Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 17.pdf/431

 408

THE GREEN BAG

moral element, and then not enforced to please the immoral element. The difference between a " wide-open ' ' town and a " closed" town is that in the former the laws are not enforced, while in the latter the laws are observed. The gambling laws in many places are permitted to be disregarded and the laws regulating dramshops nullified. It has been claimed these laws could not be enforced in large cities, but they are en forced and faithfully observed in the large cities of Missouri. In fact, Missouri is the most law-abiding state of the Union and in yielding obedience to law has set an example for other states to follow. There is in practically all the states, a statute requiring dramshops to close on Sunday and election days. Yet in some states it is openly and flagrantly violated. When one enforces this law because it is the law, the same cry is made about "blue laws" and " dead laws." It is a law in the interest of good government to stop the enormous amount of crime that comes out of the dramshop on Sunday and election days. Those interested in having the law violated set up the specious plea that it is an inter ference with personal liberty. It is no more an interference with liberty than the law against gambling or other laws in the nature of police regulations which restrict the rights of one man when they interfere with the rights of another. Absolute liberty to do as one pleases would mean barbarism, for there would be no limit to the conduct of an individual except his whims. The liberty of one would be the unrestricted liberty of every other, and perpetual warfare would result as the wants and desires of men come in conflict, and every man would have equal right to take or hold what his strength or cunning could secure to him. Security can only come from fixed rules, which the people, as they become familiar with them, will habitually respect. Restrictions which seem to the individual to be hardships are but the will of the majority of the people operating through legislative acts. Where rights are

denned and regulated by laws to which re spect and obedience are given, any particu lar law is deprived of all seeming hardship. If each man were allowed to say what laws are good and what laws are bad, and to ignore laws he considered bad, there would be no laws at all. The dramshop keeper who violates the dramshop law, calls loudly for the enforcement of the law against the man who breaks the larceny statute by robbing his cash drawer. The trust mag nate looks with abhorrence upon the burglar, yet thinks he has a right to break the statute against combinations and monopolies. The burglar detests the law breaking of the trusts and thinks they should observe the law, but considers the law against house breaking as an interference with his personal liberty. So it goes; men observe the laws they like and think they have a right to ignore those they do not like. The only safe rule is that if a law is on the statute books it must be observed. If a law is objectionable it should be repealed, not ignored. We need reform in the administration of the law more than anything else. Though perhaps the old Athenian law might be found beneficial, which subjected to fine and imprisonment the person who proposed a law that turned out to be bad or injurious to the public in terests. We do not need new laws so much as the enforcement of the laws we have. There has been too much tampering with the laws in an effort to correct wrongs that do not arise from the infirmity of the laws, but rather from the feebleness of their exe cution. An imperfect law, well adminis tered, is far preferable to a perfect law badly carried out. The law is merely a weapon in the hands of officials, for without officials laws would be as useless as cannon "in war without men. Good government depends more upon the men behind the law than on the law itself. No official has the right to violate the oath that he takes to enforce the laws, simply because some people do not want the law enforced. He cannot excuse non-enforcement on the ground that