The Hatch Acts of 1939 and 1940 Source: The Records of Congress The first Hatch Act, signed by the President and in effect Aug. 2, 1939, forbids pernicious political activity by Federal employes. The second Hatch Act, signed and in force July 20, 1940, prohibits such activity on the part of State employes paid wholly or in part from Federal funds. The primary purpose of both acts is to enjoin United States Government employes from taking part in political campaigns other than voting. The 1940 act limits to $3,000,000 the annual expenditures of any political committee and to $5,000 the amount any one person or organization may contribute to national committees for campaign purposes. Local and State committees may receive and spend in excess of $5,000. The act prohibits the purchase of goods, commodities or advertising when the funds go for campaign purposes. The 1940 act applies to employes of State Highway Departments, Social Security, Welfare or Employment Departments, universities of the "land grant" type, teachers employed in schools receiving various types of Federal assistance as well as numerous others." The measure also includes within its provisions labor organizations, which must not make a contribution or loan of more than $5,000 in any year to a political party. The 1940 act reaffirms the prohibition against contributions by corporations to parties or candidates and makes the penalties of the Corrupt Practices Act apply. Prohibitions against the exploitation of those on relief were put in the 1940 and 1941 Federal relief acts. The 1939 Hatch Act makes it unlawful for any person To intimidate, threaten or coerce," to interfere with the rights of any other person to vote as he pleases in any Federal election. In a governmental administrative position-departments, independent agencies or corporations controlled by the Government-to "use his official authority for the purpose of interfering with or affecting an election for Federal office. Directly or indirectly to promise "employment, position, work, compensation or other benefit" provided for or made possible by an act of Congress, to anyone as a reward, favor or consideration for "any political activity." To deprive, threaten or attempt to deprive by any means any person of "any employment, work, compensation or other benefit" made possible by Con gressional acts on account of any political activity, race, creed or color. To solicit or be connected with such action of any assessment, subscription, or contribution for any political purpose whatever" from any person receiving compensation or employment under relief appropriations. To disclose names of persons or list of names for political purposes of persons receiving employment through acts of Congress, providing for relief, to "a political candidate, committee, campaign manager" or to anyone for delivery to such candidates, etc.; also makes it unlawful for anyone to receive the lists "for political purposes." To use any appropriation or any part of appropriations made for relief for "the purpose of interfering with, restraining, or coercing, any individual in the exercise of his right to vote at any election." The 1939 Hatch Act makes it a felony to violate the act and provides a fine of $1,000 and one year imprisonment. Makes it illegal for any administrative or supervisory employee of the Federal Government "to use his official authority or influence for the purpose of an election or affecting the results thereof,' and provides for removal of any official violating the section, and stoppage of pay. Bans Federal jobs to persons advocating "overthrow of Constitutional Government." Extends the language of the bill to cover homination contests as well as elections. The United States Department of Justice ruled, on July 16, 1941, that the Hatch Act prohibiting Federal employees from engaging in political activities, does not apply to officers of the National Guard and selectees. The opinion reversed a ruling on June 6, 1940, that the law applied to officers of the National Guard while in Federal service. Political activity of such officers and enlisted men, whether they be regular Army troops, guardsmen or selectees, is limited by existing Army regulations, which forbid Army personnel from engaging in political management or campaigns. The opinion pointed out that the penalty for violating the Hatch act is mandatory discharge from the service. "Therefore," it held, "application of the Hatch act to persons ordered or inducted into the military service under the subsequent legislation would produce an absurdity." Wills Source: General Provisions of the Laws on the Subject. A Will or Testament is a final disposition of a person's property, to take effect after his death. A codicil is an addition or alteration in such disposition. A will, or codicil, may be signed any day, includ-books heirlooms, jewelry, automobiles, etc. are not ing Sundays and legal holidays. All persons are competent to make a will except idiots, persons of unsound mind, and infants. in civil law, a minor is an infant. In many States a will of an unmarried woman is deemed revoked by her subsequent marriage. A nuncupative or unwritten will is one made orally by a soldier in active service, or by a mariner while at sea. In most of the States a will must be in writing. signed by the testator, or by some person in his presence, and by his direction, and attested by two (in some states three) witnesses who must subscribe their names thereto in the presence of the testator. Wills are of two general types. The first provides for outright distribution of an estate. The second provides for deferred distribution of part or all of an estate until conditions are more favorable. The first type should provide for the appointment of an executor; the second, for an executor and a trustee. An executor serves only long enough to close out an estate by legal process and turn it over