Publication information |
Source: Free Society Source type: magazine Document type: article Document title: “Who Are Trustworthy?” Author(s): Austin, Kate Date of publication: 17 August 1902 Volume number: 9 Issue number: 33 Pagination: 3 |
Citation |
Austin, Kate. “Who Are Trustworthy?” Free Society 17 Aug. 1902 v9n33: p. 3. |
Transcription |
full text |
Keywords |
society (criticism); lawlessness (mob rule); government; law (criticism); Leon Czolgosz (incarceration). |
Named persons |
Leon Czolgosz; Ulysses S. Grant; William McKinley; Theodore Roosevelt. |
Document |
Who Are Trustworthy?
I am not certain whether I am an Anarchist or not. The government is bad, but are not “the people” still worse? It seems to me they are always bawling out for somebody to be hanged or burned. Bad as they are, the police protected Czolgosz from mob violence.
The above is from a private letter. The writer
still hugs the ancient delusion that the governors are better and more to be
trusted than the governed. Now let us see upon what grounds this idea rests.
In those countries where men are elected by votes instead of birth to rule their
fellows, a certain number of individuals are selected from among “the people,
who are always bawling out for somebody to be hanged or burned.” These individuals
who are in themselves but units that go to make up that much distrusted sum
total known as “the people,” are then armed with power to enact laws or to administer
them, according to their respective functions. Then these individuals, who but
a few days before their election to the exalted position of rulers were “the
people,” mere “bawlers” for the blood of their fellow men, what are they now?
Why, they are now “bawlers,” having the authority to exercise certain privileges,
and aside from losing any of that innate cussedness supposed to belong exclusively
to those not having the privilege of authority, we see only too plainly that
the very position they occupy but increases their power for evil. They are few;
the people are many. They can easily combine. A public office is a private trust
run in the interest of the gang in power.
The people are torn into warring factions, each
worshipping a political idol, who is their god, the only savior, tho [sic] he
may be a whiskey tub like U. S. Grant, an oily knave like McKinley, or a bully
like Roosevelt, he is yet an idol, and our correspondent, who is “not certain
that he is an Anarchist,” yet has the nerve to think this “people,” which gropes
in political darkness, like a blind mole in the earth, can raise up governors
far better than they are themselves! What an absurdity, since in our governors
we behold the very tendencies of the mob, so feared by our friend, empowered
to act. Under that power these tendencies expand till we find those who in their
native state of mobhood could only kill when fired by a mad sympathy for the
victim of a real or imaginary wrong, now committing the most cruel and unspeakable
acts, seemingly with no realization of their direct responsibility in the matter.
Take for instance that western judge, after admitning [sic] his conviction of
the defendant’s innocence, yet fined the victim $100—because the law
required him to “impose a penalty.” And this Waisbrooker case is but a fair
sample of the mental depravity that judges exhibit. How can it be otherwise,
since the law is their supreme arbiter of right and wrong? Indeed we plainly
see that the judge sustains the same relation to the law that the priest sustains
to the pope; and in the Home case we see the judge obeying his “pope,” the law,
while openly admitting the innocence of the prisoner.
Government is founded upon the law; and what protection
can we expect from a class who will murder and rob because the law requires
them to, when they do not happen to be inspired by their own cupidity, avarice,
or brutality? History teaches us that we have the least to fear from our fellow
man when he is not in a position to lay the responsibility of his act upon god
or the law, but must himself take the consequences of his act. As necessity
or poverty is the cause of the major part of the real crimes committed by the
unprivileged class of criminals, and as poverty is the result of the privileges
granted the governors, we must acquire sense enough to abolish the latter, refuse
longer to support in idleness and corruption a horde of worthless parasites
and all the menial hangers-on which their class creates. Then poverty will no
longer blight this earth. But we can never do this by looking up to our governors
as superior beings. Let us learn to look upon them as they are—dangerous men;
and when we yield allegiance to the authoritarian idea, we arm them and disarm
ourselves.
As for that form of protection extended Czolgosz
by the police, the less said the better. The mob would have taken his life as
an insane expression of sympathy for one whom they mistook for a victim. The
officials saved Czolgosz from a speedy death, in order that the beasts of authority
might subject him to every species of mental anguish their diabolical cunning
could inflict, and then led him forth and gave him the stroke of death. It is
not a humane instinct that inspires the police to defeat the aim of the mob.
This is especially true in the case of a regicide. The law must do the bloody
deed to vindicate its awful majesty. The authorities not only prevent the mob
from getting their lawful prey, but they also guard the prisoners condemned
to death with great care, lest the poor wretches take their own lives.
Let our correspondent ponder on these matters,
and consider if the actions of our governors are a matter for self-congratulation
by any intelligent man.
Caplinger Mills, Mo.