life which has gradually called into being—­which has created and dictated—­the rules and sanctions protecting it.  The same is the case with bequest, marriage, and so forth.  The conduct of civilised men is bound to conform to laws, but the laws must first conform to general human practice.  They merely give precision to conduct which has a deeper origin than legislation.  Laws, in fact, may be compared to soldiers’ uniforms.  These, within certain limits, may be varied indefinitely by a war-office; but they all must be such as will adapt themselves to the human body and its movements.  The will of a government may prescribe that the trousers shall be tight or loose, that they shall be black or brown or bright green or vermilion.  But no government can prescribe that they shall be only three inches round the waist, or that the soldier’s sleeves shall start, not from the shoulders, but from the pockets of the coat-tails.  The human body is here a legislator which is supreme over all governments; and just the same thing is true with regard to the human character.

Now, the curious thing with regard to “X” is that he is all along assuming this fundamental fact himself; though he utterly fails to put two and two together, and see how this fact conflicts with the omnipotence which he ascribes to legislation.  Let us go back to the assertion, which embodies his whole practical argument, that the majority of the voters in New York State could, without interfering with the activity of any one of its citizens, limit incomes in any manner they pleased, and alienate with even greater ease the property of every man at his death; and let us see what he hastens to say as the sequel to this oracular utterance.

These powers of the sovereign majority, which he is apparently so anxious to invoke, would, he says, be practically much less formidable in their action than timid persons might anticipate.  And why should they be less formidable?  “Because,” says “X,” “although each man, by reason of his manhood alone, has an equal voice with every other man in making the laws governing their common country, and regulating the distribution of the common property ... yet immense and incalculable differences exist in men’s natural capacities for rendering honest service to society.  Encouragement should, therefore, be given to every man to use all the gifts which he possesses to the fullest extent possible; and, accordingly, reasonable accumulations and the descent of these should be respected.”  They should, he says, be respected.  Yes—­but for what reason?  Because they encourage exceptional men, whose services are essential to society, to develop and use their capacities to “the fullest extent possible”; and this is merely another way of saying that, without the motive provided by the possibility of accumulation and bequest, the exceptional faculties would not be developed or used at all.  Moreover, the amounts which may be accumulated and bequeathed,