to the beneficiaries or the trustees as directed in the will. A trustee, after receiving part or all of an estate from the executor, holds and manages it until such time as the will directs final distribution. The same person, or trust company, can act both as trustee and executor. Funds may be left to charity outright, or in trust. It is the duty of an executor to tally and appraise the estate, pay all taxes and legal claims, sell or liquidate if the will so provides, distribute the property, and make a final report to the court. If personal effects-clothing, furniture, paintings, disposed of by will, they become part of the general estate and may have to be sold in liquidation. Real estate given outright in a will does not pass through the executor's hands, the will in such a case operating as a deed. It should be stated in the will whether inheritance taxes are to be paid out of the general estate or deducted from the individual legacies. An executor and trustee can be given, in the will, the right to join in any agreement of merger, readjustment, exchange, or consolidation affecting the securities of the estate. An executor and a trustee can be given, in the will, specific authority to sell, lease, and mortgage real estate; he can be instructed to continue as well as to liquidate a business. A dower right is a widow's right to receive during her lifetime one-third of all the rents and revenues of the husband's lands. Dower and courtesy rights were abolished in New York State under a law of 1929. Husband and wife now have equal inheritance rights. Not over one-half of an estate can be devised by the owner to charity. Since Sept. 1, 1930, in New York State, a surviving spouse who is disinherited under the will from receiving what he or she would receive if the decedent had died without making a will may elect to take such share against the will. The statute, since its enactment in 1929, is substantially the same. Debts are a prior lien on the estate under the law of New York and most of the states. United States Anti-Trust Laws Source: World Almanac Questionnaire The pioneer Federal anti-trust legislation was embodied in the so-called Sherman Act of July 2, 1890, drawn by the late United States Senator John Sherman of Ohio, and supplemented by the Clayton Act of Oct. 15, 1914. That part of the Sherman Act, as amended, defining and penalizing monopoly, is as follows: Sec. 1. Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is hereby declared to be illegal: Provided, That nothing herein contained shall render illegal, contracts or agreements prescribing minimum prices for the resale of a commodity which bears, or the label or container of which bears, the trade mark, brand, or name of the producer or distributor of such commodity and which is in free and open competition with commodities of the same general class produced or distributed by others, when contracts or agreements of that description are lawful as applied to intrastate transactions, under any statute, law, or public policy now or hereafter in effect in any State, Territory, or the District of Columbia in which such resale is to be made, or to which the commodity is to be transported for such resale. and the making of such contracts or agreements shall not be an unfair method of competition under section 5, as amended and supplemented, of the Act entitled "An Act to create a Federal Trade Commission, to define its powers and duties, and for other purposes," approved September 26, 1914: Provided further, That the preceding proviso shall not make lawful any contract or agreement, providing for the establishment or maintenance of minimum resale prices on any commodity herein involved, between manufacturers, or between producers, or between wholesalers, or between brokers, or between factors, or between retailers, or between persons, firms, or corporations in competition with each other. Every person who shall make any contract or engage in any combination or conspiracy hereby declared to be illegal shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $5,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court. Sec., 2. Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed Thurman Arnold, Assistant U. S. Attorney General, in a statement before the Temporary National Economic Committee. February 12, 1941, said: "For the past 2 years the Antitrust Division has been investigating industries directly involved in the present national-defense effort. The results of the investigation indicate that: "1. The United States Government has been charged excessive and unreasonable prices for essential war materials as a result of agreement between domestic and foreign companies, and cullusive bidding on Army and Navy contracts. "3. Foreign companies have taken out patents and entered into cartel arrangements in the United States on essential war materials for the purpose and with the effect of blocking American development and creating serious shortages. "3. There have been divisions of world markets by patent agreements between domestic and foreign companies which give foreign interests the right to determine where and how the American companies may sell certain military supplies. "4. It seems probable that vital military information has been disclosed to foreign companies through the requirements of itemized descriptive royalty payments in patent license agreements. "Criminal or civil actions have been started in the aluminum, military optical goods, tungsten carbide, airplane fabric, bentonite, and magnesium industries. Grand juries are at present investigating drugs, aviation precision equipment, and surgical instruments and equipment. The pending proceedings have disclosed serious shortages of materials essential to the present emergency national-defense effort. "In aluminum, military optical goods, magnesium, and tungsten carbide, certain beneficial results guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court. Sec. 3. Every contract, combination in form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce in any Territory of the United States, or of the District of Columbia, or in restraint of trade or commerce between any such Territory and another, or between any such Territory or Territories and any State or States or the District of Columbia, or with foreign nations. or between the District of Columbia and any State or States or foreign nations, is hereby declared illegal. Every person who shall make any such contract or engage in any such combination or conspiracy, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court. The Clayton Act, as amended, prohibits price discriminations, except as to differentials "which make only due allowance for differences in the cost of manufacture, sale, or delivery resulting from the differing methods or quantities in which such commodities are to such purchasers sold or delivered." Even in such cases the Federal Trade Commission may intervene to establish quantity limits. Persons engaged in selling may select their own customers in bona fide transactions and not in restraint of trade. The act, as amended. does not prevent price changes due to market conditions or to marketability of the goods concerned "The labor of a human being," says the Clayton Act, is not a commodity or article of commerce. Nothing contained in the anti-trust laws shall be construed to forbid the existence and operation of labor, agricultural, or horticultural organizations, instituted for the purposes of mutual help, and not having capital stock or conducted for profit. or to forbid or restrain individual members of such organizations from lawfully carrying out the legitimate objects thereof; nor shall such organizations, or the members thereof, be held or construed to be illegal combinations or conspiracies in restraint of trade, under the anti-trust laws." Interlocking bank directorates are banned except as allowed by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. The monopoly provisions apply also to the railroads and other common carriers. have already been achieved by the activity of the Antitrust Division. Thus, during the aluminum case the price of aluminum dropped from 20 to 17 cents in the face of a severe shortage and a most urgent demand. In tungsten carbide--which was an unusual case-the price fell from $205 a pound to somewhere in the neighborhood of $50 a pound 2 days after the indictment. I think that answers the charge of failure of business cooperation. "In magnesium, where for the past 14 years an absolute monopoly in production was maintained by one concern, others are now preparing to enter the field in the belief that the Department of Justice will prevent the use of monopolistic power to eliminate them. In military optical goods others are also making plans to enter the industry now that they feel that the Antitrust Division has broken the monopolistic practices in this field." On the general anti-trust subject. Mr. Arnold in his report said: "It is, of course, very difficult to discuss the immense and intricate organic growth which constitutes the American business system without oversimplification which may be misleading. Subject to this elementary caution, it may be said, however, that there are two main types of problems to be faced in the administration of the antitrust laws for these purposes. "First, there are the problems created by groups within an industry which combine to exercise control over prices and production, sacrificing both employment and opportunity for new enterprise in an attempt to freeze the status quo. "Second, there are problems presented by single large industrial enterprises whose price policies whether through design or lack of foresight, block rather than promote the maximum distribution of goods which modern technique enable them to make." The Monroe Doctrine Source: Official Government and Historical Records President James Monroe in 1820 announced that the citizens of the United States wished success to the revolting Spanish colonies in South America, but that this government would maintain strict neutrality. In 1821 the Russian Emperor issued a ukase prohibiting citizens of other nations from navigating and fishing within 100 Italian miles of the northwest coast of North America south of Behring Straits to latitude 51°. In 1823 the Monroe administration denounced and defied the ukase and declared that "the American continents are no longer subjects for any new colonial establishments." Meantime the Holy Alliance of Austria, Russia and Prussia joined by France undertook "to put an end to the system of representative government" and it was proposed to overthrow new governments erected out of the old colonies of Spain in the Western Hemisphere. This was the situation (August 1823) when George Canning, British foreign secretary, wrote to Richard Rush, American minister in London, suggesting a joint declaration, in substance, that the recovery of the colonies by Spain was hopeless; that neither Great Britain nor the United States was aiming at the possession of any portion of these colonies; and that they could not see with indifference any portion of them transferred to any other power. Great Britain had not at that time recognized the new States in Spanish America but did so later, when Canning was Prime Minister. "I called the New World into existence," he said, "to redress the balance of the Old." It was after deliberation by the President and his Cabinet, which contained John Quincy Adams, Secretary of State, John C. Calhoun and William Wirt (and also after consultation with Thomas Jefferson, who approved), that the American position was formally stated in Monroe's message (Dec. 2, 1823) asserting, "as a principle in which the rights and interests of the United States are involved, that the American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers. It