The Morning Tulsa daily world. [volume] (Tulsa, Okla.) 1919-1927, 1922-04-30
Save the Old World Making America Prey OPPRESSION Asks Stanley?

confuse tho whole vital question by
confouuding personal liberty anf
sensual indulgence, iA ridiculous aud
absurd. Liberty ~ az far from llc-
cnso as the zenith from nudir. That
man IN to he plticd who Contounds
an inoStimdblo blessing and 70 nero
Clrual Indulgence. Tho mental cnli-
h"r OF the alleged iunist or staten
man who can make no distinction
between an aspiration and an appc-
tito is to he commisoraicd or de-
spiqod. Compared with human
rights, property rights are 1rJas.
This confounding OF Independence
and Indulgence has no warrant in
common law. common sonee. or COM
mon dcCcnCy
Prior to tho startling pronounce.
mynt ut the Hcuior senator from
Washington ana tho attorncy-gcn-
erai ot tho United states no states-
man and no JUist has ever been
guilty of 80 cgrcRious blunder.
IL is abhorront to every same cou-
ocptlon ot civic government aud cons
founded by the most simple aud clo-
mCntnry principles of the law.
Right Ia Happiness.
Bouvicr dofiucs personal libcr-
tv' ns freedom from physical and
personal restraint: tho right to tho
pursuit Of happiness; freedom TO go
whero one chooses and to pursue
such lawful occupations as may
seem suitable In its broad sense
personal liberty would include free
dom from unlawful arrest and re-
struint, from unlawful seizures and
searches. from assault and battery.
from libel aud sllndor, from gem
er1l warrants ~ arrest, from unfair
monopolics IN trade, and from quar-
tcring soldiers In time of peace; and
Il would include also tho right ot
trial by jury liberty OF conscience.
freedom OF tho press, tho right to
travel and omigrntc. to bear arms.
and to petition the government for
redress OF grievances.
In u recent stump speech daliv-
cred before tho American Bar asso-
station at Cincinnati tho attorney
general is credited with the most
remarkable assertion ever made by
an alleged jurist before any bar as
soClation. state or national! Tho
questions of tho limitations of per-
sonnl liberty, said he. IL, In the first
instance, n question OF political phil
Osophy and not OF law. There
win be differences OF opinion among
the constituent members OF society
on questions OF this sort. As long
as they remain purely speculative
qucstions In the realm OF the politi-
cal philosophy proposed by their re-
Bpcctivc advocates as tho basis for
social organization there is and can
be no objection to them.
Looking back over the blood and
tears and turmoil. over present and
ever enduring between tho despoil-
era ana the defenders OF human lib
erty my heart is filled with n vain
regrof that some such original and
ingenious philosopher could not have
made his appearance at an earlier
date, Think OF tho tumults he
could have quellcd and tho dynas-
ties he could have saved.
Made England Like Caldron.
The lawless attempt OF Charles
10 seize the persons OF five members
OF parliament made England boil
like n caidron and transformed tho
city OF London into a maddened
mob. That invasion of tho personal
rights OF an individual plunged n
nation into civil war and cost n
foolish king his head.
What pity the encouragement
was not u member OF the Long par
lament How easy II all would
have been. how simple was tho So
iution! He could have enlightened
an indignant assembly. quieted tho
turbulence OF IA secthing city by the
all-consoling assurance that immun-
ity from false arrest In q strictly
personal privilege. n harmless in
vasion OF tho personal liberty OF the
citizen with which Legislators and
courts are In no wny concerned.
that II IL In fact n matter OF phil
ophy and not OF law. Pym and his
friends would In all proba ability have
gone to Jail, and Charles would have
saved his scalp and his crown.
a century or 10 ago bourbon des-
IL Ii Il a