LIBERTY AND ORDER. 7 



der," we must hold them responsible for the overt offenses under 

 the common law. In omitting their opportunity here, they fritter 

 awav their advocacy ; and we certainly should have to suspect them 

 of insincerity, were it not apparent that they are as blind as they 

 are sincere. 



We would have our friends remember that the doctrine of gov- 

 ernment herein advocated is no loose affair . Liberty, in its recipro- 

 cal action, is very severe and jealous in the discipline it inculcates. 

 Its mill grinds so exceeding small that no trespasser can escape. 

 There are as manv justifications for the arrest of crimes as there 

 are ways to commit them. The defense of liberty needs no special 

 statute, it is the result of ages of human experience, and tliere is 

 great unanimity for its enforcement. It requires no decoy detectives 

 or eaves-droppers. Societary equality is the collective side to indi- 

 vidual liberty. The reaction of tlie one is equal to the action of 

 the other. The equilibrium and poise of nature are reproiluced in 

 the harmony of society. It is impossible to conceive how equal 

 liberty can lead to license ; to suppose so would be a contriuliction 

 of terms. As Proudhon said, it is indeed "the mother of order.' ' 

 And the dictatorial imposition of "law and order," reganlless of lib- 

 erty, is the mother of disorder. Where there is perfect liberty ti.ere 

 will soon be perfect temperance ; but where libex'ty and equality are 

 denied, ignorance and tyranny and license ensue. 



SOCIETY vs. THE INDIVIDUAL. 



But prohibitionists claim tliab the interests of society are greater 

 tlian those of tlie individual. Now in what respect are the claims 

 of society greater or different than those of the indivitluals who 

 compose it ? To be sure society is tlie aggregate wliile tlie individ- 

 ual is only a part ; measured by (jHdutUij one is greater than tlie 

 otlier ; and in serving the whole tlie indiviilual is greatly gloritied. 

 But in doing so the standard of society's welfare is lirst reflected in 

 one's own self interest. The source of its autliority comes back to 

 the individual. J^ven in times of public danger, the sovereignty of 

 the individual supersedes that of society. The individual is then 

 sovereign over what he shall eonsi«ler a public danger, and whetlier 

 or not his oivn danger is included. That would be a pretty 'public 

 danger' where it should be the fate of the citizen to get an unmer- 

 ciful Hogging, in order to appreciate the danger of the situation ! 

 If then, in times of war the individual is supreme, lie is certainly .so 

 in times of peace. Society can claim no rights that do not primarily 

 belong to the individual. 