is only when our rights are invaded or seriously menaced that we resent injuries or make preparation for our defense. With the movements in this hemisphere we are of necessity more immediately connected and by causes which must be obvious to all enlightened and impartial observers. The political system of the allied powers is essentially different in this respect from that of America. This difference proceeds from that which exists in their respective Governments. And to the defense of our own, which has been achieved by the loss of so much blood and treasure, and matured by the wisdom of their most enlightened citizens, and under which we have enjoyed unexampled felicity, this whole nation is devoted. "We owe it, therefore, to candor and to the ami cable relations existing between the United States and those powers to declare that we should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety. With the existing colonies or dependencies of any European power we have not interfered and shall not interfere. "But with the Governments who have declared their independence and maintained it, and whose independence we have, on great consideration and on just principles, acknowledged, we could not view any interposition for the purpose of oppressing them, or controlling in any other manner their destiny, by any European power in any other light than as the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United States. "It is still the true policy of the United States to leave the parties to themselves, in the hope that other powers will pursue the same course." "Our policy in regard to Europe... remains the same, which is, not to interfere in the internal concerns of any of its Powers; to consider the government de facto as the legitimate government for us; to cultivate friendly relations with it, and to preserve those relations by a frank, firm and manly policy, meeting in all instances, the just claims of every Power, submitting to injuries from none. "In the wars of the European Powers in matters relating to themselves we have never taken any part, nor does it comport with our policy so to do. It is only when our rights are invaded or seriously menaced that we resent injuries or make preparation for our defense with the movements in this hemisphere we are, of necessity, more immediately connected." In the first draft of his message, Monroe showed concern over internal developments in Europe. Adams advised him to eliminate that part on the ground that it was poor policy, that it would take from the message much of the force which would be given it if it were grounded solely on the fundamental principle of self-defense. Adams had his way, although not without a struggle in the Cabinet. The United States Government sent to Germany and Italy (June 17, 1940) the following note: The Government of the United States is informed that the government of France has requested of the German Government the terms of an armistice. The Government of the United States feels it desirable, in order to avoid any possible misunderstanding, to inform Your Excellency that in accordance with its traditional policy relating to the Western Hemisphere the United States would not recognize any transfer and would not acquiesce in any attempt to transfer any geographic region of the Western Hemisphere from one non-American power to another non-American power." French, British and Dutch Governments received similar notices. Developments of the Convention at Havana Sources: Various Government Records lombia, Venezuela, Peru. The American Republics which have appointed representatives on the emergency committee provided for in the Act of Habana are the United States, Bolivia, Brazil, Costa Rica, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, and Venezuela. Instruments of ratification of the Convention | vations-Argentina, Uruguay, Bolivia, Chile, Coon the Provisional Administration of European Colonies and Possessions in the Americas signed at Havana on July 30, 1940, by the 21 American Republics, have been deposited by the following: The United States on October 24, 1940; the Dominican Republic on November 28, 1940: Costa Rica on December 17, 1940; Brazil on January 14, 1941; Peru on April 4, 1941; and Panama on May 13. 1941. The Convention provides in Article XIX that it shall enter into force when two-thirds of the American Republics have deposited their instruments of ratification with the Pan American Union, Washington, D. C. an The Act of Habana, contained in the Final Act of the Second Meeting of the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the American Republics at Habana, which also was signed on July 30, 1940, by representatives of the 21 American Republics, provides for the administration of European Colonies and Possessions in the Americas in cases of emergency through an emergency committee which is given authority to apply the provisions of the Convention before the coming into force of the Convention. The Act of Habana entered into force on the day of signature in respect of the United States and all the other American Republics except the States which signed with reser The Act of Habana and the Convention were approved by the Colombian Chamber of Representatives on October 2, 1940, and by the Legislative Assembly of El Salvador and the ratifications thereof by El Salvador were signed by the President of El Salvador on November 27, 1940. President Somoza of Nicaragua, issued an executive decree dated December 3, 1940, approving the action of the Nicaragua Foreign Minister at Habana in relation to the Final Act of the Second Meeting of Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the American Republics. By Congressional Decree No. 8 of December 23. 