And what is this "republican" form of government, thus pledged? It is true that there are not wanting respectable authorities whose definitions of the words "republic," and "republican," are strongly inharmonious with their true meaning, as correctly understood by the great bulk of Americans. Thus, Brande asserts that "A republic may be either a democracy or an aristocracy!"--and proceeds to say: "In the former, the supreme power is vested in the whole body of the people, or in representatives elected by the people; in the latter, it is vested in a nobility, or a privileged class of comparatively a small number of persons." John Adams also wrote: "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." But the true meaning of the word "republican" as applied to a "form of government," and as commonly and almost invariably understood by those who, above all others in the wide World, should best understand and appreciate its blessings--to wit: the American People has none of the looseness and indefiniteness which these authorities throw about it. The prevailing and correct American idea is that "Republican" means: of, or pertaining to, a Republic; that "Republic" means a thing, affair, or matter, closely related to, and touching the "public;" and that the "public" are the "people"--not a small proportion of them, but "the people at large," the whole community, the Nation, the commonalty, the generality. Hence, "a Republican form of government" is, in their opinion, plainly that form which is most closely identified with, and representative of, the generality or majority of the people; or, in the language of Dr. J. E. Worcester, it is "That form of government or of a State, in which the supreme power is vested in the people, or in representatives elected by the people." It is obvious that there can be no such thing as "a republic," which is, at the same time, "an aristocracy;" for the moment that which was "a republic" becomes "an aristocracy," that moment it ceases to be "a republic." So also can there be no such thing as "a republic" which is "an oligarchy," for, as "a republic" is a government of the many, or, as President Lincoln well termed it, "a government of the people, by the people, for the people"--so it must cease to be "a republic," when the supreme power is in the hands of the oligarchic few.