Little Falls herald. [volume] (Little Falls, Morrison County, Minn.) 1889-1950, 1917-08-03

extent and the limits of free speech
in this country that deserves to be EN-
blazoned in every court house in the
land. It is not only for what he said
that the remarks Of Judge Rose merit
attention he so far forgot his profess
sion for the moment as to clothe his
utterances in language that anybody
can understand and nobody can easily
mistake. He began by giving the wild
est bounds to opinion. "Every man."
he said, "has a perfect right to any
opinion he may see fit to form about
any law that is proposed or about any
law that is on the statute books.' Up
on this right there is no limitation
whatever. No officer of the govern
ment can proceed against you merely
because he is, aware that in your heart
you hold him in sovereign contempt,
any more than judge can fine law
yer or witness who is careful to con-
ceal that uncomplimentary feeling in
his presence.
Nor does one easily overstep the line
when he sets out to attack law.
"Any man may do anything in itself
lawful to secure the repeal Of any law
that is on the statute books,'' is Judge
Rose's sweeping dictum. He may talk
Of course. Talk nonsense? Certainly.
What would a constitutional guarantee
Of free speech be worth that frowned
upon solemn proclamation of absurdi-
ties9 Here indeed is the heart of the
matter. Our very conception of free
speech is Of an arena in which the
forces Of truth and error are continu-
ally fighting for the mastery. It is
the glory Of our Constitution that it
does not undertake to pronounce once
and for all upon anything, display
of modesty that might we'll commend
itself to those who mock at it for not
declaring the eternal verities. It crowns
those who live under it with the sa-
cred privilege Of talking like either
gods or idiots, whichever they can best
do. It sees nothing disturbing in the
possibility that millions of people will
say one thing, and millions of other
people will say the exact opposite, each
set Of arguers believing that they are
declaring the simple truth and that
the others are spouting folly and not
impossibly undermining the state. Any
body may attack any law, says Judge
Rose-even the law for the selective
draft, "and he is not answerable for
the wisdom Of his arguments.''
He need not even be sincere. "He
could not very we'll be put on trial,'
is the judicial pronouncement, "even
for the good faith Of some' of his ar
He may outrage the laws of
reason and of good taste at every turn,
but that is his right. Sentence must
be pronounced upon him for his con-
duct in another court than that consti-
tuted Of lawyers and judges. IT his
neighbors can stand him, the law has
nothing to say. It is for them to send
him to congress or to Coventry. Where.
then, is the line? When does the law
acquire an interest in what one savs9
The answer is given by Judge Rose
in crisp sentence: ~.
"But there is one limit, so long
as the law is the law, it is the duty
of every man to obey it and he
may not under color or pretense
Of arguing against the wisdom of
the law or of advocating it's repeal
do anything with intent to pro-
cure it's violation.
Say what you please about law,
but do not impede its operation. It is
a plain path, in which no honest per-
son need have any difficulty in walk
ing. The most vigorous opponent Of
the CONSUMPTION measure is not under
the slightest obligation to leave off op-
posing it merely because it is a law
and no longer only a proposed law. But
he is under the safe obligation not to
preach disobedience to it that he and
everybody else are under with regard
to law that he heartily approves. If
he cannot conscientiously obey it, he
can conscientiously suffer the penalties
for his ina bility to obey it. That is
not in reality to show lawless spirit.
But to encourage violation of law
merely because you do not like it is to
make yourself legally liable.
The moral is not for the private cit
izen alone. If he must refrain from
breaking the law, the laws Of
fcers are equally bound to refrain from
interfering with him when he is break
ing, not the law, but the arguments
that buttress the law. He may be do
ing greater damage to the law by at
tacking while obeying it than by dis
obeying it. Disobedience may recoil
upon the head of the recalcitrant and
leave the law intact, while the attack
may result in the laws repeal. But
that is our way. To US, the difference
between despotism and democracy is
that in despotism you must obey u
law or an edict without questioning,
while in a democracy you must obey
the law, but may question it to Inc
point of repeal. Occasionally, there
are signs that our officials do not
grasp this distinction. Especially at
moment like the present it behooves
not only detectives and the police, but
judges and juries as we'll, not to be-
swept away by the feeling that criti-
cism Of law is in some way a viola
ton of it.
Origin Of "Tuxedo."
The name TUXEDO" is from an Indi-
~ u