them, it follows they can have no just authority to do it. Representation must be consented to by those who are being represented and the only institution to achieve this is suffrage. Representation cannot be multiplicatively removed from direct representation without losing some legitimacy, even when those separations are delegated from direct representatives. Suffrage is not the only requisite to a civil government, it is only the means by which a government is legitimate, the structure of government is also important in preventing the loss of consent. This structure includes a separation of powers to establish a system of checks and balances. Separation of powers The concept of separation of power, which can be viewed as specialization, is an old concept, one of the oldest concepts regarding government organization since the time when the most complex polity was a tribe. For the sake of efficiency, one person or one entity cannot do everything all by themselves. Native American tribes were misunderstood to be ruled absolutely by a chief but this is incorrect. There were several types of chiefs with different functions who worked separately but complementary to fulfill the needs of the tribe. This separation includes a liberty from interference from the other branches of government which in turn affects efficiency. The war chief did not dictate to the civil chief or the peace chief or the sachem nor the other way around. One branch, say the President, cannot and should not be able to lock the doors to the homes of each member of Congress to prevent them from passing legislation or impeachment or any other power Congress is delegated. Efficiency is not the only reason, there is also the concern of despotism as one branch may try to assume more power than they are granted. These two causes are why a system that separates power is a civil one. As one branch needs to control the others in order for it to gain power itself. This creates competition which distracts the branches from becoming despots over the people. At least this is the goal of separating power. Read the works of Adams and Madison to further grasp the purpose of separating power. I suggest reading John Adams’ Thoughts on Government essay along with James Madison’s essay called Vices of the Political System of the United States . No government nor officer in government deserves any kind of power; power or rights are only relinquished by the people, with consent, to the government. The Congress, President, and Supreme Court, do not inherently hold specific powers to themselves, but instead are granted rights. The rights granted to the legislature are not automatically granted to the president or supreme court and a separation of power along with a system of checks and balances is an attempt at preventing the government from assuming more rights than what it has been granted. Remember the definition of civility from my other essays, it is when people are most free from natural and despotic threats. Checks and Balances Checks are negatives on power. The clearest example is the presidential veto which is a negative on Congress’ power to pass laws. I do not believe, unlike most political scholars, that influences on appointments or removals by the other branches are a type of check on power. Take the Supreme Court, their appointments, along with lower courts, are completely managed by the other two branches of government, specifically the President and the Senate. To me and according to the consistency of the civil theory I have been developing, this is not a proper separation of power nor a check on judicial power. Removals should still exist but they are not a check on power, only a check on arriviste individuals who might augment their power beyond their delegated jurisdiction. The institution of the Courts are not affected by the appointment or removal of a single judge. So what is an executive check on the judicial branch? The power of the pardon is. If a federal court rules in a way that is inconsistent with justice, such as convicting or upholding a conviction of an innocent person, then the president can pardon the defendant. Of course, this isn’t how the power of the pardon is usually used, instead it is used by the president to get any friends or accomplices out of prison which is a gross violation of justice. To prevent misuse of the pardon, just as a veto can be overruled by the legislature, perhaps give the courts the power to overrule a pardon following some new due process. This due process could include having a court of several judges or a jury that have played no role in the conviction or the decisions of the court of appeals up to that point to decide whether or not the defendant should be pardoned; perhaps the legislature can get involved in this. This way the pardon is still a negative on the judicial branch without it being used irresponsibly. To recap, the executive has two negatives one on the legislature via veto, and the other on the judicial branch via pardon. The courts have a negative on both the legislature and the executive in the form of judicial review. A law passed or a policy enforced can be deemed unconstitutional by the court. This judicial review is usually backed by trust and respect of the other two branches. Sure, they do not have to follow the judgements of the supreme court, but they usually do. This judicial trust is a healthy sign of a civil government since civility is built on trust. However, trust alone should not occur, but there must also be a system of verification or a due process that the other two branches should follow. The legislature is a negative on the president by not passing any bills proposed by them or by overriding a veto. Some would include impeachment and conviction as a check but as I argued prior, I do not view removals as a check. The legislature currently does not have a formal negative power on the judicial branch, other than simply ignoring them. Such a negative could be this; since the veto is an immediate negative on the legislature, I see judicial review that decides a statute is unconstitutional as a veto in its own way. A post actus vetimus, to forbid an act after it is law and after a defendant proves a statute causes unjustified damages. Vetimus is the plural of veto BTW. Just as the legislature can override a veto it should have the power to override a vetimus. This legislative review would be a check on the judicial branch. The president must provide a reasoning to his decision just as the courts provide an opinion for its judgment. This judicial judgment or review (vetimus) should be sent to Congress, like how the presidential veto is, and be considered by a joint committee. This committee should decide what to do next. To accept the judgment and change the statute to make it constitutional by severing the unconstitutional section or clause, to ignore the judgment which it can already do which is the same as overriding it, or to repeal the statute in its entirety. These things are already present in the current system but they are not organized in a specific due process like that which I just outlined. I am pro-civil law and love due process instead of loosely organized powers so I am in favor of this kind of structural change. Legislative Supremacy Legislative Supremacy is the idea that of the three branches, the most powerful or highest in authority is the legislature. This means, or should mean, that the legislature has the final say in what the law is despite there being negatives against its initial bills. These negatives by the executive and judicial branches can be overturned by the legislature and only act as a cooling mechanism to the fervor of Congress, which is in itself a cooling mechanism to the fervor of the Will of the People. Reminisce what I said earlier, “Representation cannot be multiplicatively removed from direct representation without losing some legitimacy, even when those separations are delegated from direct representatives.” This means that the executive and judicial branches are less legitimate than the legislature since they are not elected directly by the people but instead by some other entity. It is consistent with the political theory I have been developing that these two branches ought to be elected directly by the people. Presidential and Vice Presidential elections ought to be voted by the people as a whole nation and in my previous essay on Supreme Reforms the Justices of the Supreme Court ought to be elected by the people within the Circuit Courts’ jurisdiction. Check out that essay for more details. Below is a diagram of the branches and their checks and balances. In red is what I add to this usual concept. Just a clarifying note, not all judicial review is a vetimus; a vetimus is only the opinions of the court that determine a federal statute as being unconstitutional just like how a veto is only that which the President rejects for whatever reason he gives to Congress. The President should consider for himself the constitutionality of a bill along with considering whether or not a constitutional bill is rational to enforce. The Supreme Court, after a law has proven to have caused damages, should only consider the constitutionality of the law in question, not whether or not its rational or effective. More Contemplation on Representation Who ought to be represented by the government? Not a special interest, only the interest of the people as a whole, but how can we ensure that the majority do not put their peculiar interest before the interest of everyone as a whole? Just as separating powers or interests in the government helps prevent despotism, a similar separation of the people is also necessary to prevent errantism. For those who have yet to read my previous essays on political theory, the term errant is used to describe informal despots or people who err away from civility as opposed to tyrants who are formal officers who err from civility. Political “thinkers” of today usually think that the House of Representatives is more representative than the Senate. This is not the case. There is no single perfect way to represent the interests of everyone at once. The House of Representatives represents the interests of the people within congressional districts, but what of the interests of the people within the whole state? These interests often differ from one another. An example would be the political makeup of Georgia following the 2020 election where the majority of congressional districts were republican while the majority of the people in the whole state was democrat, proof in the two Senators that were elected by the people statewide. This is what I call the minorizing of a majority; when this minorizing is done on purpose it is generally called Gerrymandering but it occurs even without intention. This minorizing is not representative of the people which is fixed by the Senate. However, States can be viewed similarly to congressional districts which means the Senate has the same issue on the nationwide scale as the House does on the statewide scale. The solution to the House's statewide problem was a statewide election which is also the solution for the Senate in the nationwide election. This solution is to make the only two nationwide positions elected by a nationwide election which means abolishing the electoral college and establishing a general vote nationwide for the offices of the President and Vice President. All of this goes to show that there is no one perfect way to represent the people so the best way is a system of differing yet complementary election types. Someone might be in the minority in a congressional district but in the majority in the state or federal election. This means that there are overlapping minorities and majorities which control the government which prevents one minority or one majority from dominating the government. This separation of the people is also a check and balance of the interests of the people. It would be nice if everyone was on the same page as to what their interests are, but that is not the reality of the nation’s demographics. Proper politics after all is not what is the best theory but instead what is the best application for achieving civility.

JOURNAL OF THE CONTINENTAL CONGRESS (Philadelphia) Friday, November 10, 1775 Resolved, That two Battalions of marines be raised, consisting of one Colonel, two Lieutenant Colonels, two Majors, and other officers as usual in other regiments; and that they consist of an equal number of privates with other battalions; that particular care be taken, that no persons be appointed to office, or enlisted into said Battalions, but such as are good seamen, or so acquainted with maritime affairs as to be able to serve to advantage by sea when required; that they be enlisted and commissioned to serve for and during the present war between Great Britain and the colonies, unless dismissed by order of Congress: that they be distinguished by the names of the first and second battalions of American Marines, and that they be considered as part of the number which the continental Army before Boston is ordered to consist of. Ordered, That a copy of the above be transmitted to the General. Source: https://www.usmcu.edu/Research/Marine-Corps-History-Division/Brief-Histories/Brief-History-of-the-United-States-Marine-Corps/#:~:text=On%20November%2010%2C%201775%2C%20the,the%20United%20States%20Marine%20Corps.

