examples you have exhibited to mankind 'had this day been wanting, the world had never seen the last stage of perfection, to which human nature is capable of attaining.'" & Here before the army and before men whom he knew had taken the small-group view, (before those who in a perfectly human way had followed personal interest and had yielded to the demands of class) before a group of patriots who had been unable fully to eliminate the older group psychology stood the "chief," who having put aside all personal consideration, having spent eight years in patriotic service without pay, made an appeal to his companions in arms as persons who had been trusted by the people with leadership. They were reminded of this trust and were asked to further sacrifice to the ideals of democracy. And says Colonel Cobb in the letter describing the affair, "This little address, with the mode and manner of delivering it, drew tears from many of the officers." 7 Dangers of disloyalty in times of peace. The greatest danger of disloyalty to democracy is in times of peace. In times of war, the struggle is a continuing drama. In wartime, men are appealed to, to keep their "self-interest" and small-group loyalties in true perspective. But when the common danger is past the larger loyalty is likely to be forgottento the extent at least that provision is not made for continuing the dramatization of needs and dangers. Exploits of war, deeds of daring, sacrifices for ideals continue to be the inspiration of the home circle, the church, the school, civic patriotic agencies. But with return of peace there is at once a demand by practical men of affairs, the small-group, exploitative leaders and their henchmen to "get back to normalcy"-meaning back to unrestrained rivalry for the very thing that the democracy appealed to in time of war, seeks to set aside. What democracy has overlooked is that there is even greater need for dramatizing disloyalty and hostile encroachments in time of peace than is present when organizing for military defense. What democracies must learn is that they cannot be led by "Tories" in peace without breeding war, for it lies in the very nature of mankind collectively to resent "Toryism." The only form of disloyalty against which it was thought necessary to provide in the Constitution in times of peace, was that form with which the colonists had to deal when contesting the right of the King and Parliament to use force against them. Here was an expression that had been impressed upon their minds not only by the eight years of warfare in which they had been engaged; but the same lesson had been borne home by four centuries of Anglo-Saxon experience in which the King, as the head of the government, had first made pledges to the people to protect their liberties and then had violated these pledges. Time and again one group or another in the English nation had risen up to protest, or had to contest by force of arms, the right of persons in authority to exercise powers which they claimed as a matter of prerogative. The purpose of the Constitution was so to define and limit these powers, that the right of the executive could at all times be questioned by other branches of the government; and for the purpose of enforcing the decisions reached, definite provision had been made: 1. By organizing a popular electorate as the body-politic. 4. By making the authority of the executives subject to 5. By making their acts and proposals a subject of review, criticism, discussion, and approval or disapproval by the representative body and upon appeal, by the electorate. 6. By making breaches of trust actionable in the courts. Thus disloyalty on the part of persons in office was thought to be definitely terminable and actionable. Partisanship, when disloyal.—What was not foreseen was that by collusion and small-group organization the machinery of control might itself be controlled in the interest of "leaders" who were disloyal. As has been said there is no assumption made by the American people that partisanship could be made the means of dramatizing issues in its policy-determining bodies, as well as in its courts. What democracies have since learned is that partisanism can be effectively used to dramatize social as well as legal justice. And democracies have also come to know that any attempt to control the deliberative machinery of a legislative or inquisitional agency of government prevents dramatization of issues of social and political justice quite as effectively as tampering with the courts. It therefore is just as disloyal, just as criminal to organize to control votes or subvert legislative procedure, as it is to conspire to buy a jury or to attempt to subvert the open forum procedures and the impartiality of a judicial tribunal. Without adequate provision for making "opposition" useful and serviceable in peace times, both voter and representative remain in ignorance, the vision of democracy becomes be fogged, and all the machinery of control is set for the triumph of small-group psychology. In the days when central government was established, local politics in America were of the old "rotten borough" type. This was an inheritance. It was not peculiar to the American people. It was an aspect of stay-at-home and peace-time Toryism to which America had not given serious thought. That this same “peacetime Toryism" is still with us is amply shown by the turn taken in public affairs after President Harding, in ringing post-war appeals, called the people to get back to "normalcy." This operated to divert attention away from war-time idealism and to strengthen the leadership of the peace-time profiteer-a leadership that no one dared to champion openly while the nation and democracy were fighting for life. The result was a repetition of what happened after the Revolution, after the War of 1812, after the Civil War, and while the SpanishAmerican war was on. Its fruits are now before us for contemplation. The people are becoming conscious that they have quite as serious a problem to be dealt with in time of peace as in organizing for war-the problem of organizing to protect leaders who are loyal to American ideals and institutions, and of developing a procedure whereby they may send to political oblivion persons who are disloyal. CHAPTER XX AMERICAN CONCEPTION OF TREASON AND SEDITION Treason and sedition, as these concepts have taken form and laws have been instituted for their punishment, were devices of an older and autocratic régime—a régime that was set aside in the struggle for the recognition of American nationality. It is a part of the general subject before us, therefore, to consider how these offences were treated before American independence and how they were modified and adapted at the time that the new order was set up-and to relate this newer or modified law of treason and sedition to the notions of sovereignty, loyalty, and allegiance that were fundamental to liberty and authority. Treason General conception.-Treason means the very opposite of loyalty and allegiance. All treasonable acts proceed from an intent to be disloyal, an intent to disobey authority. They proceed from a purpose to undermine the established institutions. To the extent that the treasonable conduct goes, it is an attempt to overthrow the juristic as well as the moral order. It is regarded as the worst of all crimes—not only because the first duty of the state as service organ of the community is self-preservation, but because this crime naturally leads to and involves many others, destructive of the safety of individuals and of the peace and welfare of society.1 1 Wise, 77. |