ººº-
|Abadie
toū ſtron
A LETTER
To
THOMAS F, BAYARD.
CHALLENGING HIS RIGHT - AND THAT OF ALL THE
OTHER So-CaLLED senators AND REPRE-
SENTATIVES IN congress –
TO EXERCISE ANY LEGISLATIVE POWER WHATEVER
OVER THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES.
BY LYSANDER SPOONER.
--
BOSTON, Mass.:
PUBLISHED BY THE AUTHOR.
1882.




L ETTE R.
To Thomas F. Bayard, of Delaware:
SIR,--I have read your letter to Rev. Lyman Abbott, in
which you express the opinion that it is at least possible for a
man to be a legislator, (under the Constitution of the United
States,) and yet be an honest man.
This proposition implies that you hold it to be at least pos-
sible that some four hundred men should, by some process or
other, become invested with the right to make laws of their
own-that is, laws wholly of their own device, and therefore
necessarily distinct from the law of nature, or the principles
of natural justice; and that these laws of their own making
shall be really and truly obligatory upon the people of the
United States; and that, therefore, the people may rightfully
be compelled to obey them.
All this implies that you are of the opinion that the Congress
of the United States, of which you are a member, has, by some
process or other, become possessed of some right of arbitrary
dominion over the people of the United States; which right of
arbitrary dominion is not given by, and is, therefore, neces-
sarily in conflict with, the law of nature, the principles of
natural justice, and the natural rights of men, as individuals.
All this is necessarily implied in the idea that the Congress
now possesses any right whatever to make any laws whatever,
of its own device—that is, any laws that shall be either more,
less, or other than that natural law, which it can neither make,
unmake, nor alter—and cause them to be enforced upon the
people of the United States, or any of them, against their will.
You assume that the right of arbitrary dominion—that is,




4.
the right of making laws of their own device, and compelling
obedience to them—is a “trust” that has been delegated to
those who now exercise that power. You call it “the trust of
public power.”
But, Sir, you are mistaken in supposing that any such power
has ever been delegated, or ever can be delegated, by any
body, to any body.
Any such delegation of power is naturally impossible, for
these reasons, viz.:-
1. No man can delegate, or give to another, any right of
arbitrary dominion over himself; for that would be giving
himself away as a slave. And this no one can do. Any con-
tract to do so is necessarily an absurd one, and has no validity.
To call such a contract a “constitution,” or by any other
high-sounding name, does not alter its character as an absurd
and void contract.
2. No man can delegate, or give to another, any right of
arbitrary dominion over a third person; for that would imply
a right in the first person, not only to make the third person
his slave, but also a right to dispose of him as a slave to still
other persons. Any contract to do this is necessarily a crim-
inal one, and therefore invalid. To call such a contract a
“Constitution” does not at all lessen its criminality, or add to
its validity.
These facts, that no man can delegate, or give away, his
own natural right to liberty, nor any other man's natural
right to liberty, prove that he can delegate no right of arbitrary
dominion whatever—or, what is the same thing, no legislative
power whatever—over himself or any body else, to any man,
or body of men.
This impossibility of any man's delegating any legislative
power whatever necessarily results from the fact, that the law
of nature has drawn the line, and the only line-and that, too,
5
/…a sº-

a line that can never be effaced nor removed—between each
man's own inherent and inalienable rights of person and prop-
erty, and each and every other man's inherent and inalienable
rights of person and property. It, therefore, necessarily fixes
the unalterable limits, within which every man may rightfully
seek his own happiness, in his own way, free from all responsi-
bility to, or interference by, his fellow men, or any of them.
All this pretended delegation of legislative power—that is,
of a power, on the part of the legislators, so-called, to make
any laws of their own device, distinct from the law of nature-
is therefore an entire falsehood; a falsehood, whose only pur-
pose is to cover and hide a pure usurpation, by one body of
men, of arºitrary dominion over other men.
That this legislative power, or power of arbitrary dominion,
is a pure usurpation, on the part of those who now exercise it,
and not “a trust” delegated to them, is still further proved by
the fact that the only delegation of power, that is even pro-
fessed or pretended to be made, is made secretly—that is, by
secret ballot—and not in any open and authentic manner; and
therefore not by any men, or body of men, who make them-
selves personally responsible, as principals, for the acts of
those to whom they profess to delegate the power.
All this pretended delegation of power having been made
secretly—that is, only by secret ballot—not a single one of all
the legislators, so-called, who profess to be exercising only a
delegated power, has himself any legal knowledge, or can offer
any legal proof, as to who the particular individuals were,
who delegated it to him. And having no power to identify the
individuals who professed to delegate the power to him, he can-
not show any legal proof that any body ever even attempted
or pretended to delegate it to him.
Plainly a man, who exercises any arbitrary dominion over
other men, and who claims to be exercising only a delegated
power, but cannot show who his principals are, nor, conse-