1st Congress Convenes on March 4, 1789 and adjourns on March 3, 1791 Coinciding with George Washington’s first term in office, both houses in Congress were pro-administration called Federalists. Congress met in Federal Hall, NYC for the first two sessions and met in Philadelphia Pennsylvania for the third session.. Key Events and Legislation: Session 1 March 4 to September 29, 1789 In NYC April 1, 1789, House reached a quorum for the first time and elected officers April 6, 1789, the Senate reached a quorum for the first time and elected officers. Also certified the electoral votes for Washington and Adams April 21, 1789 John Adams was inaugurated as Vice President April 30, 1789 George Washington was inaugurated as President June 1, 1789 Act regulating oaths for congressors was signed into law and left out mention of God in the final draft July 4 1789, Tariff July 27 1789 Department of Foreign Affairs (State) is formed July 31 1789, US Customs service established August 7 1789 Department of War (Defense) established September 2 1789 Department of the Treasury established September 24, 1789 Judiciary Act September 25, 1789, 12 amendments passed congress and were sent to the states to ratify November 21 1789 North Carolina became the 12th state to ratify the constitution and join the Union Session 2 January 4 to August 12, 1790 In NYC January 8, 1790 Washington gave his first state of the union address March 26 1790 Naturalization Act May 26 1790, Territory South of the River Ohio is organized and will become Tennessee May 29, 1790 Rhode Island ratified the constitution becoming the 13th state and last of the original 13 colonies June 20, 1790 Compromise of 1790 where a national bank is formed and the capital is moved to DC August 2 1790, First census Session 3 December 6 1790 to March 3, 1791 In Philadelphia February 25, 1791 First bank of the United States created March 3, 1791 Tariff that led to the Whiskey Rebellion March 4, 1791 Vermont Admitted into the Union Leadership Senate President: John Adams President pro tempore: John Langdon House of Representatives Speaker: Frederick Muhlenberg Lists of committees and their party leaders. Senate Whole House of Representatives Elections Rules Ways and Means Whole Joint committees Enrolled Bills Officers Senate Secretary: Samuel A. Otis, elected April 8, 1789 Doorkeeper: James Mathers, elected April 7, 1789 Chaplain: Samuel Provoost (Episcopalian), elected April 25, 1789 William White (Episcopalian), elected December 9, 1790 House of Representatives Clerk: John J. Beckley Sergeant at Arms: Joseph Wheaton, elected May 12, 1789 Doorkeeper: Gifford Dalley Chaplain: William Linn (Presbyterian), elected May 1, 1789 Samuel Blair (Presbyterian), elected December 10, 1790 Reading Clerks: John Beckley Membership House of Representatives Connecticut All representatives were elected statewide on a general ticket. Benjamin Huntington, Roger Sherman, Jonathan Sturges, Jonathan Trumbull Jr., Jeremiah Wadsworth Delaware John Vining Georgia James Jackson, Abraham Baldwin, George Mathews Maryland Michael J. Stone, Joshua Seney, Benjamin Contee, William Smith, George Gale, Daniel Carroll Massachusetts Fisher Ames, Benjamin Goodhue, Elbridge Gerry, Theodore Sedgwick, George Partridge, George Thatcher, George Leonard, Jonathan Grout New Hampshire All representatives were elected statewide on a general ticket. Abiel Foster, Nicholas Gilman, Samuel Livermore New Jersey All representatives were elected statewide on a general ticket. Elias Boudinot, Lambert Cadwalader, James Schureman, Thomas Sinnickson New York William Floyd, John Laurance, Egbert Benson, John Hathorn, Peter Silvester, Jeremiah Van Rensselaer North Carolina John Baptista Ashe, Hugh Williamson, Timothy Bloodworth, John Steele, John Sevier Pennsylvania All representatives were elected statewide on a general ticket. George Clymer, Thomas Fitzsimons, Thomas Hartley, Daniel Hiester, Frederick Muhlenberg, Peter Muhlenberg, Thomas Scott, Henry Wynkoop Rhode Island Benjamin Bourne South Carolina William L. Smith, Aedanus Burke, Daniel Huger, Thomas Sumter, Thomas Tudor Tucker Virginia Alexander White, John Brown, Andrew Moore, Richard Bland Lee, James Madison, Isaac Coles, John Page, Josiah Parker, Theodorick Bland, William B. Giles, Samuel Griffin Senate Membership Connecticut Oliver Ellsworth, William S. Johnson Delaware George Read, Richard Bassett Georgia William Few, James Gunn Maryland Charles Carroll, John Henry Massachusetts Tristram Dalton, Caleb Strong New Hampshire Paine Wingate, John Langdon New Jersey Jonathan Elmer, William Paterson, Philemon Dickinson New York Philip Schuyler, Rufus King North Carolina Samuel Johnston, Benjamin Hawkins Pennsylvania William Maclay, Robert Morris Rhode Island Theodore Foster, Joseph Stanton Jr. South Carolina Pierce Butler, Ralph Izard Virginia William Grayson, John Walker, James Monroe, Richard Henry Lee Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_United_States_Congress

Civil Theory By Mark Shubert First Draft The State of Nature All things are in nature, if we intend on living we need to be secure in nature. This security is civility, the less secure we are the less civil we are. In the state of nature, which is the absence of civility, each individual does what they deem they should and would use whatever power they have to do so despite the livelihood of others. This is their natural rights, mainly the right to all things. They may seize, build, destroy, say, or do anything. Just as they do what they may, everyone else can do the same. This mutual aggression or the persistent threat of war causes individuals to live a solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short life. Individuals strive to live a long and happy life which is not ensured in nature. Families Due to this, individuals collaborate with others to become more secure since the power one has in nature is exponentially increased with collaboration. These are the first societies, the family. In order for this kind of collaboration to occur and remain its constituents must develop trust that its other members will not exercise their natural rights which would violate their lives and happiness. The development of this trust requires the relinquishment of natural rights that threaten the union. The rights that remain are their civil rights and all relinquished rights are granted to a trust or governing body however organized. This is where the government receives its power or right to govern, from the governed. Some of these relinquished rights can be abrogated or abolished completely. These abrogated rights should be rights that threaten the trust the people have of the government or themselves. These are rights or powers that make the government ineffective, unusual, or cruel. If the government uses an abrogated right or misuses a granted right then it fails and sends itself along with its members back into a state of nature where conflict is inevitable even between the members of society. In the family, one or few members could embody the identity of the whole. A de-facto governing body who holds more power or rights than its other members since they hold not only their individual civil rights but also the granted rights. This head of the family, however organized, must secure its constituents from nature and cannot violate the domestic trust or else they lose their mandate of civility or their consent to govern. The loss of trust encourages two actions from the people affected. The first action is the succession of another head, preferably one that would restore trust in the family. The second action is secession of some members to form a separate family, preferably one that would not violate trust. To prevent the overreach of the head or the loss of trust the governing body must organize itself in such a manner that keeps the family secure from nature. It must govern itself to ensure that it has the right knowledge and energy to do this which requires specialization of statecraft. The government must also govern over the people and provide the knowledge and energy for them to remain civil. Individuals must govern themselves and the government. They govern themselves to make sure that they do not assume and exercise a relinquished right which would violate the trust and return them into a state of nature. Falling back into a state of nature allows for society to do whatever it wants to the errant or violator since, after all, the state of nature is where everyone can do anything.This is where law gets its authority and why it is necessary to follow it. It is also why the government is justified in apprehending errants since these criminals forfeit their membership in society and become yet another threat in nature. However, the laws themselves must be acts consented by the people and which secure its constituents, not acts that violate its constituents which is an errant government or despotism that puts the government into a state of nature where individuals can do what they want to it. This is why the people must govern the government, to ensure that the authority they consent to is an authority that will actually secure them in nature instead of violating their trust; this is also where the people have their right to rebel since the despotic government is yet another threat in nature, and anyone can do anything in the state of nature. Another restriction on law enforcement is that the more people there are in a society the greater the potential security is and a civil society would be the most secure it can be, due to this it is not civil to just kill off errants but instead to bring them back into a state of civility. Rehabilitation is the most civil enforcement as it corrects errant behavior while also not decreasing the population which would needlessly decrease the potential security of the society. There are reasons to execute individuals for example if they simply cannot be rehabilitated and they are a threat to society, at that point it is justified because those individuals will perpetually be in a state of nature which is a threat to civility. To reiterate the past few concepts, the government must govern itself in order to maintain consent and it must govern the people to maintain safety and happiness; while the people must govern themselves in order to stay in society and govern the government to maintain an effective body that will keep them out of a state of nature. Mutual governance. If an individual who is entrusted with governing violates that trust they are a tyrant, if the people violate that trust they are errants, and both of these societal failures are types of despotism. A single individual cannot take care of themselves for long in the state of nature and therefore it is unreasonable to assume they are able to take care of others all by themselves. Due to this reality, society requires and becomes more efficient with specialization. The less time someone has to spend doing something they are not good at is more time they could spend doing something they are good at. This specialization is important because it increases the efficiency of the society, in this case the family but could be applied to larger and more complex societies. These specialties or roles in society allow for innovation as more people can now spend time and effort exercising new roles or discovering better ways to do old roles. The best person at hunting should hunt so that the best person at cleaning can clean which would in turn allow the hunter to hunt more without needing to spend time cleaning. If they do their jobs well enough there may be extra time in the day to do something else like build a better home or leisure or do another activity that will increase their standard of living. People are pattern seekers and so the more time we spend observing an issue the more clear that issue becomes and the easier it is to find a solution. The longer a hunter hunts the more likely they will be able to see patterns in the behavior of their prey which would allow them to invent traps and techniques to hunt more efficiently. The more efficiently the hunter hunts, the less time is needed in hunting which provides more time for innovation. Since individuals do not live long they are not able to learn much on their own, but families and other forms of societies can live, theoretically, forever and accumulate generational information beneficial to their posterity. This knowledge passed down is education and it gives freedom to people since they do not have to relearn information the way their ancestors had to, but can continue from where they left off and spend more time learning new information; that is why, as I understand it, the root for freedom and books in latin are the same, libertas & libri. Efficiency is necessary but it is not the only thing required, happiness or satisfaction is also needed. The best hunter might dislike hunting so should they be forced to hunt? Keep in mind that consent is requisite in a civil society so enforcement of roles against the will of the individual is a violation of that consent. Either find civil ways to encourage the best hunter to hunt or allow him to exercise the role they are most happy with. Tribes Eventually multiple families realized that if they collaborated they would be more secure in nature. This is the formation of tribes. This realization, however, is not always, if ever, consensual as one family may subjugate others and still be able to form a tribe. This uncivil union is cause for discontent which raises conflict as families will try to succeed to the top or secede to be the top of a separate tribe. This uncivil formation of a society could be reconciled with the introduction of consent of the governed but sadly throughout history those in charge value control more than civility. To counter discontent, the ruling family or individual may invent and use culture. Culture may use positive or negative reinforcement but either way it is attempting to make its members feel a sense of belonging which cools aggression. It is more difficult for people to rebel against society which shares their culture than a society that does not since people do not wish to undo most of what they are conditioned or accustomed to. Culture is a tool of control to prevent immediate tension which can prolong a society by being stable but could also be the cause of downfall since it stifles necessary change