1940, the Honduran National Legislature gave its approval to the ratification of the Convention. The Congress of Peru in joint session on January 28, 1941, approved by unanimous vote the favorable report of the Diplomatic Committee of Congress for the ratification of the Convention. In the Agreement between the United States and Denmark relating to the Defense of Greenland, signed at Washington on April 9, 1941 (Article 1) it is stated that the Government of the United States of America, having in mind its obligations under the Act of Habana signed on July 30, 1940, accepts the responsibility of assisting Greeland in the maintenance of its present status." In compliance with Resolution I of the abovementioned Final Act, the American Neutrality Committee at Rio de Janeiro has formulated a Draft Convention on the Security Zone. The Governments of Mexico and the United States have agreed to an exchange of views in order to coordinate suitably the progress of their common defense. Project on Refugees The Project on Refugees was referred to the Pan American Union where a special committee studied that project. The Board of Governors of the Pan American Union, under date of October 2, 1940. resolved, in conformity with the proposal of the special committee, and recommended that the International American Institute for the Protection of Childhood should propose to the said Governments the measures which could be taken individually or collectively to put this humanitarian purpose into effect." According to a communication dated December 20, 1940, from the Institute to the Secretary of State the Board of that Institute approved on December 16, 1940, the report entitled "America Helps the European Children," containing the recommendations referred to and prepared by Professor Emilio Fournié, Chief of the Institute. The Governing Board of the Pan American Union at its session held on December 4, 1940, approved a report providing for the establishment of a committee of five members on the peaceful solution of conflicts, in accordance with Resolution XIV relating to the peaceful solution of conflicts. Resolution XXIII relating to the Pan American Highway recommended that every effort be made with a view to the prompt and efficacious completion of the various sections of the highway. In this connection the President of the United States on May 1, 1941, transmitted a message to the Congress requesting an appropriation of $20,000,000 to provide for cooperation with Central American republics in construction of the Inter-American Highway. The bill passed the Senate on May 26, 1941. Resolution XXV on general economic cooperation provided for the expansion of the activities of the Inter-American Financial and Economic Advisory Committee as an instrument for continuing consultation among the American republics with respect to economic and trade matters and arrangements. It was resolved that the Committee should proceed forthwith to study the following matters: (a) Possible measures for increasing the domestic consumption in each country of its own exportable surpluses: (b) Proposal of immediate measures and arrangements of mutual benefit to increase trade among the American republics; (c) Creation of instruments of inter-American cooperation for the temporary storing, financing and handling of exportable surpluses; (d) Development of commodity arrangements with a view to assuring equitable terms of trade for both producers and consumers; (e) Recommendation of methods of improving the standard of living of the peoples of the Americas, including public health and nutrition measures; (1) Establishment of organizations for the distribution of surplus commodities as a humanitarian and social relief measure. Advisory Committee Active The Inter-American Financial and Economic Advisory Committee has been active in following up these matters. The Inter-American Coffee Agreement was signed on November 28, 1940. At the invitation of the Committee the Inter-American Maritime Conference met at the Pan American Union in Washington from November 25 to December 2, 1940. The United States on its part has moved forward in many directions with economic cooperation with the other American republics, utilizing the Export-Import Bank, the Treasury's stabilization fund and many other agencies. Impeachments in United States History Source: Official Government Records Under the Constitution, the President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States are liable to impeachment for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors," and, on conviction, shall be removed from office. The House of Representatives has the sole power of impeachment. The Senate has the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose the members are on oath or affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides. No conviction is had except by the concurrence of two-thirds of the members present. Judgment in cases of impeachment does not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States; but the person convicted "shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law." Impeachments to date have been: (1) William Blount, one of the first two Senators from Tennessee, accused of treason and sedition, in having plotted to aid Great Britain in wresting Florida and the Louisiana territory from Spain. The Senate, 25 to 1, expelled Blount, July 8, 1797. The House, Dec. 4, 1797, impeached him, and the impeachment trial began Dec. 17, 1798. His counsel said the Senate had lost jurisdiction when it expelled Blount. The Senate, agreed to that view of the case, and dismissed the impeachment. (2) John Pickering, Judge of the District Court for New Hampshire; impeached 1803 for drunkenness and disregard of the terms of the statutes; trial March 3 to March 12, 1804; vote 19 guilty, 7 not guilty: verdict, guilty; punishment, removal from office. (3) Samuel Chase, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States; impeached 1804 for misconduct at trials of persons charged with breach of the Sedition Law; trial Nov. 30, 1804, to March 