party of progress and the party of conservatism are the same in the different stages of the development of the state; whereas the truth is that the party of progress in one stage is naturally the conservative party of the succeeding stage. What is it that enables us to identify a particular organization at different points in its career? Identity of name does not of necessity signify identity of character. The only satisfactory way by which to establish this identity is through an examination of party principles; if these are the same, the party is the same; if these have undergone essential change, the party has undergone a corresponding change. Each party comes into being, in order to secure the recognition of certain principles; every great party comes into being, in order to secure the adoption of principles that are essential to the welfare of the state during the particular phase of its development which gives birth to that particular party. So long as it is engaged in securing the recognition of these principles, it is the party of progress; as soon as this recognition is complete, the party becomes conservative; its main function thenceforth is to guard the work that it has already done; but in doing this it becomes naturally the protector of the established order as a whole. This function continues, until either its work is so thoroughly accepted that the risk of successful attack upon it passes away, or another party that can discharge better this conserving function appears upon the scene, or lastly, that the time has arrived when the work under consideration has ceased to be of service. Whenever any one of these events happens, the conservative mission of that party is at an end.

But these two functions, first, that of making such changes in the public policy as are necessary in order to bring it into accord with the principles of a party, and second, that of guarding the changes until they are fully accepted or cease to be needed, comprise the whole of a party's mission, and when its mission is fulfilled, the party must die. In the history of the United States two of the four great parties and a considerable number of minor parties have already disappeared. The immediate cause of dissolution is to be found

in the exhaustion of vital energy; but this exhaustion is due to that fine and just economy of the state, in accordance with which at the birth of each party, and from time to time during its career, enough and only enough energy is bestowed to enable it to accomplish its appointed tasks. As soon as these are completed, the supplies are withheld or diverted to other parties whose work is still to do. This happens, not only whenever the work which a party consciously undertakes is fully done, but also whenever another party that appears later on the scene can take up and prosecute this work more effectively. The Federalist party dissolved, because its work was done; the useful things which it set out to do, it accomplished so thoroughly that its successor in office did not dare - and soon did not even wish to disturb them. The Liberty and Freesoil parties, on the contrary, dissolved, because the Republican party could do better than they themselves the work which they undertook.

Without dwelling further on the fact and cause of party mortality, what shall we say in reply to the question, Are there signs that betoken the dissolution of a party? Yes, but they vary greatly in respect to trustworthiness. Perhaps the surest one of them all is inability to provide for a new and dominant want of the state. In 1800 the time had come for the people to take a large part in the control of government; the good of the masses as well as the good of the Union as a whole demanded this; but the Federalists, who believed in confining the management of public affairs to the wealthier and better educated classes, could not provide for this want. In 1854 the time had come when the issue between the two labor systems of the country, or rather of the two civilizations that were based upon these labor systems, could no longer be settled, or even for any considerable period postponed, by compromises; but the Whig party had employed this method in dealing with that issue, until it believed in and could practice no other; hence it had to give place to a new party, the corner stone of whose policy was to settle the issue in question through giving victory to the free labor system.

Another sign is the appearance of faction. This, however, does not always portend dissolution. It is indeed a common phenomenon, whenever a party has become swollen beyond its proper size by the reception of incongruous elements, — elements, that is, whose principles are at variance with those which are distinctive of the party. As soon as the influences which led to the union cease to operate or become appreciably weakened, dissensions and secessions naturally follow. This happened to the Democratic-Republican party between 1815 and 1829. During the preceding fifteen years, owing to the pressure of danger from foreign enemies, and in some measure also to the unwise course of the Federalists, the party received into its membership many who were not in principle Democratic. With the close of the War of 1812, the pressure which had shaped public policy with little or no reference to party principles ceased. These principles then came again to the front as guiding and indeed controlling factors in the determination of public policy. So long as a protective tariff was a war measure, all good citizens could give it their support; as soon, however, as it became a measure whose wisdom must be decided mainly on economic grounds, difference of party principles, as well as the clashing of interests between class and class and section and section, had to be reckoned with. As these differences develop, it would become impossible for Clay and Calhoun to work together as members of the same party. The Republican party had a like experience after the war, and for like reasons. In all such cases the appearance of faction has no sinister meaning; it is, in fact, a sign that the party is making preparation for the renewal of its proper activity, -a preparation in which separation from those who do not accept its principles is a first and essential step. But when faction arises, not so much from difference of principle as from a loosened hold on principles, when motives that are mainly personal or sectional take the place of principles, the factions thus arising are symptoms of a disease that is dangerous, if not mortal.

A third sign is pessimism. A party which is in vigorous

health and has within itself the energy and hopefulness which win confidence and promise success will always make the best of even the least promising situation. It is when the energy of a party is spent, and when, too, it has lost touch with the movement of the times that the Cassandra faculty is called into exercise. It is true that young parties are sometimes pessimistic, but some parties, like some persons, are "born old."

The fact that parties are mortal is unwelcome. We all belong to parties and, in varying but usually high degree, desire for our own an unlimited existence. But reflection should convince us that this is not for the best. The good of parties, not less than the good of the state, demands that, when the work of a party is fully done, it should then withdraw and make room for another party, whose work belongs to the present and the future. The state cannot afford to maintain what has ceased to be of use, and the moment the work of a party is done, it falls under the control of the agencies of decay; its last days are never its best days; on the contrary its conduct steadily deteriorates, until there is danger that the incapacity and perversity which mark its end will efface the memory of its earlier services. This is particularly true of great parties. The very prominence of the rôle they act during the period of their usefulness makes it harder for them to withdraw decorously, when new actors are to take their places. In point here is the unworthy exit of the Federalists. Moreover the strongest partisan may find consolation in reflecting that, if his party like himself is mortal, its good work, as truly as his own, will endure as a part of the moral treasure of his people and of mankind.

A

IV

THE POLITICS OF JOHN ADAMS1

T THE age of twenty-three John Adams wrote in his diary the following words:

"Aim at an exact knowledge of the nature, end and means of government. Compare the different forms of it with each other and each of them with their effects on public and private happiness." This programme he carried out. To the end of his life "no romance was more entertaining" than politics. They were to him the "divine science, the grandest, the noblest, the most useful . . . in the whole circle" of sciences; and his study of them was characterized by breadth and depth as well as zeal. The principles of government, so he wrote his kinsman, Samuel Adams, are to be found by the observation and study of "human nature, society and universal history." He acquainted himself thoroughly with the political theories of the great writers, ancient and modern - the works of Lord Bolingbroke, for example, he read through more than five times although, in his opinion, the author was "a haughty, arrogant, supercilious dogmatist"; but he owed far more to the direct study of "human nature, society and universal history" than to the conclusions of the philosophers. As a rule he quotes to refute; and his work presents in every part unmistakable signs of an original, independent, and profound thinker.

Public events soon gave to these studies a fresh impulse and at the same time a practical turn. Two years after the entry given above, John Adams listened to the plea of James Otis against the Writs of Assistance. It was an event of profound

1 The American Historical Review, Vol. IV, January, 1899.