making society ill prepared for when the demand for change becomes greater than the controlling effects of culture. The more people who practice culture, especially dogmatically, have less time addressing problems or even feel apathetic towards societal issues till it is too late. This is why there are cycles of calm and conflict. Out of conflict comes resolutions and a culture to prevent conflict from occurring in the short run, which is calmness with little reform; the lack of reform or a redress of grievances causes discontent and tension which eventually leads back to conflict. Culture must be well regulated and cannot stifle societal progress. Culture could be a good thing by cooling people in the short run but if the culture takes too much of the people’s time and efforts away from reform then it is detrimental. A family who usurps the identity of the tribe, much like a tyrant, is a dynasty. They may assume power with force alone but in the long run they need to maintain consent of the other families. Why would members of a family value the members of a different family above their own? The answer is culture. This kind of culture is propaganda that convinces people to support something they would not naturally support. Tyrants and dynasties and other forms of despotism use culture to condition or normalize their positions in society, even though in reality they are not the best ones for their positions or that their powers should be abrogated in the first place. A free people would be able to look past culture to understand this fraud. Take the ruling dynasty in England, why should the Queen and her family be protected and honored above every other family, above your own family; in nature they wouldn’t be, and in a civil society they wouldn’t be, it is a form of despotism that has adopted to the modern world in order to justify itself and garner support when their adherents shouldn’t support them in the first place. City-States Eventually, tribes began to realize that collaboration better secures them in nature which led to the formation of city-states. The same principles apply to city-states as to subordinate forms of society. If one tribe positions themselves above the others, with force and culture, then they are an oligarchy. The reason why I use the term oligarchy is because the rich and powerful marry each other and form a tribe of sorts. This kind of tribe may extend past the physical borders of a city-state but it is still a tribe nonetheless; a tribe organized by material possessions where they try to maintain their status in the stratification of class. A civil society would have each individual equal to every other individual, each family equal to every other family, each tribe to every other tribe, each city to every other city, all the up to a universal state. What this equality means is that in society there would not be any arbitrary hierarchies of stratification if they could be abolished with civil means. Just a note, tribes in the modern world like the United States would be what we call the local government, just to clear up any confusion. This equality does not mean everyone does the exact same thing. Remember the importance of specialization. Equality in a civil society would mean that despite specialization which might materially benefit some over others, the society as a whole would continue to treat and view everyone and every subordinate society the same. The farmer would not have more political authority than a manufacturer, a man would not have any more authority than a woman, a white would not have any more authority than a nonwhite, a family would not have any more authority than other families, etc. Non Political Entities At this point there needs to be a mention of entities that are non political but act in a similar manner to the societies mentioned earlier. What is political are the ones mentioned before such as families, tribes, cities, and I will go into nations and the universal state with a mention of civilization states later in the essay. There are organizations of people that do not fit this neat stratification. These miscellaneous collectives are what I consider to be non-political which means they do not deserve to exist in any formal or respected manner, informally yes they can exist as long as they do not attempt to make themselves formal institutions and as long as they do not violate civility. These consist of identities such as culture, religion, race, ethnicity, class, etc. I mentioned culture and class in short earlier but I should go into detail as to why these are non-political, meaning that these identities should not be politicized and would not be in a civil government but they could be in a despotic one either from an errant government or an errant people. The reason why these identities should not be political is because of their lack of structure, lack of universality, lack of their necessity, or their harm to civility due to them being non-complementary to the formal institutions of society. Culture has little structure since it changes all the time, which is ironic given how culture is usually looked at as the development of traditions and conditioned behaviors. The parts of culture that don't change quickly usually benefit a specific group of people instead of the whole body of individuals. Some cultures are harmful to society, especially those that perpetuate violations of individuals and trust. There is also the decreasing necessity of culture in more civil societies. Remember culture is a tool to cool aggression in an uncivil society; as society becomes more civil there are less problems people have and the more satisfied people are the easier it is to be granted their consent, which means that culture, a tool to garner consent, is required less and less. This is not to say that culture is bad or completely unnecessary, only that culture, especially cultures invented in less civil times, is becoming obsolete. There can be, and we see this now, new cultures forming in more civil societies that are created around self-actualization and not like traditional cultures which were created around a sense of duty or role in society. Those old cultures conditioned people to do what they didn’t want to do but what society at the time demanded that they do. Because of progress in productivity and technology there is less of a demand for people to do what they don’t want to do and this gives them the freedom to pursue self-actualization. Just a note, there is currently no civil societies, since there is no society that has completely received the consent of its constituents, completely protects its constituents from nature, and completely removes despotism in the people or the government; there will never be a civil society, only societies that are more civil than others. Religion has a little more structure than culture, but not enough to be stable. We see the history of all religions includes many fracturing events that divide adherents even of the same religion. Christianity used to be one uniform identity but split into Catholics and Orthodox, then again between Catholics and Protestants, and I cannot even mention all the denominations Protestantism has split into. Civil theory understands religion as an individual behavior not as a collectivist entity, therefore religion should be free to practice and not respected as an establishment or formal institution that has authority over anyone. These are the concepts of freedom of religion and freedom from religion. Freedom of religion means you have the right to practice your religion. Freedom from religion means that you are protected from another religion imposing itself onto you. Freedom of religion is not absolute because if your religion violates the trust in civil society then it enters into a state of nature and therefore can be restricted. An example would be if your religion calls for human sacrifice of any kind. Proper religion is the conscience of an individual not an identity of a collective. Such an evangelized collective with any power or privilege will seek more of it till it tears us asunder with factionalism and special interests not concurrent with the general happiness and freedom; like how a tyrant, dynasty, oligarchy, or any other form of despot may seize society for themselves. A reason why religion ought to be seen and treated as an individual behavior and not a collective is because not everyone holds the same spirituality; even two people of the same exact religion may differ on theology. All of this is tied up with the bow of reality since none of it is real and dogmatism should never regulate civility. Even if you are someone who holds a religious faith, that means you still believe that most religious beliefs are false. This makes religion unnecessary and detrimental to society. Again, even if you have a particular faith this means that you do not support the dominance of another religion over you and you should in turn not support your religion dominating over the lives of others. Do not be hypocritical and no you do not know for sure that your faith is the one true faith cause that is literally what all religions say about theirs so there a ton of people lying even if one religion just so happens to be true. Race is another such identity. What is whiteness? If it is just the pigmentation of skin then it is just an observable characteristic that means nothing. If whiteness is a set of behaviors then what happens when an observably white person does not behave in that manner, are they not white? If it is behavioral then why have it attached to a non-behavioral characteristic such as skin color? Race is obviously not universal since we are not all of one skin color. Race isn’t even a good unifier. Looking at the history of wars in Europe we see that the greatest threat to white people are other white people. There has never been a mass genocide of white people done by another race, certainly no where near as much of a genocide that white people have committed against other whites. Who decides what being white is? The Anglos tried to control what being white is and they based whiteness on how Anglo someone was. The Germans tried to decide what whiteness was and believed themselves to be it. Other groups, usually ethnic groups, try to seize the identity of the race with themselves on top. Ethnicity is similar to race although it is more granular and is still a common divider amongst people today. There are still wars being fought between people of the same race who claim to be of different ethnicities. Now, there are many uses of the term ethnicity which is inconsistent most of the time and obviously not universal, and is certainly not a unifier in any way. Gender, which includes masculine and feminine roles and attributes is also not that helpful since a lot of men don’t naturally fit in with strong masculine expectations, so how can strong masculine expectations claim to be the natural male disposition when most males do not naturally form to those expectations? It seems to be the case that those expectations are prescriptive, not descriptive, or aspirational, as in they are asserting what a man ought to be, not what a man actually is. The ideal tough male American, might be chicken-shit compared to the tough male Mongolian. So these expectations don’t seem to fit in any objective usage today so gender can be lumped in with culture and should not be politicized. People on the Right should stop trying to enforce their version of masculine or feminine expectations while people on the Left should stop trying to receive recognition and subsidies for their gender. Culture, again. I want to summate on culture and these nonpolitical ideals. There are two types of culture, one that is propagandistic and originates from a power above the individual with the intent of conditioning and controlling people, and there is natural culture which arises from the individual that is not enforced from a power above the individual. The former is less consensual than the latter; remember the importance of consent in a civil society. So the propagandistic and top down approach of culture is not civil and therefore ought not be political. Then you have the natural and individual approach to culture which can never be enforced by a power above the individual with policies, lest it becomes propagandistic, and if something cannot be enforced by policy then it cannot be political. This means that one approach to culture is uncivil and the other is natural making its enforcement also uncivil. Class is the last nonpolitical identity that I will go into detail about. Class is understood as differences in material possession; yes there can be religious classes and that would go under religion, but even societies like India, that have religious class systems, also have a class system based on material ownership/standard of living. When it comes to material ownership there are two ways this can come about. The first is inheritance and the second is meritoriousness. Remember specialization from before. Someone could specialize in a lucrative industry and earn money for their merit and productivity, assuming no funny business. Then there is inheritance which can start out as the transference of wealth from a meritorious laborer to an unmerited brat. This inheritor could then become meritorious but sadly the usual case is that they stay a brat and spend the money on speculation and other people’s labor which they reap excess rewards they did not deserve by effort. Some squander their inheritance with no effort and their predecessor’s efforts were for nothing, which is the usual case given how many wealthy families rise and fall over time, but the class system remains the same. The reason why this should not be political, meaning classes should not be subsidized, bailed out, or receive any kind of benefits or social admiration is because those who are meritorious will earn their wealth themselves and would not require aid while those who are bratty inheritors don’t deserve aid. These entities, collectives, and identities act like political societies do but that does not mean that they are; similarly a virus acts like life does and yet isn't life itself. These societal viruses must be kept in check and should never dictate the structure or sovereignty of governance. Nation States When multiple city states discovered the power they had when