Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1882-11-04

worked only by men each of whom is
Jealous of his own rights and also sym.
pathetically jealous Of the rights OF
others-will neither agrees on his
"neighbcrs, in small things or great, mol
tolerate aggression in others. !" Anew York
journal, replying to Mr.. Spencer, is Or
liged to own that Americans do submit to
small abuses, but seeks to justify this
tendency by alleging that when small
abuses have become great they "rise in
their might" and abolish them. Even
if this were true, however, it would not
suffice. All it would show is that the
American people alternated indifference
with evolution, and that could not estab.
lish claim to the highest form Of
civilization.
We wish to point out, however, that
Alexis de Tocqueville made, between forty
and fifty years ago, precisely the observa.
tons which Mr.. Spencer has now offered.
His language is as follows "Anothel
tendency, which is extremely natural
"to democratic nations and ex.
tremely dangerous, is that which
"leads them to despise and undervalue the
"rights of private persons. The
"rights of private persons among demo
"cratic nations are commonly of small i'm.
portance, of recent growth, and extreme.
sly precarious-t consequence is that
"they are often sacrificed without regret,
"and almost always violated without re.
"morse." And again he observes "It
"would seem as if the rulers of our time
"sought only to use men in order to make
"things great; wish that they would try
ga little more to make great men tina;
they would set less value on the work,
"and more upon the workman that they
"would never forget that nation cannot
"long remain strong when every man be.
longing to it is individually weak, and
that no force or combination Of social
"polity has yet been devised to make
ian energetic people out Of COM
"munity of pusillanimous and en-.
"feebled citizens" There is a remarkable
resemblance between this last sentence
and the citation from He,bert Spencer
which we have given above. The though.
in each is the same. 1t is that free insti.
buttons cannot be maintained in the general
after freedom in the particular has been
abandoned. Mr.. Spencer refers to the
maxim, "The price Of liberty is eter.
"nal vigilance" to show that our ancestors
understood better than we do the condi
lions necessary to freedom.
He and Tocqueville agree that Ameri,
cans are prone to tolerate invasions of pri.
vate rights. 1t is evident that this has be.
come national trait, and it it clear that il
so it cannot be eradicated without strenuous
exertion. Tocqueville attributes it to the
natural influence OF democratic doctrines,
and since 1t has grown up so steadily among
US that would seem as good an explana-
ton as can be had. In democracy the
tendency is for the people to become every
thing and the individual nothing. Private
rights are at first supposed to give way to
popular rights or necessities. This creates
the habit of surrendering private rights
without protest, and SO invariably the door
is opened for many abuses, which gradually
clip the liberty of the individual. And it
is to be observed that the theory of New
York paper to. the effect that the people
will "rise in their might" when it becomes
necessary, is not logical deduction. For
the more men accustom themselves to
tolerate abuses, the more liable
will they be to rest patient under
them. Is is only the constant and perpet.
ual resistance to all invasions of private
rights which can secure immunity from
more serious aggressions. The English
habit of grumbling, to which Mr.. Spencer
refers, is really the English instinct of
jealousy of English freedom. Every
private right is guarded with unceasipg
vigilance there, and the result is that the
public are we'll served by all who minister
to them, and that no one dreams of putting
upon them the sffronts and abuses which
Americans meekly tolerate every day of
the year.
The Nation thinks that the American
habit of liberation is due to several causes,
among which are noticed carelessness. and
genuine belief that the small abuses
spoken of do not amount to anything But
to say this is to say that American civiliza.
ton Is backward, and that the American
theory of freedom is strangely defective.
Admitting the reality of the phenomena.
We think it is necessary to find some other
explanation of them, on pain of ac.
knowledging that our system of gov
eminent contains within it the seeds
of its own destruction. For it mani.
testify is not true that the American
people are accustomed to " rise in their
might" as alleged. Ever since the close
of the rebellion they have been growing
more indifferent to abuses. The tolerance
they have extended to political abuses has
amazed all the world The encourage.
ment they have given to demagogues is
perhaps part of the system which cannot
be got rid of. But it is specially apparent
that they are liable to be seduoed into
make-believe risings," which are got up
simply to put political adventures into
office, and these aims having been secured
the people sit down quietly again, and 90
on enduring abuses as before.
This is the most discouraging feature of
the case. And even though the abuses SO
tolerated were all small it is clear that
the habit of tolerating invssious of small
rights must lead to the habit of tolera.inc
larger aggressiens in time. Those also who
have ceased to protect their own rizhts
cannot be expected to care much for
the rights OF their neighbors. But this
feeling of indifference encourages abnses
and strengthens them. It also lo9sens
the bonds OF sympathy between men. 1t
also exposes the whole community to
greater dangers. And if permitted 10 de.