Albuquerque morning journal. [volume] (Albuquerque, N.M.) 1903-1926, 1920-01-06
tuesday,. JANUARY T, 1920
OUR LEGAL REVOLUTION.

For years men of ability and of de-
cency in their manner Of living have
been proclaiming that the government
of this republic is unjust, that the con-
stitution was framed in the interest of
capitalists and that our courts are
either corrupt or are influenced by
corrupt interests so that justice, in
effect, is not for the common man
where his opponent is a man of wealth
and influence.
We are today reaping the logical re-
suits of such teachings
Theoretically every one of us causes
a chain of consequences that may
never terminate. Practically we cam
not be responsible for the secondary
consequences even if we are for the
primary one. Yet, if Rousseau. botan
izing in the gardens of Madame d'Epi-
nay and sentimentalizing regarding
the natural goodness of mankind,
could have foreseen the French revo-
luton with its Marat, ST. Just and
Robespierre, would he not have shud-
dered at the consequences of his doc
trine? Could Tolstoi have visuali2ed
Lenine and Trotzky as the result of his
subversive teachings would he not
have been appalled,?
Before the Russian revolution, the
Journal frequently remarked upon the
rarallelism between Rousseau and
Tolstoi. as remarkable a one as any
in literary history. And the Russian
revolution completes the parallelism
perfectly. The French vagabond and
the Russian nobleman are the two
great sentimentalists that have each
caused more consequences, social ana
political than any statesman, general
or lawgiver that might be named in!
modern history.
The chain of causality from Rous-
seau is operating still and the onei
from Tolstoi promises to operate IN
definitely.
The men in the United, states who
have been preaching revolution
though they may not have so called
their teachings, have been putting into
the hands of ignorant or inscriptions
men forces of disorder and injustice
the consequences of which may not he
come fully known for a quarter of a
century, or longer.
There was some excuse in France.
Nothing short of revolution could UNI
horse the nobility in combination with
the clergy The vast majority was
without recourse, except to arms
and the torch. A similar condl-
ton existed in Russia. The French
revolution as the destroyer of feudal-
ism on the continent performed work |
of merit. Likewise the Russian revo-
luton has. no doubt an eliminating
function to perform within its area
Rnt constructively the one did not
avail much. nor will the other. They /
both were generated by great evil
rather than to signify n constructive
energy.
But in this country we have free
ballot and a fair count and referen-
dun every four years to the voters.
There is no change in the form OF our
government or in its administration
that cannot be brought about when
ever a majority of the people so ue-
sires.
For example of what the voters
may do, let US merely point to prohi-
bition of the liquor traffic just de-
clared constitutional by the supreme
court of the United States. The liquor
traffic was deeply embedded in our
social system it was protected by our
laws. it was backed by billions of dol
lars invested in the business and ny
hundreds of thousands of voters di-
rectly employed by it. But the liquor
traffic is prohibited and great So
ciaI and economic revolution has been
wrought through the ballot box.