ing　up　beforehand　those　which　they　may　afterwards　cause　to　be　adopted。
  If；　in　a　people　which　is　imperfectly　accustomed　to　the　exercise　of　freedom；　or　which　is　exposed　to　violent　political　passions；　a　deliberating　minority；　which　confines　itself　to　the　contemplation　of　future　laws；　be　placed　in　juxtaposition　to　the　legislative　majority；　I　cannot　but　believe　that　public　tranquillity　incurs　very　great　risks　in　that　nation。　　There　is　doubtless　a　very　wide　difference　between　proving　that　one　law　is　in　itself　better　than　another　and　proving　that　the　former　ought　to　be　substituted　for　the　latter。　But　the　imagination　of　the　populace　is　very　apt　to　overlook　this　difference；　which　is　so　apparent　to　the　minds　of　thinking　men。　　It　sometimes　happens　that　a　nation　is　divided　into　two　nearly　equal　parties；　each　of　which　affects　to　represent　the　majority。　　If；　in　immediate　contiguity　to　the　directing　power；　another　power　be　established；　which　exercises　almost　as　much　moral　authority　as　the　former；　it　is　not　to　be　believed　that　it　will　long　be　content　to　speak　without　acting；　or　that　it　will　always　be　restrained　by　the　abstract　consideration　of　the　nature　of　associations　which　are　meant　to　direct　but　not　to　enforce　opinions；　to　suggest　but　not　to　make　the　laws。
  The　more　we　consider　the　independence　of　the　press　in　its　principal　consequences；　the　more　are　we　convinced　that　it　is　the　chief　and；　so　to　speak；　the　constitutive　element　of　freedom　in　the　modern　world。　　A　nation　which　is　determined　to　remain　free　is　therefore　right　in　demanding　the　unrestrained　exercise　of　this　independence。　　But　the　unrestrained　liberty　of　political　association　cannot　be　entirely　assimilated　to　the　liberty　of　the　press。　　The　one　is　at　the　same　time　less　necessary　and　more　dangerous　than　the　other。　　A　nation　may　confine　it　within　certain　limits　without　forfeiting　any　part　of　its　self…control；　and　it　may　sometimes　be　obliged　to　do　so　in　order　to　maintain　its　own　authority。
  In　America　the　liberty　of　association　for　political　purposes　is　unbounded。　　An　example　will　show　in　the　clearest　light　to　what　an　extent　this　privilege　is　tolerated。
  The　question　of　the　tariff；　or　of　free　trade；　produced　a　great　manifestation　of　party　feeling　in　America；　the　tariff　was　not　only　a　subject　of　debate　as　a　matter　of　opinion；　but　it　exercised　a　favorable　or　a　prejudicial　influence　upon　several　very　powerful　interests　of　the　States。　The　North　attributed　a　great　portion　of　its　prosperity；　and　the　South　all　its　sufferings；　to　this　system；　insomuch　that　for　a　long　time　the　tariff　was　the　sole　source　of　the　political　animosities　which　agitated　the　Union。
  In　1831；　when　the　dispute　was　raging　with　the　utmost　virulence；　a　private　citizen　of　Massachusetts　proposed　to　all　the　enemies　of　the　tariff；　by　means　of　the　public　prints；　to　send　delegates　to　Philadelphia　in　order　to　consult　together　upon　the　means　which　were　most　fitted　to　promote　freedom　of　trade。　This　proposal　circulated　in　a　few　days　from　Maine　to　New　Orleans　by　the　power　of　the　printing…press：　the　opponents　of　the　tariff　adopted　it　with　enthusiasm；　meetings　were　formed　on　all　sides；　and　delegates　were　named。　　The　majority　of　these　individuals　were　well　known；　and　some　of　them　had　earned　a　considerable　degree　of　celebrity。　　South　Carolina　alone；　which　afterwards　took　up　arms　in　the　same　cause；　sent　sixty…three　delegates。　　On　October　1；　1831；　this　assembly；　which　according　to　the　American　custom　had　taken　the　name　of　a　Convention；　met　at　Philadelphia；　it　consisted　of　more　than　two　hundred　members。　　Its　debates　were　public；　and　they　at　once　assumed　a　legislative　character；　the　extent　of　the　powers　of　Congress；　the　theories　of　free　trade；　and　the　different　clauses　of　the　tariff；　were　discussed　in　turn。　At　the　end　of　ten　days'　deliberation　the　Convention　broke　up；　after　having　published　an　address　to　the　American　people；　in　which　it　declared：
  I。　That　Congress　had　not　the　right　of　making　a　tariff；　and　that　the　existing　tariff　was　unconstitutional；
  II。　That　the　prohibition　of　free　trade　was　prejudicial　to　the　interests　of　all　nations；　and　to　that　of　the　American　people　in　particular。
