The election of a king was an Aryan custom in all of the early branches of the race. In the Vedic literature he is the rajan always mentioned as elected, and there is never any mention in these times of an hereditary descent to the son. The king or rajan became in time of war the saipati or leader in the field. From rajan we see the relationship to the Latin rex, Gothic reiks, and the final syllable in Orgetorix, Vercingitorix, Theodoric and Alaric. Ancient Teutons always killed a leader who assumed a kingly command with a view of possessing it for life. They were the only ones who could confer lifelong power. Modern Englishmen did the same when Charles assumed more than they gave him. Ancient Teutons and Celts invariably deposed a king who became inefficient. It was too dangerous to have any but a good leader. In 1327 the people represented in Parliament deposed Edward II, Sir Edward Trussel bearing the message, "We will hereafter account you as a private person, without royal authority." In 1399 Richard II, and later James II, were similarly deposed. The Romans of the Republic did the same, for the Senate, by decree, ordered the magistrate to resign. This right to turn out an unfit chief executive has, then, always been an Aryan characteristic as operative to-day as ever. Where it does not exist by one reason or another the unfit executive is murdered, as in Turkey, Portugal, Russia or Servia - a nefarious custom wholly unsuited to Aryan democracy. It has been brought to America by these people - the Czolgosz type - whose ancestors not being Aryans or democrats never have known of any other way.

The framers of our constitution had a lively recollection of the injury which could be done by an unfit executive, such as the crazy George III, and were very sensitive on the point of checking the power of the President. Indeed, it has been asserted by Mr. Arthur T. Abernethy, of Philadelphia,* that our first President might have become King were it not for public sentiment. So our President's term was limited to four years to avoid this danger. It may have been an unnecessary worry, for if a President elected for life had dared to assume powers not given to him, the ancient Aryan hereditary rights would have been exerted and he would have been deposed. The murder of Goebel, in Kentucky, was a revival of a primitive savage Aryan legal custom. Ballot-box stuffing and like crimes which reverse the will of the people are, therefore, doubly dangerous, as they tend to revive savage methods having no place in civilization.

Jhering*  has given a very interesting account of the ancient Aryan customs in electing and deposing kings. The Assembly or "Thing" of the ancient Teutons was composed of all the fighting men who always came armed, and gave their consent to the various proposals by clashing together their arms. The election of a king was confirmed by elevating him upon a shield and handing a spear to him. A like custom existed among the Romans. In the Swiss Canton of Unter-Walden, the members of the assembly are still armed - so great is the tenacity of useless customs which were once necessary. That is, in Ancient Arya, when might made right, only young, vigorous soldiers were voters. Even in Rome as late as the time of Christ - every soldier was a citizen and every citizen a soldier. Citizenship meant that they were conquerors. Modern nobility has the same basis - they are the warrior class. In France all classes are eligible to enter the army, and though there are only 6,000 noble families in the 40,000,000 people, yet it is found that one-sixth of the military cadets are of this class, and recently four of the ten honor graduates were nobles. It is heredity. On the other hand, China shows the opposite feeling among the hundreds of millions who have always been the conquered class and who now despise the soldier. They have a proverb: "It is better to have no son than one who is a soldier." The bitterness of this can be imagined when we think it is the land of ancestor worship, and to have no son is a calamity.

* "Did Washington Aspire to be King?" *  "The Evolution of the Aryan".

The election of the chief executive, duke, earl, rex, king, president, governor, or whatever name we gave him, is the same in principle all the Aryan world over. It has always made hot blood, and fighting ensued as must happen in races of warriors. The elections are occasionally bloody yet, even if we do have the Australian ballot system to protect the weaklings too feeble to voice then choice openly, as their ancestors did. But the elections of old were so very bloody that they were put off as long as possible by electing the man for life. It was always the "man on horseback," one of great executive ability; that is, the man who could instantly organize and lead them forth to battle against intruders or to seek more room in their territorial expansion movements. The war lord became king. When the king died, the strife of candidates was really civil war, and to prevent it, they finally selected the successor beforehand, had him confirmed by law, and the State seal put on the transaction. He was then next in line, a vice-president.

Finally, people saw the law of heredity, and it was acknowledged that the king's son was more likely to be a good leader and executive than any other man, and he was selected, and thus we secured hereditary executives, who could be trained from infancy in the duties of executing laws which the people made. In order to be sure that sons should be of proper material, the people insisted that their kings should marry into the proper stock, and hence arose that inviolable law that royal marriages to be legal must be of royal blood, a law which has been such an enigma, but which we now see was a result of natural law. Selection has been operative all the time, and we have specialists in executive work, the sole survivors of long lines of able, successful ancestors, royal personages wholly unable to make a living in any other way, who sink into abject poverty if deprived of their pensions, and who must be supported by the people or they would die. The grants made by parliaments for royalty are not money wasted - not at all! It is money saved, and less expensive than our way of spending millions every four years for election purposes - infinitely less expensive than the blood spent in ancient elections. Thus, the people have actually bred up a species or race of executives by artificial selection, just as ant colonies breed their types of soldiers and workers. The new kings as well as the old must swear "to govern in accordance with the old ways." But in order to survive, the executive in England must not interfere with the law-making representatives, and the only survivors by natural selection are those who will keep hands off. Consequently, in this respect, Great Britain is much more democratic than we are, for we have arranged our Constitution so that the Chief Executive has much weight in law-making.