按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
adapting themselves； as good citizens； to the new order of things； and
they are not entitled to refuse honourably to obey the authority
that has thus attained the power in the state。 A dethroned monarch；
who has survived such a revolution； is not to be called to account
on the ground of his former administration； and still less may he be
punished for it； when with drawing into the private life of a
citizen he prefers his own quiet and the peace of the state to the
uncertainty of exile； with the intention of maintaining his claims for
restoration at all hazards； and pushing these either by secret
counter…revolution or by the assistance of other powers。 However； if
he prefers to follow the latter course； his rights remain； because the
rebellion that drove him from his position was inherently unjust。
But the question then emerges as to whether other powers have the
right to form themselves into an alliance in behalf of such a
dethroned monarch merely in order not to leave the crime committed
by the people unavenged； or to do away with it as a scandal to all the
states； and whether they are therefore justified and called upon to
restore by force to another state a formerly existing constitution
that has been removed by a revolution。 The discussion of this
question； however； does not belong to this department of public right；
but to the following section； concerning the right of nations。
B。 Land Rights。 Secular and Church Lands； Rights of Taxation；
Finance； Police； Inspection。
Is the sovereign； viewed as embodying the legislative power； to be
regarded as the supreme proprietor of the soil； or only as the highest
ruler of the people by the laws？ As the soil is the supreme
condition under which it is alone possible to have external things
as one's own； its possible possession and use constitute the first
acquirable basis of external right。 Hence it is that all such rights
must be derived from the sovereign as overlord and paramount
superior of the soil； or； as it may be better put； as the supreme
proprietor of the land （dominus territorii）。 The people； as forming
the mass of the subjects； belong to the sovereign as a people； not
in the sense of his being their proprietor in the way of real right；
but as their supreme commander or chief in the way of personal
right。 This supreme proprietorship； however； is only an idea of the
civil constitution； objectified to represent； in accordance with
juridical conceptions； the necessary union of the private property
of all the people under a public universal possessor。 The relation
is so represented in order that it may form a basis for the
determination of particular rights in property。 It does not proceed；
therefore； upon the principle of mere aggregation； which advances
empirically from the parts to the whole； but from the necessary formal
principle of a division of the soil according to conceptions of right。
In accordance with this principle； the supreme universal proprietor
cannot have any private property in any part of the soil； for
otherwise he would make himself a private person。 Private property
in the soil belongs only to the people； taken distributively and not
collectively； from which condition； however； a nomadic people must
be excepted as having no private property at all in the soil。 The
supreme proprietor accordingly ought not to hold private estates；
either for private use or for the support of the court。 For； as it
would depend upon his own pleasure how far these should extend； the
state would be in danger of seeing all property in the land taken into
the hands of the government； and all the subjects treated as
bondsmen of the soil （glebae adscripti）。 As possessors only of what
was the private property of another； they might thus be deprived of
all freedom and regarded as serfs or slaves。 Of the supreme proprietor
of the land； it may be said that he possesses nothing as his own；
except himself； for if he possessed things in the state alongside of
others； dispute and litigation would be possible with these others
regarding those things； and there would be no independent judge to
settle the cause。 But it may also be said that he possesses
everything； for he has the supreme right of sovereignty over the whole
people； to whom all external things severally （divisim） belong； and as
such he assigns distributively to every one what is to be his。
Hence there cannot be any corporation in the state； nor any class or
order； that as proprietors can transmit the land for a sole
exclusive use to the following generations for all time （ad
infinitum）； according to certain fixed statutes。 The state may annul
and abrogate all such statutes at any time； only under the condition
of indemnifying survivors for their interests。 The order of knights；
constituting the nobility regarded as a mere rank or class of
specially titled individuals； as well as the order of the clergy；
called the church； are both subject to this relation。 They can never
be entitled by any hereditary privileges with which they may be
favoured； to acquire an absolute property in the soil transmissible to
their successors。 They can only acquire the use of such property for
the time being。 If public opinion has ceased； on account of other
arrangements； to impel the state to protect itself from negligence
in the national defence by appeal to the military honour of the
knightly order； the estates granted on that condition may be recalled。
And； in like manner； the church lands or spiritualities may be
reclaimed by the state without scruple； if public opinion has ceased
to impel the members of the state to maintain masses for the souls
of the dead； prayers for the living； and a multitude of clergy； as
means to protect themselves from eternal fire。 But in both cases；
the condition of indemnifying existing interests must be observed。
Those who in this connection fall under the movement of reform are not
entitled to complain that their property is taken from them； for the
foundation of their previous possession lay only in the opinion of the
people； and it can be valid only so long as this opinion lasts。 As
soon as this public opinion in favour of such institutions dies out；
or is even extinguished in the judgement of those who have the
greatest claim by their acknowledged merit to lead and represent it；
the putative proprietorship in question must cease； as if by a
public appeal made regarding it to the state （a rege male informato ad
regem melius informandum）。
On this primarily acquired supreme proprietorship in the land
rests the right of the sovereign； as universal proprietor of the
country； to assess the private proprietors of the soil； and to
demand taxes； excise； and dues； or the performance of service to the
state such as may be required in war。 But this is to be done so that
it is actually the people that assess themselves； this being the
only mode of proceeding according to laws of right。 This may be
effected through the medium of the body of deputies who represent
the people。 It is also permissible； in circumstances in which the
state is in imminent danger； to proceed by a forced loan； as a right
vested in the sovereign； although this may be a divergence from the
existing law。
Upon this principle is also founded the right of administering the
national economy； including the finance and the police。 The police has
specially to care for the public safety； convenience； and decency。
As regards the last of these… the feeling or negative taste for public
propriety… it is important that it be not deadened by such
influences as begging； disorderly noises； offensive smells； public
prostitution （Venus vulgivaga）； or other offences against the moral
sense； as it greatly facilitates the government in the task of
regulating the life of the people by law。
For the preservation of the state there further belongs to it a
right of inspection （jus inspection