Omaha daily bee. (Omaha [Neb.]) 187?-1922, 1905-11-24

the expense Of the right of society to stand
between portion OF our population and
oppression. This right OF the individual
and this exaggerated respect for his right
are common-law doctrines. And this
means that a struggle Is in progress be-
tween society and the common law; for
the judicial power over unconstitutional
legislation is in the right line of common
law ideas. II is plain consequence of the
doctrine of the supremacy of law, and has
developed from a line of presidents that
run back to Magma Charta.
Mems Views are Changed.
Men have changed their views as to the
relative Importance of the individual and
OF society; but the common law has not
changed. Indeed, the common law knows
individuals only. In the seventeenth and
eighteenth centuries, when the theory OF
feature Of our legal system made II popu-
lar. But today the isolated individual is
no longer taken for the center of the uni
verse. We see now that he is an abstrac-
tion and has never had concrete eN-
istence. Today we look instead for
liberty through society. We no longer hold
of the individual. We recognize that So
ciety is In some wise a coworker with
and that what he does is quite as much
wrought through him by society as
wrought by himself alone. To parody a
well known formula, we are not SO much
concerned with the liberty of each limited
only by the like liberties of all, as with
the welfare of each, achieved through the
and surer liberty is assured to him
The common law, however, is concerned
not with social righteousness, but with
the highest social import as mere private
CONTROVERSIES between H., Joe s,. Doe and Rioh;
one-sided view, as men look upon these
questions at present.
Our criminal law is growing cause Of
popular discomfort with the legal system
But the difficulty here agafn IS exaggerated
respect for the Individual. Procedure, cvi
asd from the TRis respect w" fo
the individual keeps Il so. The common
! law renders no service today by standing
| full armored before individuals, natural Of
from beneath its aegis to inJure society.
what IL the Limit
How far does our legal system contain
| the power to meet these new conditions
| We must admit that 1t has shown a mar
Vicious power OF regeneration in the past.
The problem, therefore, of the presen
| Is to lead our law to hold more ever
| balance between individualism and col
lectiveism: We must temper its extrem,
| tndividualism to meet the ideas of tn
modern world. More than this. we canno
memorial system OF administering Justice
and more we ought not to seek to do.
In the exaggerated form which this in
| dividualism of our legal system some
times takes it Is undeniably impracticable
| archaic and mischievous, yet with all IL
faults II is a tonic and salutary doctrine
The whole is no greater than the sum o
its parts. The community Is not likely L
| be more active In maintaining right an,
REFRESHING wrong than the individuals win
compose 1t. And II the individuals VIII
| are charged under our legal system wifi
the maintenance of their own rights ar
! too busy or too lazy or too Indifferent I,
carry out this duty. lie the comniunIt
likely to prove more diligent or efficient h
! 30 doing for them7
We talk much and glibly Of 1.-THE people
| In the abstract. What we need TO do Is
as does the common law, to talk of the In
| diVidual in the concrete. The rights o
| the people are the duties of individual
Hence this same obstinate individualisr
OF the common law which makes 1t Mt 4
Ill In many modern niche may yet prov
a necessary bulwark against an exagger
ated and enfeebling collectivlsm