6
quently, prove that he has any principals, must be presumed,
both in law and reason, to have no principals; and therefore
to be exercising no power but his own. And having, of right,
no such power of his own, he is, both in law and reason, a
naked usurper.
Sir, a secret ballot makes a secret government; and a secret
government is a government by conspiracy; in which the peo-
ple at large can have no rights. And that is the only govern-
ment we now have. It is the government of which you are
a voluntary member, and supporter, and yet you claim to be
an honest man. If you are an honest man, is not your hon-
esty that of a thoughtless, ignorant man, who merely drifts
with the current, instead of exercising any judgment of his
own 2
For still another reason, all legislators, so-called, under the
Constitution of the United States, are exercising simply an ar-
bitrary and irresponsible dominion of their own; and not any
authority that has been delegated, or pretended to have been
delegated, to them. And that reason is, that the Constitution
itself (Art. 1, Sec. 6) prescribes that:-
“For any speech or debate º vote] in eitherhouse, they [the
Senators and Representatives] shall not be questioned [held to
any legal responsibility] in any other place.”
This provision makes the legislators constitutionally irrespon-
sible to anybody; either to those on whom they exercise their
power, or to those who may have, either openly or secretly,
attempted or pretended to delegate power to them. And men,
who are legally responsible to nobody for their acts, cannot
truly be said to be the agents of any body, or to be exercising
any power but their own: for all real agents are necessarily
responsible both to those on whom they act, and to those for
whom they act.
To say that the people of this country ever have bound, or
ever could bind, themselves by any contract whatever—the

7
Constitution, or any other—to thus give away all their natural
rights of property, liberty, and life, into the hands of a few
men—a mere conclave—and that they should make it a part
of the contract itself that these few men should be held legally
irresponsible for the disposal they should make of those rights,
is an utter absurdity. It is to say that they have bound them-
selves, and that they could bind themselves, by an utterly
idiotic and suicidal contract.
If such a contract had ever been made by one private indi-
vidual to another, and had been signed, sealed, witnessed, ac-
knowledged, and delivered, with all possible legal formalities,
no decent court on earth-certainly none in this country-
would have regarded it, for a moment, as conveying any right,
or delegating any power, or as having the slightest legal valid
ity, or obligation.
For all the reasons now given, and for still others that might
be given, the legislative power now exercised by Congress, is,
in both law and reason, a purely personal, arbitrary, irrespon-
sible, usurped dominion on the part of the legislators them-
selves, and not a power delegated to them by anybody.
Yet under the pretence that this instrument gives them the
right of an arbitrary and irresponsible dominion over the
whole people of the United States, Congress has now gone
on, for ninety years and more, filling great volumes with laws
of their own device, which the people at large have never read,
nor even seen, nor ever will read or see; and of whose legal
meanings it is morally impossible that they should ever know
anything. Congress has never dared to require the people
even to read these laws. Had it done so, the oppression would
have been an intolerable one; and the people, rather than en-
dure it, would have either rebelled, and overthrown the gov-
ernment, or would have fled the country. Yet these laws,
which Congress has not dared to require the people even to read,
it has compelled them, at the point of the bayonet, to obey.

8
And this moral, and legal, and political monstrosity is the
kind of government which Congress claims that the Constitu-
tion authorizes it to impose upon the people.
Sir, can you say that such an arbitrary and irresponsible do-
minion as this, over the properties, liberties, and lives of fifty
millions of people—or even over the property, liberty, or life
of any one of those fifty millions—can be justified on any
reason whatever? If not, with what color of truth can you
say that you yourself, or anybody else, can act as a legislator,
under the Constitution of the United States, and yet be an
honest man?
To say that the arbitrary and irresponsible dominion, that is
exercised by Congress, has been delegated to it by the Consti-
tution, and not solely by the secret ballots of the voters for the
time being, is the height of absurdity; for what is the Consti-
tution? It is, at best, a writing that was drawn up more than
ninety years ago; was assented to at the time only by a small
number of men; generally those few white male adults who
had prescribed amounts of property; probably not more than
two hundred thousand in all; or one in twenty of the whole
population.
Those men have been long since dead. They never had any
right of arbitrary dominion over even their contemporaries;
and they never had any over us. Their wills or wishes have
no more rightful authority over us, than have the wills or
wishes of men who lived before the flood. They never per-
sonally signed, sealed, acknowledged, or delivered, or dared to
sign, seal, acknowledge, or deliver, the instrument which they
imposed upon the country as law. They never, in any open
and authentic manner, bound even themselves to obey it, or
made themselves personally responsible for the acts of their
so-called agents under it. They had no natural right to im-
pose it, as law, upon a single human being. The whole pro-
ceeding was a pure usurpation.

