WE have seen that in the abandonment of her constitution by the republic of Rome in the government of her new foreign possessions, her new system “necesitated [sic.] the appointment of governors, whose position was absolutely incompatible ... with the Roman constitution.” And all people have seen this course identically followed to date in the course of the republic of the United States.SITI July 31, 1901, page 3.1

We have seen that under the new systems adopted by the republic of Rome in the government of her new possessions and tributary subjects, the Roman “governor appeared there in the position of a “king;” and that in maintenance of the theory and the new system adopted, it was essential that the governor should in practise “actually hold toward the new subject peoples exactly the attitude, as well as the position, of a king.” And tho the governing party in the State thought to keep the constitution intact at home while abandoning it abroad, they and all soon found that the constitution at home was giving way in their hands; and that as certainly as the new systems were continued, the constitution must be abandoned at home as well as abroad. And the new system was continued,—with “not the letter, but the practise of the existing constitution” wholly changed; a few men in power in the State, “usurping in substance the government, and remodeling the constitution according to their own views.”SITI July 31, 1901, page 3.2

The process through which this all occurred in the republic of Rome is interesting; and, in view of the fact that Rome’s course up to the point of open repudiation of her constitution and fundamental principle has already been covered in the “progress” of the republic of the United States, is also vastly important.SITI July 31, 1901, page 3.3

When the Roman appointee went out from home to the place of his governorship, he went as a republican—the representative of the republic; but when he reached the place of his governorship, “he appeared there in the position of a king;” and he maintained there the air and circumstance of king. This he was obliged to do, under the theory, and according to the system, adopted for the government of the new possessions and tributary subjects. “But it was not practicable for any length of time to be at once REPUBLICAN and KING.”—Mommsen.SITI July 31, 1901, page 3.4

And, since it was not practicable for any length of time to be at once republican and king; and since in that place he appeared, and according to the theory and system under which he was there, he must appear there “in the position of a king;” it was inevitable that the republican must vanish, and only the king remain. Accordingly the governors ruled virtually as sovereign.... This emancipation of the supreme administrative officials from the central authority was more than HAZARDOUS. The Roman governor, placed at the head of the armies of the State, and in possession of considerable financial resources; subject to but a lax judicial control, and practically independent of the supreme administration; and impelled by a sort of necessity to separate the interests of himself and of the people whom he governed, from those of the Roman community, and to treat them as conflicting; far more resembled a Persian satrap than one of the commissioners of the Roman Senate at the time of the Samnite wars.”—Mommsen.SITI July 31, 1901, page 3.5

As another inevitable consequence, this occupying the position, and playing the part of “satrap,” of “sovereign,” of “king,” “demoralized the Roman ruling class with fearful rapidity. Haughtiness and arrogance toward the provincials were so natural in the circumstances as scarcely to form matter of reproach against the individual magistrate.”—Mommsen. It actually developed in them, as their abiding character, the very spirit and disposition of “satra,” “sovereign,” and “king.”SITI July 31, 1901, page 3.6

This would have been bad enough in its results upon the governors themselves, and the tributary subjects whom they governed, if the colonies had been the only field of the exercise of it, and if only the governors had remained permanently in those fields. But when, as was the fact, the term of the governors was short, and the rotation in the office was comparatively rapid; and when these governors returned home, and, as was also the fact, carried with them this same haughtiness and arrogance, this same spirit and disposition of “satrap,” “sovereign,” and “king;” then the evil was even far worse, for thus it was extended to the government and people at home. He who had developed the abiding spirit and disposition of “satra,” “sovereign,” and “king” abroad, remained in spirit and disposition, in haughtiness and arrogance, “satra,” “sovereign,” and “king,” at home when he returned home. When he returned to Italy, he held toward the people of the home government the same attitude of superiority, and the same air of sovereignty, that he had held toward the tributary subjects abroad. For “the man who had just conducted a legalized military tyranny abroad, could with difficulty find his way back to the common civic level which distinguished between those who commanded and those who obeyed, but not between masters and slaves.”—Mommsen.SITI July 31, 1901, page 3.7

Thus the refusal of the republic of Rome to extend her constitution abroad, destroyed the constitution at home; her refusal to extend republican principles to peoples abroad, subverted republican principles at home; her adoption of the principle of monarchy abroad, dragged her into monarchy at home. Thus it was that “punishment followed in the steps of wrong,” that the “demoralization of the Roman ruling class” followed “with fearful rapidity,” and the government which they themselves were conducting gave way in their own hands. And they saw that the government was giving way under their own hands; and they tried various schemes to save it. These attempts “very clearly evince the anxiety felt by the more far-seeing of the Roman statesmen as to the fruits of the seed sown. But diagnosis is not cure.” All their remedies were merely aimed at results, while the great cause was left untouched. Therefore, “the internal government of the nobility continued to follow the direction once given to it; and the decay of the administration and of the financial system—the precursor of future revolutions and usurpations—steadily pursued its course, if not unnoticed, yet unchecked.”—Mommsen.SITI July 31, 1901, page 3.8

They themselves finally recognized that the government was going fatally wrong; but then the tide had become too strong; they could not stem it. When they had taken the first step, they would not turn back; and now they had taken so many further steps that they could not turn back. They then consoled themselves that “destiny” was upon them, resigned to “destiny” their own intelligent responsibility, and dully allowed the government to drift on to what all the world knows was the greatest civil despotism that the world ever saw; this next, through a union with the apostate church, developing a religious despotism; and next the Roman government finding herself engulfed in the greatest ruin that ever befell an empire.SITI July 31, 1901, page 3.9

Such was the course of the republic of Rome from the point—the appointment of governors whose position was absolutely incompatible with the constitution, and who appeared in the position of a king—to which, in less than four swift years, the republic of the United States has step by step followed her.SITI July 31, 1901, page 3.10

Will this republic now turn back? Will the republic of the United States, even now, learn the “one lesson which history clearly teaches—that free nations can not govern subject provinces; if they are unable to unwilling to admit their dependencies to share their own constitution, the constitution itself will fall in pieces from mere incompetence for its duties”?SITI July 31, 1901, page 3.11

Will the republic of the United States learn this lesson and turn back? or will she too resign to “destiny” intelligent responsibility, and inevitably drift steadily downward to civil despotism, and religious despotism, and awful ruin?SITI July 31, 1901, page 3.12

Daily events are daily answering these questions, and are loudly declaring that the course of the republic of Rome, having been already followed so far and so exactly, will be followed to the end by the republic of the United States.SITI July 31, 1901, page 3.13

“For these reasons the fall of the Roman republic is exceptionally instructive to us.” Will the people of the American republic be instructed?SITI July 31, 1901, page 3.14

ALONZO T. JONES.

July 24, 1901

August 7, 1901