class, but it was primarily bad because it was a restriction imposed without mutual •consent of the governed as all good law should be. The law that allowed one man to make a slave of a fellowman was an unjust law because, — ist, It was a restriction imposed by force of the stronger and not by the mutual agree ment of all governed. It was against con sent. 2nd, It was not necessary to create har mony, but rather created discord. 3rd, It was not expedient to prosperity, but rather tended to degenerate society. Any law that is not necessary for the peace of society or expedient to its ad vancement is an unjust restriction upon man's natural liberty. Thus any law which tends to advance men or their opportunities for progress and harmony is good law. Any law that tends to oppose this is bad law. In this discussion we have sought to de fine law as a restriction upon the natural liberty of men. We indicated certain re strictions, imposed by the stronger upon the weaker, but showed that these could not be true laws, for law should be an agreement between all who are governed by the law or restriction, for the purpose of securing peace and the benefits of society. We outlined the American laws as a sys tem of restrictions upon the citizens of the United States imposed by their agreement, through representatives. Common law we found to be based on inferential agreement. We sought to discover what was good law and also what composed bad law, and men tioned the test by which all laws or restric tions could be weighed and their justice or injustice discovered. We will now briefly consider the functions of statesmen and 'of lawyers. Statesmen make the laws for the people who choose them as representatives. They are agents acting for a principal. The duty

of statesmen when viewed in accordance with the nature of laws as we have shown it, is to ascertain where in the nation-society discord exists, or is likely to occur, and to enact such restrictions as are necessary to remove or prevent the discord, and establish peace. Their further duty must be to ob serve the progress of the nation or state and to enact such restrictions as shall be ex pedient to advance the interests of the nation over which they preside. In order to justly accomplish this end they should be men who have a thorough knowledge of the nature of nations, so that they may with judgment discover a given evil, present or prospective, and indicate what restriction will cure or prevent it. They should be men with a full and true knowledge of the facts, for without the facts they cannot with discretion indicate a remedy. They should have a complete knowledge of the nation they attempt to regulate by restricting the citizens in cer tain regards, in order that their restrictions be such as will obviously be for the good of all citizens, -for unjust restrictions lead to discord. They should be broad-minded, learned men who may without local preju dice consider the good of the whole nation, state or society for which they make restrictions, and who shall not restrict one class to the detriment of another class. They should, briefly, be able to pass just laws or restrictions. Such a result must be in part obtained by the representative system, where every section and interest in a state is represented in a common assembly. Every side is heard and if men were fair, the majority vote would indicate that a given restriction was good law and citizens would have con fidence in legislative law. But while lobby ing exists there cannot be such representa tion of facts as will give confidence to the restrictions enacted by representative as semblies. But such is the function of statesmen, viz., to discover necessary and