Tombstone epitaph., 1920-03-14

it by the officers of the peace; when those making the threats are suffi- cient in numbers and power to carry out those threats; when those threats are the consummation of a well-d-- fined scheme throughout the country 70 achieve a common end; when on the one side are people living in peace and producing that which IS necessary to the life of the goverr- ment and on the other are those who have devoted themselves to the des- truction of that peace and the stop page of that production. We have the right to show these attending cir cumstances. and that right obtains as clearly in the case of the community as a whole as it does in the case O. an individual member.
 From these principles. again, an other important conclusion flows 4 can shoot an assailant down, have not also the right to tie him down If can take from him that which is dearest and most sanctified. his very existence have ] not the righ. lA So that the danger of his actions ;s done away with? And if I have thst right my neighbor has that right. and ten os my neighbors have that r;gh- and when it is extended to hundreds and thousands it is not abridged. If in the case of Wootten. Embree was one Of an organization of thousands with a common purpose, if they hal determined that at a certain time they would remove the people of a certain community: to destroy their property. could not action be taken against him and against his assoc iates? If he and his associates set about to do what they have resolved upon, cannot Wootten and his as. 'sociates protect themselves from that action? Can il be questioned that when the common purpose of the or ganization of Embree and his friends had been discussed at tneIr commuh meetings; when. from Canada to Mex ico they had determined upon the des- truction of that government which Woot;en recognized, that the latter had the right to protect himeslf and that society of which he was a part The charge of the scope Of the organ ization and it's resoves is our. and We are prepared to prove it. We have that proof in documentary form from a source Of cities, and We are able to show without the shadow of doubt that the unity of action and the determination of purpose of this organization were joined to bring about strike to hamper that govern ment which Wcotten was bound as a citizen 10 uphold and de:end'
 MT. Burgess here brought in the H. lustration Of dam which confined the waters of certain canyon, and to which the waters of another can yon might be jed. 10 the probable destruction cf the lives and property of those living below IL Gan it be questioned" he said that those whose lives are threatened by such a diversion of water have the right to protect themselves by force?"
 Continuing. he said:
 Stated broadly. fl is our contention often the deepest research, that the right of s-If-delense exists in the coEl- muni,y as in the individual. Then we turn to the law of necessity. What is i,? II is maxim. it may be ob- served that: Necessity knows no law" And this is not only pro- verb. but is a rule of thought recog- nized by the written law. which rec ognizes the right of self-defense be cause of the prior existence of the law of necessity. In this action. then, we may show, according to ev- cry canon Of the law under which We live, that the right of self-defense al Bisbee on July 12, 1917. had to be called into effect. and that it was a necessary righ.. and to show its ne- cessity we may be allowed to pu;