they collaborated, they formed the first nation state. Remember all of the principles that have applied thus far because they all continue in nations. When one city state seizes the identity of the nation for themselves and places itself above all others they form an empire. Rome was an empire when it was still a republic because the city of Roma is what branched out and conquered other cities to subjugate them into their nation. When a family seized power for themselves, Rome became a dynasty as the city of Roma lost influence and was no longer the center of Rome especially after Constantine. The republic itself could be considered as an oligarchy instead of the republic. So Rome went from a dynasty under the Tarquins, to an oligarchy with some reforms, to an oligarchic empire when the city started to expand, to a dynastic empire when Augustus became emperor, to just a dynasty when the city lost its significance. Keep in mind how I am using these terms cause this is not how they are usually used. An empire is when a city state embodies the identity of the nation and puts other city states beneath it. When a tribe does that, they are an oligarchy. When a family does that they are a dynasty. When an individual does that they are a tyrant. Just a note, these different levels i.e. individual, family, tribe, city, nation etc. are what I call levels of sovereignty and a civil society would not let one level become despotic and seize the other levels. The main issue Rome’s government had, other than constant civil war, was that the government was designed to run a city, and it kept that design even after becoming more than a city. The consulship that existed after the fall of the Tarquins was the same consulship that Julius Caesar was a part of over four hundred years later. The Romans did not understand that their level of sovereignty had changed dramatically and therefore they could not make the necessary reforms to organize being a nation which is why most people today don’t consider Rome to be a nation even though it was larger and even wealthier than a lot of nations today. Some political thinkers at the time and place of Rome did start to discuss this problem albeit not as directly as I am now. Cicero comes to mind and especially two of his works called The Laws and On the Republic. A proper nation, as all proper societies, would not allow any subordinate level of society to become despotic and this requires a well regulated system of governance. When the city state was the sovereign level it had sovereign power but when the nation was formed it was no longer the sovereign meaning that sovereign power needed to be granted to the new sovereign, the nation. Just as the individual is sovereign in nature and has to relinquish its natural rights or sovereignty that could violate the trust of society, so too does each level of society when they are no longer the sovereign. The city state must give up any rights it has that would violate the trust in the nation. One of these rights, although despotic, is the right to violate individual rights. Now in a civil society a city state would not have this right since it would have been abrogated, but there never has been nor ever will be a civil society and so we are left to deal with despotic societies in varying degrees. Take slavery, the clearest example of despotism, which many states allowed and even enforced to protect their economic interests. A civil state would have abrogated slavery so according to civil theory those states did not have the right to protect slavery. Since those states did not have the right to protect slavery, when the federal government stepped in to end slavery, the federal government was not violating state’s rights, because those states did not have that right in the first place. Same thing with racial discrimination; when the federal government stepped into state’s affairs, it was not violating state’s rights because those states did not have the right to violate individual rights on the basis of race. A proper civil society would know and keep the civil rights of individuals safe from any despot, know and keep the granted rights of a family, know and keep the granted rights of a tribe (local), know and keep the granted rights of a city state (state), and know and keep the granted rights of the nation state (federal), while at the same time figuring out which rights should be abrogated. This theory and praxis is called statecraft. This should use the scientific method of observation, hypothesis, experimentation, and analysis to help us understand social science. Perhaps the current laws around families are flawed and we should reform them, perhaps the specific division of powers is flawed and they need amending, perhaps some rights need to be abrogated entirely. Amending America is attempting to be a place for public disquisitions, discussions, and deliberations on these issues. Civilization State The nation state is currently the highest level of sovereignty, but there are talks about civilization states which some seem to be in the fetal stage of development. Some say that there already are civilization states. A potential civilization state would be the European Union, if it develops a continental sovereign which right now does not exist. If an individual nation seizes the identity of the civilization where that one nation is superior to its fellow nations then that is called a hegemony. All of the principles mentioned thus far apply to this scenario. Universal State The formation of civilized states may or may not happen, but what is inevitable is the creation of the universal state. Societies throughout human history are developing larger, more complex, systems of governance. These transitions from one level of sovereignty to the next might take centuries or millennia but they have taken place and so what is this development heading towards? The universal state would encompass all civil creatures, right now that is just people since no other creature can participate in statecraft. We can see this occurring right now, the UN, as basic and inefficient as it is now, is just the fetal stage of development for future collaboration. Remember, the reason for collaboration that led to all of the other levels of society is that people became more secure in nature. Well, the UN, the collaboration of all nations, would make all people more secure since people would no longer have to fear nations fighting which makes them more secure in nature. This is inevitable, but there is no guarantee that the current UN is structured in such a manner to realize the universal state. We must use statecraft, and in turn look towards the development of subordinate societies to see what common trends have occurred for their development that may be in effect for the development of the universal state. If civilization states occur first, and if one of those seizes the identity of the universal state then that would be a dominion.

The Legislature The People’s Ordained Body of Governance By Mark Shubert In a well regulated Democratic-Republic the legislature is the main or supreme branch from which the other branches receive their power and legitimacy. This was more so the case in the early history of the US government, however, regrettably the legislature is delegating more governance as the vines of the other two branches are leeching responsibility from it. When the Supreme Court was formed the first court, the Jay Court, did not know exactly what their duties entailed and so they waited for Congress to pass the Judiciary Acts during the Washington Administration which granted the Supreme Court with specific powers and structure that the Constitution did not enumerate. The same may be said about the executive branch since any appointments of judges, ambassadors, and cabinet officers need approval from the Senate and any bills proposed by the President need to pass Congress. Any officer of either subordinate branches including the Chief Justice and the President may be impeached and convicted by the legislature exclusively; neither the executive nor judicial branches can impeach or remove any Congressor. I use the term Congressor instead of saying both congressmen and congresswomen. During Washington’s precedent setting presidential administration, he deferred to Congress, specifically the Senate for most of his decisions. The Indian wars in the Ohio River Valley and in Georgia, the passing of a liquor tax and subsequent Whiskey Rebellion, the formation of post roads, the establishment of a national bank, determining immigration and naturalization policy, setting the location of the new capitol, regulating trade and the militias, determining the structure and powers of the judicial branch, and many more issues were overseen and managed almost directly by Congress while Washington merely executed the orders of the legislature and gave some advice during the annual state of the union addresses. There were few issues where the President took initiative in affecting policies, in fact Washington would only sign eight executive orders during his eight year tenure as President and all but one were minor. Also these weren’t called executive orders back then, but they essentially are so I do not see much issue calling them that. The one notable executive order of Washington was his proclamation of neutrality which he defended as only a statement of the state of the union, not a directive against Congress’s power to declare war or approve peace. Now, the president signs dozens or even a hundred in their first week or so in office. There was more national unity and consensus in the Early Republic other than a few issues like the aforementioned neutrality crisis, and so there was less of a reason for the President to initiate policies. There were also few departments and virtually no agencies to enforce their own policies so the legislature had more direct and unchallenged power. This includes state legislatures not just the federal government since Federalism was more common and included more issues than today. Although not enumerated it is heavily implied that the legislature is to be the ordained representative of our polity while the two subordinate branches are designed for necessary and proper purposes of enforcement and justice. As John Adams put it in his essay Thoughts on Government, the legislature is not capable of the three duties of government all at once and so more branches are requisite for a sound and effective government. The Constitution is the highest power of our polity but even it may be amended by the legislature alone and the other branches are not included in that process. Yes, the state legislatures get involved as well which goes to show the supremacy of the legislature as a body that represents the people since the Constitution is established by “We the People” without it actually being established via referendum but via representatives. Judges and executives play no part in the amending process, not even as an honorable rubber stamp. The branches were not made to be coequal but instead coordinate under the direction of the legislature. Today, the executive and judicial branches, mostly the former, have assumed more legislative powers. There are more executive orders signed, more departments and agencies that can hardly be supervised or audited by Congress, and worse of all there is a passiveness that allows the President to get entangled in conflicts abroad; it is Congress, specifically the Senate, that has exclusive power to declare war and the last time the Senate voted to declare war was against Italy and Germany on December 11, 1941, now I do not know if you know this but we have been in one or two “wars” since then. The Korean War, Vietnam War, all wars in the Middle East, sending troops to Africa, fighting the Lybians and bombing Serbia. None of these are official wars, but instead “conflicts.” Now these are weird examples because on the one hand the executive is “circumventing” the legislature but with the legislature’s permission since all of these conflicts required resolutions to be passed for example the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution which officially unofficially started the Vietnam conflict. So Congress is handicapping itself to give the executive more power. The reason for this is because Senators find it hard to get approval from the people to start a war and could lose their voter base so they put the responsibility on the President who isn’t elected by the people. Now, I do not believe that the government should be doing things that violate the will of the people; the people should not be forced into conflict they do not consent to and in this instance of conflict management there are two ways to fix it. The first is to prevent Congress from delegating authority to the President by requiring declarations of war and abolishing “resolutions of conflict” for all military actions that involve violence; and the second is to have the President be directly elected by the people, I personally support both. Money, which is supposed to be strictly managed by the House of Representatives, is being reallocated from allocated programs to fund Presidential projects without Congressional approval and without condemnation from the Supreme Court even though these branches are supposed to check and balance each other. Now to be clear, all of these behaviors have been tolerated by Congress since they could step in and prevent them from happening in the first place so when I say “without Congressional approval” what I mean is that Congress does not go out of its way to shut down the actions of the President. However, when you look at how Congress is run it is becoming more of a rubber stamp. Senators especially are in more committees and subcommittees than they could possibly attend all meetings for. Their workload is too much for them to handle and because of this the ever expanding executive branch is assuming more responsibilities and with greater responsibilities comes greater power. This assumption of more “necessary and proper” authority was not done by an ambitious and nefarious executive but due to the detrimental inefficiencies of the legislature. In summation, Congress cannot do its job but someone has to and that someone is the executive so the less Congress is able to do on their own either from apathy or incapability the more the