Search

The article presents the author's views on former U.S. President Thomas Jefferson's principles with the New Deal. The coming of the New Deal was almost immediately followed by a decidedly curious situation. Though many people, apparently, have seen in the epoch-making events of the last two or three years only a formidable effort to rehabilitate industry and to restore agriculture, not a few others have conceived things in a very different way. In the past, long before the New Deal was urged upon our attention, a voice was from time to time raised proclaiming that if Jefferson were on earth today, he could not be elected to the office of constable. Now, if this means anything, it is apparently meant to be an unfavorable judgment concerning the body of electors. It is apparently suggested that they are possessed of so little wisdom that they have abandoned the principles of Jefferson and would consequently refuse to elect to an insignificant office that great man, if he were on earth advocating those principles today. Thomas Jefferson well knew what most people apparently for- get, that individualism or liberalism is not so much a theory as a kind of tendency, that it is not so much a fixed doctrine as a particular emphasis, that it is not so much an ultimate principle as a point of view, that it is not absolute but relative.

The article reports on the attitude of former U.S. President Thomas Jefferson toward the judiciary. For a long while there had been a considerable amount of discussion regarding the advisability of reorganizing the judiciary and providing for special judges, thereby relieving the Supreme Court of some of its increasing duties. Immediately following Jefferson's inauguration as president, he desired to make it definite and certain that those who were appointed to political offices should entertain views which were favorable to and acceptable by the party in power. He furthermore believed that it would represent a sad mistake to leave in office those who had been appointed by the preceding administration. At the time Jefferson assumed his duties as president, the question concerning the judiciary was a delicate one. He could not very well evade the issue--it was to be faced squarely, because the success of his administration depended largely on the outcome of his struggle with this particular problem.

The article focuses on the Doctrine of Declaration of Independence in the U.S. It says that the Declaration of Independence, rightly or not, has often been criticized as lacking in originality. The article author views that the two declarations, the one on bill of rights and the other of violations, which are printed in the Journals of Congress for 1774, were two years afterwards recapitulated in the Declaration of Independence, on the Fourth of July, 1776. The article author further says that except as a matter of historical, or biographical interest, it makes no difference whether the Declaration was a copy. He refers to a letter by U.S. President Thomas Jefferson to President James Madison saying that nothing can be more absurd than the cavil that the declaration contains known, and not new truths. The object was to assert, not to discover, truths, and to make them the basis of the Revolutionary act. The article also refers to Virginia Bill of Rights and its comparison with the Declaration of Independence.