Evening star., 1922-11-12
Present Contempt Of Authority
Menace to Popular Government

criminal. wonder II two or three
aoquittals on this ground might
not wake up the people to the fact
that law violation is law violation,
and convince them that he who
expects the law to be enforced
should himself be law abiding.
However, there are worse things
than law infractions 30 far as the
maintenance Of our system Of gov
ernment is concerned. I do not
myself believe that the courts are
sacrosanct. Freedom could not
long endure in the face Of legal
tyranny II the action Of the court
were not subject to honest criti-
cism in the forum of public opin-
ion. Any power 10 liable to be-
come tyrannical-kingly power.
legislative power. judicial power.
or even the power OF an organized
majority. The safety of q republic
depends upon freedom Of speech.
there 10 a time to speak. and there
is time to keep silent. A man
10 wholly within his right to re-
monstrate in . mild and moderate
way touching the conduct Of his
wife, but he is too big q fool to be
married II he starts the trouble in
q public assembly. The courts may
we'll be criticised for biased and
unjust opinions. as freedom of
the individual, but those who be-
lieve in the old order of govern
ment. wherein IL committed to the
courts the determination OF what
the law is. realize that there are
times when criticism should be
withheld Just as there are occa-
sions which demand criticism.
For the sake of my present argu-
mont. 1t is immaterial to me
whether the injunction which was
granted against the striking rail-
road shopmen was justified or un-
justified. legal or illegal. The case
10 not at an end. The Supreme
Court Of the United States has not
passed on 1t. Yet, all sorts of
opinions have been rendered. The
Attorney General and the Chicago
judge were lauded by some as the
saviors OF our institutions. Others
attacked their action as tyrannical
and unconstitutional. Notice was
served In some instances that no
attention would be paid to the in
juction. Threats to ignore it were
made.
Repeating that 1 neither affirm
nor deny the justice or Constitu-
tionality Of the courts act, I ask
thoughtful Americans how con-
duct Of this character 10 justify
ing our democracy In the eyes Of
the old world. II large bodies Of
men can openly defy the courts.
are wrong. iEnorantiy or inten-
tionally. may I ask what there is
In numbers that gives bodies of
men rights in the republic higher
than those possessed by the in
dividuaf citi1en? Have !. as an in
dividual, not as much right. when
convinced that the judgment the
court rendered against me is
erroneous or tyrannica1. to say
to the court: Go to. you tyrant;
I do not acknowledge your juris-
diction; will not obey your de-
cree" Yet, II did this thing I
would find myself in jail for con-
tempt Of court Instead Of being
called a good American would
be termed an outlaw. would be
ADVISED 10 n8nL my cause through
the court Of last resort, and, II
beaten there. patiently to submit
to the decree until by legislative
enactment 1 could remedy my
grievance.
OF course. Edmond Burke was
right when he said: "You cannot
indict people" And Of course
1t IL true that we cannot, by force
and power. make a vast number
Of people consent to the justice
of a courts decree. That is not
my point. The thought l would
convey is that without orderly
processes Of the law and patient
waiting for relief we are not
5ustifyin1 our system of govern
ment in the eyes Of its critics.
but are lending credence to the
belief that numbers, not principles.
make good government. Though
injustice ought never to mark
judicial opinion in America, bad
as that is, 1t is preferred to riot
and revolution, for there are
orderly ways to adjust injustices,
while there is no way to overcome
the effects Of force once used.
fcoovr;~ht 1ooo ~ T,hornss p MsrhsN