executive does. To return to the legislature their power that has been delegated to the other branches requires reform that deals with the issue of congressional inefficiency & responsibility. Here are some amendments that I propose in regards to this issue. First would be to increase the size of Congress. As our political system and problems become more numerous and complex, Congress needs to expand to have the human capital necessary to manage such changes. The executive has changed and adapted via expansion of departments and agencies while Congress has remained stagnant in the number of seats since the 1920s. If we intend on moving the powers of the executive over to the legislature, Congress needs the manpower to reassume those responsibilities to maintain efficiency. I suggest we increase the size of the House to 888 and the senate should be increased to three senators per state with one seat up for election every two years. This will increase manpower and decrease the workload per congressor so that committees would be properly filled, it would also decrease the cost to run for a house seat since more representatives means smaller districts which means fewer constituents and less money required to run a campaign. Each congressor would be more representative of the people since there would be less constituents but also because the decrease in cost to campaign would lower a barrier to entry for more average Americans to run for office. This would also have the added bonus of increasing the cost of lobbying since corporations would need to lobby more congressors in order to achieve the same amount of influence in Congress; tighter restrictions on lobbying should also be passed for example repealing the Citizens United case which would allow for regulations on companies promoting or denouncing politicians close to the elections but also policy not written by politicians themselves should be announced to the public along with sources on who exactly wrote that policy. There is the criticism that the decrease in cost of campaigning will also decrease the cost of lobbying but this isn’t the case since more special interests that don’t have as much money will be able to compete and this competition will drive the lobbying costs back up despite the decrease in the cost of campaigning. Not only will there be more competition between special interests, but if the decrease in campaign costs is significant enough, then lobbyists who fund campaigns might not be needed at all since revenue via constituent donations would cover the costs. The increase in Congressors would allow for more hearings from experts and corporations or activists proposing policy which should be live streamed so that the people know the source of policy proposals. Other than increasing the manpower of Congress there are some procedural reforms to consider. The House should focus on domestic and money bills while the Senate should focus on administrative and foreign policy. These specialties are already hinted or implied in the Constitution as the Senate is enumerated power over administrative policy such as approving appointments of Judges, Cabinet members, and impeachment trials along with foreign policy consisting in approving ambassador appointments, treaties, and declarations of war. The House, due to their short terms in office, must appease voters quickly which is done via domestic policy since the average American mostly only cares about domestic issues, and the Constitution enumerated that money bills originate from the House. An amendment to solidify this legislative specialization might look like this; any domestic or money bill starting in the House would need a majority to pass in the House while requiring a majority for the Senate to veto or block. I guess for either house it wouldn't be a veto it would be a vetimus. So a bill originating in its specialized House would have the same process as it is now but it will become law on its own unless the other house has a majority to prevent it from becoming law. If for example, a domestic bill originates in the Senate, not its specialized house, then the House of Representatives would need to approve it with majority before it can become law, which is the current due process. To reiterate, the House should focus on domestic and economic policy while the Senate should focus on administrative and foreign policy, but they can still have a say over the other if a majority prevents a bill from passing instead of requiring a majority to pass a bill. Regarding Executive authority there needs to be more oversight actions done, any policy changes either from the president via executive orders or by the departments or agencies themselves should require approval from Congress. One way to do this is to have a period of time from when an executive order is made where Congress can vetimus the order. So the order will go into effect immediately but could be recalled or vetimus by Congress. These could be called Post Actus Vetimus or something similar in Latin. This would require a proactive Congress, it has been their passive habit that has given or allowed the executive branch reason to assume more “necessary and proper” power. This is unhealthy for a democratic-republic since no executive officers are elected by the people making their representative legitimacy sourced in Congress. The less Congress oversees and actively approves programs and policies of the executive means that subordinate branches are only virtually representing the people. I made a prior video on why virtual representation is a bad thing so check that out. In summation, the legislature is the ordained body of governance in our polity and we need amendments to secure that supremacy above the other two subordinate branches. These amendments include expanding congress, moving responsibilities that have been assumed by the executive to congress, and to increase efficiency and representation of the legislature.

On Representation By Mark Shubert Democracy The only representative form of government is democracy. Democracy has been viewed as the rule of the majority or the will of the people but it is fundamentally more important than that. The act of suffrage is the only civil means in which a person may give their consent to the government; the only civil means of granting the government sovereign power that it requires in order to have the mandate of civility or the right to rule. Individuals are the only ones who are naturally born with rights originating from the state of nature, groups, institutions, government, any form of a collective or society does not naturally exist nor has rights; from there an individual may relinquish some of their natural rights or authority to a governing body with the purpose of securing themselves and the other constituents from the threats in nature. Suffrage is the only civil means, but there is a more natural way which is rebellion and usurpation. Democracy may be organized in different ways which can change the nature of the society. Direct Democracy Direct democracy is when the people individually vote on a bill themselves instead of having a representative legislature. This direct rule of the people is sometimes called pure or absolute democracy. The specific act of the people voting directly on a bill is sometimes called a referendum and they happen more occasionally the more local the government is; a nationwide referendum almost never happens for large countries; it could occasionally happen statewide or in small countries; it happens the most locally. Direct Representation Direct representation is when the people vote to elect members of a legislature and then those legislators vote a bill into law. We have this in the US for state representatives, state senators, federal representatives, and federal senators. Indirect Representation (multiplicatively removed) Indirect representation twice removed is when the people elect an electoral college and then those electors vote to elect members of a legislature and then those legislators vote a bill into law. Indirect representation thrice removed is when the people elect legislators and those legislators elect electors and those electors vote to elect a legislator or other official position and those officers then vote on a bill. We have this in America for the president. The people vote in their state legislators, those state legislators choose the electors of the electoral college, those electors then vote on the president, and the president can sign or veto bills. Indirect representation quadrice removed is just another instance of the elected representative electing another representative. We have this in America for the Supreme Court, from the thrice removed President who then nominates the Justices to the Supreme Court. Virtual Representation and Suffrage Are the democracies of the past that people like to point to actually democracies? No! The vast majority of the people couldn’t vote in the past even in the recent past. How can you know the will of the people if there are no institutions where the people can give their consent or even voice their opinions? When the people cannot vote that is called virtual representation and it is a fraud. Dictators, kings, oligarchies, and other forms of despotism claim to represent their constituents because they know that the mandate of civility comes from the people, but without actual consent, which can only be truly known via suffrage, then those claims are false. The institution of suffrage is the only civil means the people can use to give their consent and this institution cannot be tampered with by an ambitious despot or else they de-legitimize their right to govern, not that they care. Some despots try to use some other reason for their authority, the most common being God. Virtual representation was brought up during the Stamp Act Crisis of 1765, where many of our nation’s founders responded to Parliament against the legitimacy of virtual representation. Parliament was claiming that despite the lack of suffrage in the colonies, they still represented the colonists and their interests. Founders like Adams, Franklin, Otis, and Mulany argued that since the colonists’ will cannot be known, their consent could not be granted, then their interests and rights cannot be kept in mind during the passing of parliamentary acts. This is the idea of no taxation without representation, the act of taxing isn't the issue, it is the lack of representation, and the only way for a government to truly represent its constituents is if those constituents had some level of suffrage. Mob Rule Mobs are never a true majority, usually they are a group of motivated and angry people that cannot be reasonably viewed as the will of the people. Take the French Revolution for example, the people of Paris overthrew the French political order in a mob like fashion but the people of Paris were not a majority of the French people; instead the majority of the French people were royal loyalists who needed to be guillotined or shot before the Revolutionaries had their way. The “mob rule” is not democratic since the majority of people prefer the status quo over upending society for an uninsured system of governance. Mobs are not the will of the people but instead another despot. Only the people as a whole can rebel, not an individual or minority group. Remember the importance of consent, when an individual rebels they may be trying to overthrow the government; if they somehow succeed then they are the new government which requires the consent of the people in order to be legitimate. If it is just one person or one minority group rebelling then they obviously do not have the consent of the people and therefore do not have the right to rebel or to set up a new government. Or I should say, they do not have the civil right to rebel, when it comes to natural rights, you have a right to all things, including rebelling, but this right violates civility and so it is a relinquished right only to be called upon in a state of nature caused by the government. If an individual takes back a relinquished right then they violate the trust of society and enter back into a state of nature and remember that in the state of nature anything goes so the society can do whatever it wants to that rebellious individual since that person is now just another threat in nature. In nature anything goes, but in civility there are restrictions on behaviors and so the society would not do anything unnecessary or detrimental to itself. Remember, civility is security in nature, the more civil the society the more secure and vice versa. One observation made is that the more people coordinating in society the more secure that society is, the more civil it is. Given this observation, a society would not just execute errants or violators of civil trust but would instead re-assimilate them back into a state of civility. This is only the case if errants can be rehabilitated, for those who cannot be, then it is up to the society to decide. Consent and Reciprocity Although the histories of democracies have been undemocratic, it is entirely possible that a true majority of the people can be despotic and choose to violate the rights of an individual or minority group. The key virtues that secures trust the most is consent and reciprocity. Obviously an individual would not want their civil rights violated so they shouldn’t violate the civil rights of others lest their rights are violated. This reciprocity or equal treatment is necessary for the trust in society because it gives some assurances that your rights would not be violated. Where trust is lost is when people, could be the majority of the people, ignore reciprocity and decide to violate the rights of a group they might not like. That is the reason why minority groups today have more trust issues because in the past and even today they are not treated equally or with reciprocity by the majority. What helps reconcile this mistrust is for the errants to use some introspection to realize they are not being civilly reciprocal. Once the errant behavior stops then trust can start to heal. Given how important trust and cooperation is, it is important for the violated group to be open to reconciliation so that the society may move on. If both sides do their part, then full trust is restored in society and it may be a safer, consensual, reciprocal civil society.

