In his old age the patriarch expressed himself in the same sense, and with equal force.
“The customary meanings of the words _Republic_ and _Commonwealth_ have been infinite. They have been applied to every government under heaven: that of Turkey, and that of Spain, as well as that of Athens and of Rome, of Geneva and San Marino.”[68]
“In some writing or other of mine, I happened, _currente calamo_, to drop the phrase, ‘The word _Republic_, as it is used, may signify anything, everything, or nothing.’ For this escape I have been pelted, for twenty or thirty years, with as many stones as ever were thrown at St. Stephen, when St. Paul held the clothes of the stoners. But the aphorism is literal, strict, solemn truth. To speak technically, or scientifically, if you will, there are monarchical, aristocratical, and democratical republics. The government of Great Britain and that of Poland are as strictly republics as that of Rhode Island or Connecticut under their old charters.”[69]
In the latter remark, Mr. Adams simply repeats his treatise, where he calls England and Poland “monarchical or regal _republics_.”[70]
It is plain that our fathers, when they adopted the “guaranty” of “a republican form of government,” intended something certain, or which, if not certain on the face, could be made certain. But this excludes the authority of incongruous and inconsistent examples. They did not use words to signify “anything, everything, or nothing”; nor did they use words which were as applicable to England and Poland as to the United States. Therefore I cannot err in putting aside examples which, however they illustrate republican government in times past, are utterly out of place as a guide to the interpretation of the National Constitution. Something better must be found: nor is it wanting.
I put aside, also, definitions of European writers and lexicographers anterior to the National Constitution; for all these have the vagueness and uncertainty of political truth at that time in Europe. Among these, none is of higher authority than Montesquieu, who brought to political science study, genius, and a liberal spirit. But even this great writer, who profited by all his predecessors, quickens and elevates without furnishing a satisfactory guide. He taught that “Virtue” was the inspiring principle of a republic, and by “virtue” he means the love of country, which, he says, is the love of equality.[71] This is beautiful, and makes Equality a foremost principle; but, with curious inconsistency, he includes “democracy” and “aristocracy” under the term “Republic,”--the former being where the people in mass have the sovereign power, and the latter “where the sovereign power is in the hands of _part of the people_.” When defining “democracy,” he expresses the importance of the suffrage as a fundamental of government, saying, among other things, that it is as important to regulate _by whom_ the suffrage shall be given as in a monarchy to know who is the monarch.[72] But among all these glimpses of truth there is no definition of “a republican form of government” which can help us in interpreting the National Constitution. Surely an aristocracy, “where the sovereign power is in the hands of _part of the people_,” cannot find a just place in our political system. It may be “a republican form of government” according to Montesquieu, but it cannot be according to American institutions.