so as to secure the highest individual and national well-being.  It does not mean freedom to establish certain codes of procedure under certain regulations, and to be forever bound under these when the preservation of liberty itself demands their temporary abeyance.  So long as the Government fulfils the wishes of the people, it is not arbitrary, it is not despotic, no matter what methods an emergency may require it to adopt for this purpose, or in what manner it ascertains these wishes; provided always that the methods adopted and the modes of ascertainment are also in accordance with the people’s desires.

But how is the Executive to discover the will of the people if he does not wait for its formal expression?  How is he to be sure that he does not outrun their desires?  How is he to be checked and punished, should he do so?  Precisely the same law must apply here as has been indicated to be the true one in reference to the fulfilment of the people’s behest.  Fixed, definite, precise, formal expressions of popular will, when time is wanting for these, must be replaced by those which are more quickly ascertained and less systematically expressed.  The Executive must forecast the general desire and forestall its commands, regarding the tacit acceptance of the people or their informal laws, such as resolutions, conventions, and various modes of expressing popular accord or dissent, as indications of the course which they approve.  Nor is this an anomaly in our legal system.  The citizen ordinarily is not at liberty to take the law into his own hands; he must appeal to the constituted authorities, and through the machinery of a law court obtain his redress or protection.  But there are times when contingencies arise in which more wrong would be done by such delay than by a summary process transcending the customary law.  The man who sees a child, a woman, or even an animal treated with cruelty, does not wait to secure protection for the injured party by the common methods of legal procedure, but, on the instant, prevents, with blows if need be, the outrage.  He oversteps the forms of law to secure the ends of law, and rests in the consciousness that the law itself will accept his action.  When the case is more desperate, his usurpation of power generally prohibited to him is still greater, up to that last extremity in which he deliberately takes the whole law into his own hands, and, acting as accuser, witness, judge, executioner, slays the individual who assaults him with deadly weapons or with hostile intent.

In this case now stands the nation.  Along her borders flashes the steel of hostile armies, their cannon thunder almost in hearing of our capitol, their horses but recently trampled the soil of neighboring States.  A deadly enemy is trying to get its gripe upon the republic’s throat and its knife into her heart.  The nation must act as an individual would under similar circumstances; and the nation must act through its Executive.  If one person, attacked