By Mark Shubert What is a republic? First we need to look at the word itself which comes from the latin phrase res publica which translates to the thing of the public or public thing. So what does it mean for a state to be a thing of the public? Most importantly the government has to be open to the people and this occurs in two ways. The first is that public offices have to be open to the public. A good way to determine whether or not you live in a republic is if the people can participate in government freely. If the government is closed off to a single family you are probably in a monarchy, to a single person you are probably in a dictatorship, to a class of priests you are probably in a theocracy. These types of governments might have public officers but if their authority is only delegated from a sovereign that is closed off to the people then it is still not a Republic; the sovereign authority cannot be closed off to the people in a proper republic. The second is that the people need to be able to vote. Voting is an essential part of a republic since it sets up who runs the government and most importantly it is the civil way in which the people can give their consent to the government. The more people who have suffrage the more consent the government has to govern. The fewer people who can vote means that there is less investment or interest or consent in the state by the people which can and has been a dangerous environment to most states. The less consent and interest the more the people are detached from their society and are encouraged to secede or revolt to form their own society that they feel apart of. So if democracy is an essential part of a republic, why do people, mainly conservatives, speak out against democracy all the time. The uncharitable, and right, answer is that they are only against democracy because of party factionalism and they know that their views are not popular with the people. The more academic answer is that our understanding and definition of a proper republic is different from that of historic thinkers. Our constitutional framers for example did not include women or non-whites or poor people, the vast majority of the total population, when they originally constituted the right to vote, and yet they called America a republic. They even called America a democracy and some of the constitutional framers like James Madison and Thomas Jefferson created a political party called the Democratic-Republican party. They developed a republic that was not open to the public. Even to the small percentage of people who could vote only around 11% of that turned out to vote in our nation’s first Presidential election. Needless to say the American republic was nowhere near a proper republic until women were protected their right to vote and participate in government. However, this was still not proper since many adults were not able to vote, mainly adults between the age of 18 and 21 plus any convicts, plus poor people who could not pay a poll tax. Amendments have been ratified to fix two of those issues with there being talk of extending the protections of suffrage to convicts, at least those who finished serving their sentence. Another reason for a worry of democracy is that the constitutional framers did not like direct rule of the people. Conveniently the French Revolution occurred around that time which only confirmed their bias against democracy even though the French Revolution was led by rather wealthy “enlightened” bureaucrats and generals who wanted to replace the Bourbon dynasty and establish themselves in higher positions like Robespierre, Napoleon, and Talleyrand. The French people were taken advantage of and many were not enfranchised so blaming the people and democracy is not accurate when looking at the failures of the French Revolution. Another reason to dislike democracy was that most of the people didn’t have a stake in society. Instead they believed that only those who owned land had stock in the nation due to them having ownership of property. This idea is straight up wrong since people without land still have stake in the nation in the form of their own lives. We have seen throughout history that the wealthy landowners of society are the ones who use their wealth and influence over the government to violate the rights of others and to take other people’s land and wealth. History shows that the wealthy don’t actually care about the society that they own property in and so giving them all enfranchisement over the people is not the answer. Look at monarchs, dictators, emperors, chieftains, who all use their influence and wealth to accumulate more for themselves from others both rich and poor. As I mentioned at the beginning the more people who have suffrage the more consent and investment or trust the state has which means the state has more legitimacy and interest. This secures society more than just securing the consent of the wealthy people, since they don't even care about society, only their bottom line. Institutions that make up society are grounded by those who believe and maintain them. The people broadly have been a more secure foundation of stability for political institutions than the top down approach by wealthy individuals. Given this, democracy is essential for a republic to be stable and legitimate. The consent of the people is necessary but not sufficient; the people themselves and the government ought to be well regulated. This regulation occurs by both sides. The people need to regulate themselves and the government, while the government also has to regulate itself and the people. If the people did not violate the rights of others and could be counted on to defend the polity from nature then no government would be necessary, however, many do violate the rights of others and cannot be counted on to defend the polity and so a government is requisite. The government, being the embodiment of the sovereign authority granted to it by the people, must secure the civil rights of its constituents in order to maintain its mandate of civility. A government must be well regulated internally as much as it regulates the people. This internal regulation consists of separating power to specialize and creating a system of checks and balances to make sure that one arm of the state does not extend its power past its enumerated authority. This, I am sure, everyone knows about from elementary school social studies, but another aspect not considered by most is the abolition of powers. Certain natural rights have been abolished before, the right to be a monarch, and the right of the government to kill is being restricted as more laws are made to remove execution as an option. The abolition of power (natural rights) to things that violate civil rights requires more research into and more discussion of. For example, a power that I think the government should abolish is the power of the pardon. The practice of subverting the judicial system by the executive is not something people should support; if someone is innocent then they can go through the court of appeals and should not appeal to the executive. At this point you might be confused about the distinction between natural rights and civil rights. Natural rights are the rights an individual has in the state of nature; this is literally everything. If you are the sovereign you have the right to claim the world, to make your own laws, judge others based on those laws, and execute others based on those judgments. You have all rights and a right to all things in nature. In order to enter into a civil society an individual has to give up their natural rights, especially the rights to claim everything, to legislate, judge, and execute to the government which is where governments get their sovereign authority. However, one does not have to nor want to give up all of their natural rights and so they negotiate with the state in order to preserve the natural rights that do not violate the rights of others. These preserved rights are the civil rights. Rights that the people maintain for themselves in society. This negotiation is not always rational or agreed upon especially when people want to maintain rights that are beneficial for them that also violates the rights of others such as the natural right of slavery. In nature, an individual has a right to enslave anyone, if they can. In a civil society, they would not have that right, however, not all societies are civil and might allow that right to persist. The reason why this right is uncivil is because it violates the right of another, since a civil compact requires free consent of all its constituents. If there are those whose consent is not respected, then that is a state of nature, war, or at least the threat of war since the disenfranchised has the incentive to secede or overturn their oppressors. A revolution or churning of society can occur through war as it has historically, or it can occur through civil means, specifically an amendment process of society. A stable civil society would enumerate an amending process that is efficient enough to make the necessary changes that the people, especially the disenfranchised people, desire. To reiterate, a republic is a public government. A public government is one that has its offices open to the public and suffrage for the people to give their consent and choose their representative. This relationship between the people and their government has to be well regulated. The people need to regulate themselves and the government. The government needs to regulate itself and the people. A well regulated people is one that respects the rights and individualism of others and one that understands political science to know when the state violates the mandate of civility in order to demand the necessary amendments to form a more perfect Union. A well regulated government is one that respects the rights and individualism of its constituents and one that separates its powers in a system of checks and balances that ensures the integrity of the state along with properly representing the people. If the government violates civility then the people need to amend or revolt. If the people violate civility then the government needs to educate or restrict. The civil action is to amend or to educate while the natural action is to revolt or to restrict and a civil society would prefer the civil actions which requires an efficient amending process and a proper educational system. When the amending process fails and when education fails then nature is the more probable course of action. When an appeal to reason and reform fail there is the appeal to heaven.