  It　must　be　acknowledged　that　the　unrestrained　liberty　of　political　association　has　not　hitherto　produced；　in　the　United　States；　those　fatal　consequences　which　might　perhaps　be　expected　from　it　elsewhere。　　The　right　of　association　was　imported　from　England；　and　it　has　always　existed　in　America；　so　that　the　exercise　of　this　privilege　is　now　amalgamated　with　the　manners　and　customs　of　the　people。　　At　the　present　time　the　liberty　of　association　is　become　a　necessary　guarantee　against　the　tyranny　of　the　majority。　　In　the　United　States；　as　soon　as　a　party　is　become　preponderant；　all　public　authority　passes　under　its　control；　its　private　supporters　occupy　all　the　places；　and　have　all　the　force　of　the　administration　at　their　disposal。　　As　the　most　distinguished　partisans　of　the　other　side　of　the　question　are　unable　to　surmount　the　obstacles　which　exclude　them　from　power；　they　require　some　means　of　establishing　themselves　upon　their　own　basis；　and　of　opposing　the　moral　authority　of　the　minority　to　the　physical　power　which　domineers　over　it。　　Thus　a　dangerous　expedient　is　used　to　obviate　a　still　more　formidable　danger。
  The　omnipotence　of　the　majority　appears　to　me　to　present　such　extreme　perils　to　the　American　Republics　that　the　dangerous　measure　which　is　used　to　repress　it　seems　to　be　more　advantageous　than　prejudicial。　　And　here　I　am　about　to　advance　a　proposition　which　may　remind　the　reader　of　what　I　said　before　in　speaking　of　municipal　freedom：　There　are　no　countries　in　which　associations　are　more　needed；　to　prevent　the　despotism　of　faction　or　the　arbitrary　power　of　a　prince；　than　those　which　are　democratically　constituted。　In　aristocratic　nations　the　body　of　the　nobles　and　the　more　opulent　part　of　the　community　are　in　themselves　natural　associations；　which　act　as　checks　upon　the　abuses　of　power。　　In　countries　in　which　these　associations　do　not　exist；　if　private　individuals　are　unable　to　create　an　artificial　and　a　temporary　substitute　for　them；　I　can　imagine　no　permanent　protection　against　the　most　galling　tyranny；　and　a　great　people　may　be　oppressed　by　a　small　faction；　or　by　a　single　individual；　with　impunity。
  The　meeting　of　a　great　political　Convention　（for　there　are　Conventions　of　all　kinds）；　which　may　frequently　become　a　necessary　measure；　is　always　a　serious　occurrence；　even　in　America；　and　one　which　is　never　looked　forward　to；　by　the　judicious　friends　of　the　country；　without　alarm。　　This　was　very　perceptible　in　the　Convention　of　1831；　at　which　the　exertions　of　all　the　most　distinguished　members　of　the　Assembly　tended　to　moderate　its　language；　and　to　restrain　the　subjects　which　it　treated　within　certain　limits。　　It　is　probable；　in　fact；　that　the　Convention　of　1831　exercised　a　very　great　influence　upon　the　minds　of　the　malcontents；　and　prepared　them　for　the　open　revolt　against　the　commercial　laws　of　the　Union　which　took　place　in　1832。
  It　cannot　be　denied　that　the　unrestrained　liberty　of　association　for　political　purposes　is　the　privilege　which　a　people　is　longest　in　learning　how　to　exercise。　　If　it　does　not　throw　the　nation　into　anarchy；　it　perpetually　augments　the　chances　of　that　calamity。　　On　one　point；　however；　this　perilous　liberty　offers　a　security　against　dangers　of　another　kind；　in　countries　where　associations　are　free；　secret　societies　are　unknown。　　In　America　there　are　numerous　factions；　but　no　conspiracies。
  Different　ways　in　which　the　right　of　association　is　understood　in　Europeand　in　the　United　States　…　Different　use　which　is　made　of　it。
  The　most　natural　privilege　of　man；　next　to　the　right　of　acting　for　himself；　is　that　of　combining　his　exertions　with　those
  of　his　fellow…creatures；　and　of　acting　in　common　with　them。　　I　am　therefore　led　to　conclude　that　the　right　of　association　is　almost　as　inalienable　as　the　right　of　personal　liberty。　　No　legislator　can　attack　it　without　impairing　the　very　foundations　of　society。　　Nevertheless；　if　the　liberty　of　association　is　a　fruitful　source　of　advantages　and　prosperity　to　some　nations；　it　may　be　perverted　or　carried　to　excess　by　others；　and　the　element　of　life　may　be　changed　into　an　element　of　destruction。　　A　comparison　of　the　different　methods　which　associations　pursue　in　those　countries　in　which　they　are　managed　with　discretion；　as　well　as　in　those　where　liberty　degenerates　into　license；　may　perhaps　be　thought　useful　both　to　governments　and　to　parties。
  The　greater　part　of　Europeans　look　upon　an　association　as　a　weapon　which　is　to　be　hastily　fashioned；　and　immediately　tried　in　the　conflict。　　A　society　is　formed　for　discussion；　but　the　idea　of　impending　action　prevails　in　the　minds　of　those　who　constitute　it：　it　is；　in　fact；　an　army；　and　the　time　given　to　parley　serves　to　reckon　up　the　strength　and　to　animate　the　courage　of　the　host；　after　which　they　direct　their　march　against　the　enemy。　　Resources　which　lie　within　the　bounds　of　the　law　may　suggest　themselves　to　the　persons　who　compose　it　as　means；　but　never　as　the　only　means；　of　success。
  Such；　however；　is　not　the　manner　in　which　the　right　of　association　is　understood　in　the　United　States。　　In　America　the　citizens　who　form　the　minor