Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1921-09-01

ground tnat IL Is one OF tfle eACepttu
cases under the extradition treaty.
The principle is that two sovereign
states do not necessarily have the
same civil, religious or political
standards of liberty; that one ma
tion may bridge liberty. and prescribe
penalties for doing certain forbidden
acts, which abridgement is utterly
opposed to the fundamental political
philosophy upon which such other
nation exists. Therefore, such other
nation reserves to itself the right not
to surrender fugitives to country
whose standards upon the subject
| matter of the crime are entirely diff
ferent from the standards of the
| country granting the right of asylum
to such fugitives From this. it will
be seen that it is distinctly a doctrine
of international rather than of the
domestic law of a state.
In this country there is now being
disseminated an extensive propagan-
da to dignity the crimes committed
by many persons who are now in
/ structing or hindering the Govern
| ment in prosecuting the war with
Germany. and, by means of such
/ propaganda, to create n public SEN
, timent not only to have such crimi-
| nails freed, but to have this general
doctrine of political offenses recog-
niZed as a part of our domestic law,
the purpose being. when the doctrine
| is once recognized, to enable Grim
inals and those in sympathy with
| them. to continue such opposition to
law and order with impunity. From
the history of the origin of the doc
trine of political offenses. it will be
seen that there can be no recognition
of that doctrine in the municipal law
of this country Why? Because
when the sovereign will of the state
expresses itself through duly enacted
law it is repugnant to every notion
of the supremacy of the law and its
uniform application to recognize the
doctrine of political offenses. Again.
the reason for this doctrine is not
present under municipal law-that is,
the domestic law of a State. 1t has
been seen that under internationa
law the reason for the doctrine was
more sovereignties as to civil, politi-
cal or religious concepts. That rea-
son does not exist under the munich
pal law of a political state or sover-
eighty in this country.
There might have been some ex-
cuse for the recognition of such
doctrine in the schisms and contro-
versies, rebellions, revoits. and revo-
luton of the old world, whose his
tory has been in some states one
continuous struggle between the ar
bitrary exercise of tyrannical power
on the one hand, and the just fight
for civil, political or religious liber-
ty on the other. Again, no organ of
government existed in many of those
states for the sovereign will of the
people to express itself. Hence, rev.
olution, rebellion, revolt. and feud
within the state were the agencies
! that necessity compelled them to in
woke in order that the spirit of lib
erty and democracy might express it,
self. In view of this, the various fac
tons within the state frequently had
the de facto status of belligerents.
Hence. the development of the doc
trine after the analogy of interna-
tional law within the government of
these countries. No such justifca-
ton for the doctrine can exist in this
country. Our constitutional system
is so organized that at the ballot box
the sovereign elector expresses his
Will. Changes are to be wrought
through the constitutional organs of
government and by the orderly pro-
cesses of law. The Constitution by
the rights, privileges, and immuni-
ties granted therein amply protects
any citizen in his religious or poIti-
cal liberty,
President Harding tersely and
forcibly stated this view when he
said at Omaha, on October Z. 1920:
No true American will argue that
our laws should not be enforced l
refer to laws, no matter of what ma
ture, whether they be those which
deal with ordinary crimes and mis-
demeanors. or those which deal with
acts of treason to the United States
threatening to the Constitution and
the fabric of our social organization.
Il wish no one TO misunderstood
me, and, therefore will say as
plainly as / can that for my part I
can see no essential difference be-
tween ordinary crimes on the one
hand and political crimes and politi-
cal prisoners on the other hand. If
there is distinction. surely it is not
a distinction which favors political
crimes or political prisoners. The
thief. or any ordinary criminal. is
surely less menace to those things
which we all hold dear than the man
or woman who conspires TO destroy
our American institutions"
The question of the limitations of
personal liberty is, in the first IN
stance, question of political philos-
ophy and not of law. In the evolu-
ton of government we have grad
ually limited the sphere of individual
liberty study of the history of
legislation wherein personal liberty
has been limited by statute will show
that these enactments have been
vigorously challenged. and the same
arguments have been used against
violation of personal liberty that we
hear today.
From the standpoint of the Gov
eminent. the only sound view is that
of law enforcement. Whatever diff
ferences of opinion exist in the views
as to the wisdom Of some of these
laws can be of no concern to the