Development of Civil Societies By Mark Shubert In the state of nature, the individual is the sovereign. They have all of their natural rights; the right to claim the world, the right to create laws, the right to judge others based on those laws, and the right to execute others based on those judgements. In this state the individual is naturally free and naturally secure but that is not the most free or secure they could get. No matter how strong willed an individual is, alone in the great expanse, they are not free to do as they please but instead are bound by constant concerns since the only rational drive is self preservation; that preservation is challenged everywhere in the state of nature. In this individual state of sovereignty, the highest identity is the individual and nothing else matters to that individual other than their own preservation, rights, and happiness. To better secure oneself in nature, the individual figured out that cooperating with other individuals was requisite. This alliance of individuals became the new sovereign, a new identity, a civil society; this first civil society was the family. In order for the family to have power, individuals needed to give up certain natural rights and entrust them to the sovereign, usually to a person who embodied the familial sovereign. Here the workload necessary to survive can be divided up, specialized, and more productive. Individuals can also live longer, not only physically longer, but also their identity since they now identify with a family that can theoretically last forever while an individual cannot. The constituents of a healthy family will have that family’s identity as their highest if not their only identity. However, the development into more complicated societies is not absolute and some constituents of the family might reject the family identity and desire a new identity that being their individual identity or a new family identity either by starting their own family or by taking over their family. To better secure one's family in nature, a family figured out that cooperating with other families was requisite. This alliance of families became the new sovereign, a new identity, a more complicated civil society; this being the tribe. In order for the tribe to have power, families needed to give up certain rights and entrust them to the sovereign, usually to a person who embodied the tribal sovereign. Here the workload necessary to survive can be divided up further, more specialized, and more productive. This allowed the society time and manpower to research and develop capital, both physical and human capital, which advanced society economically. A healthy tribe had its constituents view the tribe’s identity as their highest identity. But, this does not mean that individual or familial identities were abolished. Some families might even reject their tribal identity and desire a new identity by seceding and starting a new tribe or by taking over their current tribe. A family who values its family identity over its tribal one, while recognizing the necessity of being in a tribe, would try to position itself at the top and keep the other families below them in a power hierarchy. They convince the other families into believing that they support the tribal identity for all families, but in reality they only care about their particular family and are willing to use other families as a barrier to the elements of nature. These are the first petty dynasties. This process of establishing one family over all others included changing the identity of the tribe, which is supposed to be higher than any one family, to be attached to that family. England is the Windsor family and the Windsor family is England. And that family is willing to throw all other English families into the meat grinder of nature before themselves. But there is never just one family who desires this, but many and there have been many dynasties throughout the world. Many families who do not identify their family as being a part of a tribe but instead view the tribe as being a part of the family. This has been the cause of so much devastation, intrigue, war, and unrest. Families are not the only ones to do this, but individuals as well. These tyrants, viewing their individual identity as higher than any other, will use all others as they see fit. To better secure one’s tribe in nature, a tribe figured out that cooperating with other tribes was requisite. This alliance of tribes became the new sovereign, a new identity, a more complicated civil society; this being the city. In order for the city to have power, tribes needed to give up certain rights and entrust them to the sovereign, usually to a person who embodied the urban sovereign. Here the workload necessary to survive can be divided up further, more specialized, and more productive. This allowed the society time and manpower to research and develop capital, both physical and human capital, which advanced society economically. A healthy city had its constituents view the city’s identity as the highest identity. But, this does not mean that individual or familial, or tribal identities were abolished. Some tribes might even reject their urban identity and desire a new identity by seceding and starting a new city or by taking over their current city. If a tribe values its identity over the urban one, it will try to establish itself at the highest strata of society and would disregard other tribes. The individual who established itself as the hierarch of its family, could also establish its family as the hierarch of its tribe, and from there establish its tribe as the hierarch of the city. This hierarchy convinces the other tribes, and families, and individuals that the city’s identity, which they all belong to, is attached to that one tribe or family or individual. In other words, those other tribes are persuaded that the urban identity is embodied in a single tribe. This state of sovereignty being at the city state is what most people think about when they think of civilization but the development of families and tribes played a crucial part in laying the foundation, both physical and social, for city states. This is understandable, since writing was invented only after the first city states started to form. Writing as a technology that could only be afforded by the economy of a city. There is also little archeological evidence that paints a clear picture of what life was like before or outside of urban life. To better secure one’s city in nature, a city figured out that cooperating with other cities was requisite. This alliance of cities became the new sovereign, a new identity, a more complicated civil society; this being the nation. In order for the nation to have power, cities needed to give up certain rights and entrust them to the sovereign, usually to a person, but more so nowadays a congress of representatives who embodied the national sovereign. Here the workload necessary to survive can be divided up further, more specialized, and more productive. This allowed the society time and manpower to research and develop capital, both physical and human capital, which advanced society economically. A healthy nation had its constituents view the national identity as the highest identity. But, this does not mean that individual or familial, or tribal, or urban identities were abolished. Some cities might even reject their national identity and desire a new identity by seceding and starting a new nation or by taking over their current nation. If a city values its identity over the national one, it will try to establish itself at the highest strata of society and would unequally treat other cities. The hierarchy of the city can then establish its city as the hierarch of the nation. This hierarchy convinces the other cities that the national identity, which they all belong to, is attached to that one city. In other words, those other cities are persuaded that the national identity is embodied in a single city. Rome for example, was a city that ruled cities. The head of the state of the Roman nation. However, other cities had ambitions too, and either seceded or tried to take over the Roman nation. Rome was not a healthy nation given this inequality and disconnect of identity. Why should another city be subservient to the city of Rome? Rome did provide protection and economic growth but there were many negative attributes to being under the Roman yoke including high taxes, no citizenship especially the further you are from Rome, a change to your culture or religion, or social norms, and there was always the threat of the Roman military sacking their own cities just to pay their soldiers. These injuries caused by Rome outweighed the benefits of Rome especially in the later years of the Empire when Rome could not continue defending or securing the loyalty of its vassal cities. To better secure one’s nation in nature, a nation figured out that cooperating with other nations was requisite. This alliance of nations became the new sovereign, a new identity, a more complicated civil society; this being the civilization. In order for the civilization to have power, nations needed to give up certain rights and entrust them to the sovereign, usually to a person, but more so nowadays a congress of representatives who embodied the civilized sovereign. Here the workload necessary to survive can be divided up further, more specialized, and more productive. This allowed the society time and manpower to research and develop capital, both physical and human capital, which advanced society economically. A healthy civilization has its constituents view the civilized identity as the highest identity. But, this does not mean that individual or familial, or tribal, or urban, or national identities were abolished. Some nations might even reject their civilized identity and desire a new identity by seceding and starting a new civilization or by taking over their current civilization. If a nation values its identity over the civilized one, it will try to establish itself at the highest strata of society and would unequally treat other nations. The hierarchy of the nation can then establish its nation as the hierarch of the civilization. This hierarchy convinces the other nations that the civilized identity, which they all belong to, is attached to that one nation. In other words, those other nations are persuaded that the civilized identity is embodied in a single nation. The United States of America is a civilization state since it is made up of “nations.” People today do not call the states in the USA “nations” but before the union, citizens of the several states or colonies viewed their own respective state/colony as a unique country or nation. Also the states are not city states since they consisted of several cities making them nations. Unless, we create a new categorization for “states” to be their own political identity but states/provinces/prefectures were not sovereign but usually subservient to another power. If you think that this includes the pre-union colonies that's fair, but remember a couple sovereign nations joined the union such as Texas and Hawaii. All other states were subservient to another sovereign whether that be the British, French, Russian, Mexican, or Spanish. The civilization state is the highest state of the sovereign today and it is not yet the most common state, that being nations. The next step, however, could be continental, where civilizations congress into one sovereign. We are seeing the foundation of this kind of state in the European Union but it has yet to become the sovereign of its constituents. Right now it is more like a confederacy of nations than a defined continental state. After this would be a hemispheric or universal state depending on how society develops in the future, I don’t know, I do not have a magic orb. A few clarifications are in order: When sovereigns “join” to form a new sovereign this process is not always consensual, like with Rome conquering other states to form a nation. When a sovereign “figures out” that they would be more secure in nature if they cooperated with other sovereigns this process is not always rational but a necessity pressured by war or environmental happenstance. When a new state of sovereignty is formed that does not mean that it becomes popular immediately; development is slow given the complexities of societies, however, due to technological advancements, societal developments are faster than they ever were before. Given this, though, some areas are still run by tribes or city states despite nation states being the more common state of sovereignty. When a new state of sovereignty is formed, that does not mean that it is stable, it could very well collapse back into the previous states of sovereignty. The reasons for collapse are plenty, but a major reason is the issue of identity. If a state is built off of a specific identity and that identity is no longer commonly supported or subscribed to by the people, then it is weak and under threat of a new more popular identity. This is why the only truly civil society is a society whose identity only consists of universal values. Universal values, after all, are universally supported making that identity the most secure. When a sovereign identity, at any state, is embedded in a single person or a single organization that is not open to the public, that is called a principality; when a sovereign identity, at any state, is embedded in a congress of representatives that is open to public elections and participation that is called a republic. A healthy or civil society would have these states in their proper order, meaning that no sub state is at the level of a higher state which requires equal treatment of the states on each level. The identity of a single individual cannot be at a level higher than that of the individual or else it breaks equality and allows for the threat of war as other individuals, desiring that same position will try to take it for themselves. This desire comes from the state of nature, the desire to be safe, free, and happy, and since more developed societies have more power to fulfill that desire, individuals will try to take it for themselves. This explains the cults of personalities that people try to conjure up for themselves. This needs to be abolished in order for a society to be equal and therefore civil. No individual should be under another. This can be applied to any level of the state of sovereignty. If a civilized state is forming it needs to make that civilized identity the highest identity for if nationalism is the highest identity then it will be harder to form a civilized identity. An example would be British nationalism which was strong enough for Britain to secede from the European Union, a prenatal civilized society. Dictatorships are examples of individuals who make their individual identity higher than their superior identities. Monarchical dynasties are examples of families who make their familial identity higher than their superior identities. Tribal identity differs greatly depending on which continent you observe; in some places tribes are defined clearly and in others they are not. More segmented societies have clear tribal lines and more integrated societies are more difficult to identify. However, in integrated societies like in Western Europe or North America those who identify with a certain tribe associated their identity with an economic class. The wealthiest families in one city state or nation state often married another wealthy family of another city or nation instead of marrying with a poor family of the same city or nation. So in some areas tribal identity is closely tied to economic status. These have only been about political identities, there is an infinite number of identities that exist which only complicates an already complicated topic. There are countless religious identities, social identities, cultural identities, racial identities, etc. Here is the rub of societal development, since it is difficult for people to be rational in the first place, but also difficult for people to agree to subscribing to identities that they were not raised in. Since rationality is a rarity, the course of societal development has been paved with sword and blood instead of reason and negotiation. Also sorry for the repetition, I wanted to make a point. This essay has been inspired by Locke’s “Second Treatise on Government” and Kant’s “Idea for a Universal History with a Cosmopolitan Purpose” along with other various essays about societal development and human history. I suggest you all read these since they are enlightening.