9
In practice, the Constitution has been an utterfraud from the
beginning. Professing to have been “ordained and estab-
lished” by “We, the people of the United States,” it has never
been submitted to them, as individuals, for their voluntary ac-
ceptance or rejection. They have never been asked to sign,
seal, acknowledge, or deliver it, as their free act and deed.
They have never signed, sealed, acknowledged, or delivered it,
or promised, or laid themselves under any kind of obligation,
to obey it. Very few of them have ever read, or even seen it;
or ever will read or see it. Of its legal meaning (if it can be
said to have any) they really know nothing; and never did,
nor ever will, know anything.
why is it, Sir, that such an instrument as the Constitution,
for which nobody has been responsible, and of which few per-
sons have ever known anything, has been suffered to stand,
for the last ninety years, and to be used for such audacious
and criminal purposes? It is solely because it has been sus-
tained by the same kind of conspiracy as that by which it was
established; that is, by the wealth and the power of those few
who were to profit by the arbitrary dominion it was assumed
to give them over others, while the poor, the weak, and the
ignorant, who were to be cheated, plundered, and enslaved by
it, have been told, and some of them doubtless made to believe,
that it is a sacred instrument, designed for the preservation of
their rights.
These cheated, plundered, and enslaved persons have been
made to feel, if not to believe, that the Constitution had such
miraculous power, that it could authorize the majority (or even
a plurality) of the male adults, for the time being—a majority
numbering at this time, say, five millions in all—to exercise,
through their agents, secretly appointed, an arbitrary and irre-
sponsible dominion over the properties, liberties, and lives of
the whole fifty millions; and that these fifty millions have no
rightful alternative but to submit all their rights to this arbi-
10
trary dominion, or suffer such confiscation, imprisonment, or
death as this secretly appointed, irresponsible cabal, of so-
called legislators, should see fit to resort to for the maintenance
of its power.
As might have been expected, and as was, to a large degree,
at least, intended, this Constitution has been used from the
beginning by ambitious, rapacious, and unprincipled men, to
enable them to maintain, at the point of the bayonet, an arbi-
trary and irresponsible dominion over those who were too
ignorant and too weak to protect themselves against the con-
spirators who had thus combined to deceive, plunder, and
enslave them.
Do you really think, Sir, that such a constitution as this can
avail to justify those who, like yourself, are engaged in en-
forcing it? Is it not plain, rather, that the members of Con-
gress, as a legislative body, whether they are conscious of it,
or not, are, in reality, a mere cabal of swindlers, usurpers,
tyrants, and robbers? Is it not plain that they are stupendous
blockheads, if they imagine that they are anything else than
such a cabal? or that their so-called laws impose the least
obligation upon anybody ?
If you have never before looked at this matter in this light,
I ask you to do so now. And in the hope to aid you in doing so
candidly, and to some useful purpose, I take the liberty to
mail for you a pamphlet entitled:
“Natural Law; on the Science of Justice; a Trea-
tise on Natural Law, Natural Justice, Natural Rights,
Natural Liberty, and Natural Society; Showing That All
Legislation Whatsoever Is an Absurdity, A Usurpation, and a
Crime. Part I.
In this pamphlet, I have endeavored to controvert distinctly
the proposition that, by any possible process whatever, any
man, or body of men, can become possessed of any right of
arbitrary dominion over other men, or other men's property;




11
or, consequently, any right whatever to make any law what-
ever, of their own—distinct from the law of nature—and com-
pel any other men to obey it.
I trust I need not suspect you, as a legislator under the
Constitution, and claiming to be an honest man, of any desire
to evade the issue presented in this pamphlet. If you shall
see fit to meet it, I hope you will excuse me for suggesting
that—to avoid verbiage, and everything indefinite—you give at
least a single specimen of a law that either heretofore has been
made, or that you conceive it possible for legislators to make
—that is, some law of their own device—that either has been,
or shall be, really and truly obligatory upon other persons,
and which such other persons have been, or may be, rightfully
compelled to obey.
If you can either find or devise any such law, I trust you
will make it known, that it may be examined, and the question
of its obligation be fairly settled in the popular mind.
But if it should happen that you can neither find such a law
in the existing statute books of the United States, nor, in your
own mind, conceive of such a law as possible under the Con-
stitution, I give you leave to find it, if that be possible, in the
constitution or statute book of any other people that now
exist, or ever have existed, on the earth. -
If, finally, you shall find no such law, anywhere, nor be
able to conceive of any such law yourself, I take the liberty to
suggest that it is your imperative duty to submit the question
to your associate legislators; and, if they can give no light on
the subject, that you call upon them to burn all the existing
statute books of the United States, and then to go home and
content themselves with the exercise of only such rights and
powers as nature has given to them in common with the rest
of mankind.
LY SANDER SPOONER.
Bostos, May 27, 1882.