STATE—PRESS—PEOPLE

Dominion, Volume 22, Issue 263, 2 August 1929, Page 18

STATE—PRESS—PEOPLE

AN AMERICAN VIEWPOINT Sir, —One of the most remarkable features of the United States Republic, if we arc to believe President Hoover (and who will doubt him?), is the widespread and general lawlessness manifested throughout the American nation. Speaking before the annual conference of the members of the Associated Press of United States of America in New York in April of this year, the President of America, said: “A surprising number of our people otherwise of responsibility in the community, have drifted into the extraordinary notion that laws are made for those who choose to obey them. And in addition, our law-enforcement machinery is suffering from many infirmities arising out of its technicalities, its circumlocutions, its involved procedures, and too often, I regret, from inefficient and delinquent officials. “We are reaping the harvest of these defects now. More than nine thousand human beings are lawlessly killed in the United States each year. Little more than half ns many arrests follow, less than one-sixth of these slayers are convicted, and but a scandalously small percentage ore adequately punished. “Twenty times as many people in proportion to population are lawlessly, killed in the United States as in Great Britain. In many of our great cities, murder can apparently be committed with impunity. At least fifty times as many robberies in proportion to population are committed in the United States as in the United Kingdom, and three times as many burglaries.” Then President Hoover made an appeal to the Associated Press delegates “to demand that our citizens shall awake to the fundamental consciousness of democracy, which is that the law's are- theirs, and that every responsible member of a democracy has the primary duty to obey the law.” The condition of society in U.S.A, so emphatically emphasised by contrast with the United Kingdom by Mr. Hoover, is not a new feature in America’s delinquency. In his Baccalaureate address as President of Yale University in June, 1922, Dr. Angell felt called upon to observe that “in this country the viola tion of law has never been so general nor so widely condoned as at present.” And the president added: “This is a fact which strikes at the very heart of our system of government, and the young man entering upon his active career must decide whether he too will condone and even abet such disregard of law, or whether he will set his face firmly against such a course.” For seven years, at least, there has been no abatement of lawlessness. Men high in standing and authority have taken occasion during these years to repeat Dr. Angell’s dictum: “Violation of law has never been so general,” and the greatest citizen of the United States has now given expression to a more determined and vehement utterance. It must therefore be admitted as true that there has never been a time when deliberate disregard of law is so habitual as at the present time among all classes, even among those who represent culture, achievement, and wealth. It is universally admitted. There must be a reason; there must be a remedy. The laws of democracy must be respected by democracy, or democracy fails. The Press of America at once appraised critically the appeal of President Hoover, who had also suggested the appointment of a Commission of Inquiry into the cause of general lawlessness. Some editors suggested that neither the President, the Senate, or Congress could expect the people to observe the laws of the United States when Parliament itself had ignored for years the 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution. Some editors were more direct, and said in effect that President Hoover and his Cabinet should, speaking politically, sweep their own doorstep before they suggest that the people, high or low, should be asked to sweep theirs. Such tuquoque arguments emanated from the more democratic newspapers, opposed generally to the Republican Party. Yet the truth of the 14th and 15th Amendments being treated as dead letters was not affected, and Republican and Democrat have been equally guilty—the Republican for longer. The “New York Herald-Tribune," editorially, said this: “We think the war against crime will be futile unless it also notes candidly the obsolete laws and the blundering laws which have helped to lower all law, in the estimation of the average American.” Another New York editor wrote: “Despite the President’s pronouncement, there is such a' thing as bad law, unworthy of respect. Had there not been men who refused to bow down before oppressive laws, there would be no country, dedicated to the purpose of guaranteeing individual liberty, over which Mr. Hoover could preside. Instead of attempting to force public respect and compliance with a law which he confesses lacks public favour, Mr. Hoover might well consider carefully the effort of a bad law which contaminates the good, as a bad apple contaminates the sound, if all are barrelled together.” The Hearst newspapers said this: “Of course, there should be respect for law in the abstract, but first, there should be laws which deserve respect. It is better to respect the fundamental American principles of liberty, equality and justice than it is to respect laws which infringe upon these inalienable rights of man.” “The President’s address,” said the “New York World” (evening), “is a strong pronouncement on the side of law and order, and on the whole will meet with hearty approval; but it fails to disclose any real comprehension of the problem. . . ” Withal, the United States of America to-day are at once a great example and a great warning. The pettiness of an English law against the Americn colonies led to the revolution. Quids has said, “Petty laws breed great crimes.” Yet to-day the laws of our Empire are the laws of liberty, the bulwark of individual rights. They define every man’s rights. They stand between all man and they defend each from all. If any man is deprived of rights unjustly, by that injustice is everyone injured. Law must be backed by coercion, but unjust law will be defied. The great question for America is: Is 'here any unjust law in operation that induces defiance of law leading to that prevailing disregard for law which breeds crime and fills men like President Hoover with apprehension? The State, the Press and the people of Americn will not be ’’udged for their ignorance of what has never been revealed to them; but assuredly they will be blamed for conduct the results of which they ought to have known. Again, the United States are at once to us an example and a warning The destiny of a State rests upon the cultivated intelligence of all its citizens.—l am, etc., J. D. SIEVWRIGHT. Wellington, July 26.