Disquisitions & Deliberations on the Reality of a Universal State of Civility Along With Prescriptions Requisite to Obtain Such a Society Perpetual Peace is a cogent and defensible concept that takes into consideration the realist view of the international environment while also proposing a potential and likely, to the point of inevitable, constitution to a universal state of civility that will secure peace perpetually. This analysis of contemporary international anarchy along with a prescription of a universal framework is based on the cosmopolitan worldview of history which, according to Kant, shows a history of societal development into larger institutions with the goal of securing and preserving peace for its constituents; this goal, being a part of human nature, is universal, ergo, a universal state is the end development of societal evolution. Human nature is bound by the laws of nature; proven by indirect observation on human behavior and how stable it is at being unstable like the weather. Despite this assured instability, people in societies desire stability and peace which has been the motivation for the development of civilization. Individuals, however, think little about the end goal and yet act towards fulfilling it; this, according to Kant, is evidence for a shared human nature. An instinct that is inside every person like potential energy is in a rock on a hill that is about to start rolling. Since humans have a nature that is difficult to understand through direct observation, Kant suggests a series of theses from the observations of non human nature to help understand human nature. The first is that natural characteristics evolve to an end state through instinct and accident; that end state is peace. That human reasoning is a species-wide phenomenon since reason is not instinctive but habitual and requires human capital which can be collected from one generation and granted to the next instead of every generation requiring to relearn the same lessons through trial and error. That humanity has developed reason to learn more about the world than what is instinctively given by a simple biology. Our ancestors who built shelters and gathered food for themselves gave their next generation the surplus of those amenities which allowed them to gather and develop other things which were passed down their posterity as well. That people congress into societies in order to secure themselves and to feel greater than being alone. However, there is the threat that a person may become disconnected from society; feeling opposed by everyone, they will act towards their natural inclinations such as power and violence. This threat is the reason for the development of culture. Culture refines the people in order to feel attached to their society by having social worth which discourages their natural disposition. That the greatest problem for people is the creation of a universal civil state that has the capacity to enforce law. This civil state requires equality ensured to all its citizens. The reason being is that inequality breeds covetousness and discontentment. Why should someone be content with their status when there are others living with more rights and privileges? This discontent leads to the threat of the natural disposition as mentioned before but that can be restricted by culture and social order which disciplines people; Kant observes this phenomenon with trees disciplining each other to live cooperatively and with a noticeable order in a forest which is different to that of a lone tree which grows wildly. Machiavelli hinted at this concept of human nature charting the path towards more security even without the knowledge or planning of people and that friction or conflict is the natural way in which a society develops to be better at securing itself. This is shown by the discord between the plebs and the senate which was unplanned and made the Roman republic more durable, powerful, and free. Charles Hill also points out the fact that “War is the father of all things,” and provides the example of the outcome of the Thirty Years War as proof that war can be what progresses society forward since after the war there was an increase in religious toleration. Kant would see this as a good thing but not the best thing; he suggests that reason, not war or accident, should be what progresses society forward in order to be more peaceful and less costly. That this is the last issue for human society to solve. This problem can only be solved through reason not through instinct or else it would have already been solved. This reason, as mentioned before, has to be habituated by society. However, society, the culmination of human labor and reason, depends on the people. It is a mutual governance and an oscillation of development where the people add in their labor into society and society conditions the people to live better lives and recontribute for the next generation. If the society does not have a civil constitution then it cannot govern the people properly, and an improperly governed people will feel no need to invest in their society; this can oscillate to absolute destruction like an ouroboros. That the same disposition that individuals have to secede from their society when feeling disconnected is not a phenomenon reserved to individuals but to all individual identities which includes entire states. If one state feels disconnected from their neighbor then there is the constant threat of war. A universal civil state will administer law and culture to ease every individual state in order to secure itself from constant revolution. War, as Kant observes, is the means or friction that grinds and hones society to this end. The creation of a universal state requires universal consent and where there is no consent there is war. People could unite as one now, but that requires a shared reason and identity of interest, which does not yet exist and so we are left with nature’s way of teaching us, that being war. That the history of humanity is a history of societal development towards this universal state, where people can fulfill their capacities. This development is glacial and should only progress through enlightenment actions that amends current society to be more civil. That a cosmopolitan understanding of history is possible and requisite to reaching this natural and universal end rationally instead of having to rely on natural development. Although history is complicated and incomplete, we share the same nature and in turn the same end. This universal cosmopolitan existence is the highest purpose of nature since it is the most encompassing state; the smallest minority is the individual not some group, and the largest majority is the whole population not some group. The individual and whole are universal while every other group identity is non-universal; a civil state will only include universal concepts and leave out group identity politics. It is requisite, however, that this probity must be held not only from the top down but also from the bottom up. The people must also hold universal values above group identity or else they will feel discontented, secede, and go to war. Similarly, the several states of the world must hold universal values and identity above any identity they have individually and historically developed for the same reason. Human nature being universal is the guarantor of perpetual peace among nations since it is human nature to secure peace and there can be no greater peace than universal peace. This universal peace requires a universal constitution which Kant proposes. This constitution and general cooperation of nations has to address all issues in order for them to not become an issue later along with making sure that all nations are proper domestically by being a republic while also behaving properly amongst themselves by not invading each other’s sovereignty. Christopher Browning agrees with Kant in that international relations, especially after WWII, has developed to be more universal with a code and the foundation of an institution that might be able to, in the future, create and enforce law, which is the United Nations. Browning also supports the idea of spreading more universal concerns such as human security instead of nations fixating on solely national security. Morgenthau, understood by himself and others as a realist, proposes a revival of international diplomacy so that nations can pursue peace and order with parliamentary procedure among nations and not with the pursuit of power by each individual sovereign. He submits nine rules requisite for diplomacy to function. Diplomacy must be divested of a Crusading Spirit where the people and states are not fighting for a non-universal cause such as a particular religion or culture or ethnic identity. The objectives of foreign policy can only be defined through national security where it is the bare minimum that diplomacy has to offer in order to maintain cooperation of its participating states. Include all points of views in order to make sure that each state has social worth in the negotiations so that they do not become disconnected and veer away from diplomatic means. Compromise on all non vital issues in order for negotiations to occur in the first place instead of every state dying on every hill. States need to give up rights for security in order to keep their priority straight and to keep negotiations smooth since more people can agree on a shared definition of security more so than a definition of rights. States need to get into positions with a pull-out plan and where you can advance with low opportunity costs. Being able to pull out has always been cheaper than staying in. That's true in love and war. They need to never allow weak allies to make decisions for you since the weak nation is willing to be more reckless when using their money and manpower. States need to understand that the military is an instrument of policy not its magistrate. Military governing policy is not likely to secure peace since the objective of war is to end the enemy’s will to resist while the objective of international diplomacy is cooperation and compromise. Government and law ought to override popular sentiments especially when those sentiments are against peace and stability. Morganthau concludes by simultaneously criticizing Kant but also suggesting the very same thing that Kant does. Morganthau, in regards to the failure of diplomacy in the 150 years before his time, states that, “This has been the promise of such solutions as free trade, arbitration, disarmament, collective security, universal socialism, international government, and the world state.” He then states that “It is only when nations have surrendered to a higher authority… when they have given up their sovereignty– that international peace can be made as secure as domestic peace.” Morganthau is not impressed by the seemingly simple understanding Kant has on the international stage and yet realizes that Kant’s analysis of the end state is the end goal of societies. Kant, however, addresses the need for states to give up their power when he talks about the universal state being able to enforce its laws. If sovereign authority exists then a universal law cannot exist. The universal law has to be supreme in order for the international polity to exist in harmony. Kant also addresses the issue that this international state will not exist in the near future and does not give a prediction of a date instead he lays down the framework necessary for such a society to exist. We could all adopt that framework today or we could take a million years to do so; Kant does not propose a time frame only the conditions that would bring about that state. Tanisha Fazal and Paul Poast share a similar critique about Kant’s simplicity. They bring out the nuance of conflicts and how the development to broader peace is not occurring as predicted. Deaths may be declining but that is due to medicine and evac during combat not because there are less conflicts. They go a step further and say that the threat of war is a good thing and that complacency is the real danger since it distracts people from being aware of issues that can become wars. They point to WWI and WWII which was preceded by almost 100 years of European peace among large powers as evidence that Kant’s perpetual peace cannot work but the conditions Kant clearly states as being necessary for perpetual peace to occur were not existent before WWI or WWII. The very first preliminary article is that treaties must clear up any and all disputes to leave nothing for a future war which it is common knowledge that the treaties between European powers were not clear nor complete; an example is the territory of Alsace-Lorraine. What is an interesting critique is that Kant simultaneously believes that the constitutions of nations ought not be interfered with by other states but also that all nations ought to have a republican form of government. Kant, could be suggesting that non-republican governments are free game for republics to destroy but given how Kant does not want nations fighting each other it makes it unclear how exactly all states have to be republics while also not stating how all states can be republics given the current environment of the world consists of monarchies, dictatorships, and theocracies, albeit they failing and declining. Michael Doyle observes that good liberal democracies concern themselves with issues beyond national security such as human well being abroad, which is something Browning mentions in regards to human security. However, Doyle also observes that liberal democracies tend to not always act like liberal democracies. Instead of leaving other states alone like how Kant wants, liberal democracies interfere with other nations all the time. How they interfere could become a major issue for them since many of the policies they employ are not very liberal in nature. Some liberal democracies, like the United States, are willing to ignore human rights violations for its allies and economic partners while making a big fuss about human rights to her rivals. This seems to show that the realists like Morganthau are right since states, even those who claim to be liberal democracies, tend to still act Machiavellian as expected. Kant’s understanding of history through a cosmopolitan perspective allows for both the realist understanding of the current environment and the optimistic predictions of a universal state that can secure perpetual peace. Nations act in their own self interests, realist approach; but using reason nations realize that universal cooperation can better secure themselves, optimist approach; but nations need to have their self interests be in line with universal interests, realist approach; but nations have been developing towards the adoption of universal values more and more, optimist approach. Eventually, either through war or reason human societies will develop into one society and secure peace. References: Beck, White Lewis, et al. “Idea for a Universal History From A Cosmopolitan Point of View.” On History: Immanuel Kant, The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc, 1963. Machiavelli Niccolò, et al. The Discourses. Penguin, 1983. Hill, Charles. Grand Strategies: Literature, Statecraft, and World Order. Yale University Press, 2011. Kant, Immanuel, and Lewis White Beck. Perpetual Peace. 3rd ed., Liberal Arts Press, 1957. Browning, Christopher S. International Security: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford Univ. Press, 2013. Morgenthau, Hans J. “Chapter 32 The Future of Diplomacy.” Politics among Nations, Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 1973. Tanisha M. Fazal and Paul Poast. “War Is Not Over.” What the Optimists Get Wrong About Conflict, Foreign Affairs, November/December 2019. Doyle, Michael W. “Kant, Liberal Legacies, and Foreign Affairs.” Immanuel Kant, 2017.