1, 1805; verdict acquittal. (4) James Peck, Judge of the District Court for Missouri; impeached for tyrannous treatment of counsel, 1830; vote, 21 guilty, 22 not guilty, verdict, acquittal. (5) West H. Humphreys, Judge of the District Court for Tennessee, impeached 1862 for supporting the secession movement and unlawfully acting as Judge of the Confederate District Court; trial May 22 to June 26, 1862; verdict, guilty: punishment, removal from office. (6) Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, impeached for usurpation of the law, corrupt use of the veto power, interference at elections and high crimes and misdemeanors; trial, March 30 to May 26, 1868; vote, guilty, 35, not guilty, 19; verdict, acquittal. (7) William W. Belknap, Secretary of War, impeached for accepting bribes; trial, April 5 to Aug. 1, 1876. A question as to jurisdiction was raised; verdict, acquittal. (8) Charles Swayne, Judge of the District Court for Florida; impeached 1905 for misconduct in office; trial Feb. 6 to Feb. 27, 1905; vote, 55 guilty, 37 not guilty; verdict acquittal. (9) Robert W. Archbald, Associate Judge of the Commerce Court, was impeached July 11, 1912, on articles charging him with corrupt collusion with coal mine owners and railroad officials while in office. Verdict, guilty; removal from office. (10) United States District Judge, Alston G Dayton, of West Virginia, was impeached, June 12, 1914; proceedings abandoned March 3, 1915. (11) George W. English, U. S. District Judge, East. Dist., Ill. The House, April 1, 1926, voted his impeachment. He resigned. (12) Harold Louderback, U. S. District Judge, at San Francisco. It was charged that he had profited pecuniarily by the appointment of receivers and had shown favoritism. The Senate, on May 24, 1933, voted on the indictment, and he was acquitted. (13) Halsted L. Ritter, U. S. District Judge in Southern Florida. He had been impeached on charges as to financial transaction growing out of or associated with fees allowed to lawyers. There were 7 counts, on 6 he was acquitted, on the seventh he was voted guilty, 56 to 28, and the Senate on April 17, 1936, removed him from office, after having, by 76 to 0, voted not to extend the punishment to disqualification to hold office. DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE The Declaration of Independence was adopted by the Continental Congress, in Philadelphia, on July 4, 1776, and was signed by John Hancock as President and by Charles Thompson as Secretary. It was published first on July 6 in the Pennsylvania Evening Post. A copy of the Declaration, engrossed on parchment, was signed by members of Congress on and after Aug. 2, 1776. When, in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another. and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evidence a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of the necessity these Colonies; and such is now which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world. He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good. He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained, and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them. He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only. He has called together legislative bodies at places, unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures. He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people. He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within. He has endeavored to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither. and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands. He has obstructed the Administration of Justice. by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers. He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries. He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance. He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies, without the Consent of our legislatures. He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power. He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation: For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us: For protecting them by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States: For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world: For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent: For depriving us in many cases of the benefits of Trial by Jury: For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offenses: For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies: For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments: For suspending our own Legislatures and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever. He has abdicated Government here by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us. He has plundered our seas, ravished our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people. He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with of cruelty and perfidy scarcely circumstances paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation. He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands. He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Sayages, whose known rule of warfare is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions. In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms. Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people. Nor have We been wanting in attention to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must. therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends. WE, THEREFORE, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions do, in the Name, and by authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be, Free and Independent States: that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is and ought to be totally dissolved: and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War. conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor. |