stood. It should be remembered that Poland was a republican state surrounded by monarchial powers—that her appreciation of freedom and equality based on the dignity of the individual-her early attempt at popular voting-her early appreciation of "a government by the consent of the governed" though they ill compared with the policy of the centralistic powers which surrounded her, they nevertheless denoted Poland's political competency in the light of the now political doctrines. Poland cannot be justly judged by the present, much perfected, system of popular voting. In putting the republican theory into practice, she necessarily stumbled over unforeseen obstacles.

Poland cannot be made to respond for the "anarchy" Russia and Prussia unceasingly fomented among her people in an effort to find a pretext for bringing the country to ruin. Perhaps it would be just as correct to attribute to Poland her alleged incapacity to self-govern as a result of her anarchy external powers did everything to encourage, as it would be right to say that the

'President Wilson-Message to the Senate, January 22, 1917.

Belgians are unable to self-govern because they could not stay the onrush of the German army in 1914. "Catherine," says Sir James MacKintosh,1"was the great criminal. She had for eight years oppressed, betrayed and ravaged Polandimposed a king on that country-prevented all reformation of the government-fomented divisions among the nobility-and in one word created and maintained that anarchy which she at length used as a pretense for dismemberment." "Since the last century," says Moltke," "Poland had been accustomed to seeing Russian armies within its boundaries, sometimes to protect the so-called oppressed dissenters, preserve the freedom of the nobility, that is the anarchy so necessary to the neighbor, another time to keep the "Liberum Veto" in force; for after public opinion had condemned it, Russian arms continued to restore it." Such is the nature of the "Polish anarchy" and the extent of responsibility that should be attributed not to Poland, but to the usurpers of Poland.

*

*

once to

1 An account of the Partitions of Poland-Edinburgh Review, Vol. XXXVII.

2 Account of Affairs and Social Conditions in Poland.

CHAPTER X.

THE "LIBERUM VETO."

If it seems utterly inexplicable that a legislalature would thus surrender (by virtue of the Liberum Veto) all its power, a medieval Pole might with reason retort, that in the American Senate unlimited debate is even now permitted, that according to high parliamentary authority, the great bulk of legislation is done virtually by unanimous consent, and, most suggestive of all, that a single member by a point of order, may strike from a supply bill any proposed limitation on the use of the funds."

-Judson C. Williver-Poland's Story-Century Magazine, May, 1915.

Quite a logical development of the Liberal constitution of Poland was the law of unanimity, commonly known as the "Liberum Veto." In its simplest form, it was a power or privilege enjoyed by every deputy in the Polish senate to prevent any measure from becoming a law by calling

out "Liberum Veto." It was based on the common assumption' of the absolute equality of every Polish nobleman, and its consequent corollary, that the majority had no right to impose laws which would conflict with the interest of the minority, even should the minority consist of a single deputy. If, then, a single deputy believed that a measure at issue was at variance with the good of his constituency, he was free to rise and call out: "Liberum Veto," when the measure at once fell to the ground. At its fullest development, the Liberum Veto gave any single deputy the power to suspend at any time, and for any reason, the proceedings of the Diet, when all the measures already passed became null and void, and if they were to become laws at all, they had to be resubmitted at the next Diet. In itself, and without relation to its origin and the nature of the Polish government and the civic virtues of the old Polish nobles, the law of unanimity appears visious in its nature, dangerous in its application and out of keeping with all the prin1 1 Bain.

ciples of good government. But if it is left in its proper element, and judged, not as isolated, but in relation to its origin and those factors which rendered it harmless and inoffensive, it assumes the character of a useful law rather than a vicious

measure.

The Liberum Veto owed its origin to the democratic spirit of the Poles, and developed as a corollary to the absolute equality of the noblemen. It was a practical measure when it was necessary to cut short lengthy debates, when Poland was constantly exposed to the inroads of the Eastern barbarians, and when the Dietines had to act quickly and decisively in the face of ever-threatening danger. The law of unanimity extended further than the Polish nation. Charlemagne enacted a law which required unanimity in legislative assemblies. It was also found in the early Sabori or conventions in Russia.

To properly appreciate the nature of the Liberum Veto, and to arrive at a fair knowledge of its practicability, it is necessary to review it in its potential stage, where it was originally intended to be confined. This stage covered the