Socialism and American ideals | Page 5

come down to the people by the gift of the government,
and are not inherent or inalienable, as our Declaration of Independence
would say. This is well illustrated by the principle of the freedom of the
press, which is usually considered one of the greater guarantees of
individual liberty. An examination of the provisions of various
continental constitutions shows that this freedom is given or guaranteed
by the government or by these documents themselves.
"The press shall be free," says the Constitution of Italy (Article 28).
"No previous authorization shall be required in order that one may
publish his thoughts or opinions through the press, except that every
person shall be responsible according to law."--Cons. of The
Netherlands (Art. 7). "There shall be liberty of the press."--Cons. of
Norway (Art. 100). "Every third year the Riksdag (Parliament) ...
shall ... appoint six persons of known intelligence and knowledge, who
with the solicitor general as president shall watch over the liberty of the
press ... If they decide that the [any] manuscript may be printed, both
author and publisher shall be free from all responsibility, but the
commissioners shall be responsible."--Cons. of Sweden (Art. 108).
"The freedom of the press is guaranteed. Nevertheless, the cantons, by
law, may enact measures necessary for the suppression of abuses.... The
Confederation may also enact penalties for the suppression of press
offenses as directed against it or its authorities."--Cons. of Switzerland
(Art. 55). "The press is free; no censorship shall ever be established; no
security shall be exacted of writers, publishers or printers. In case the
writer is known and is a resident of Belgium, the publisher, printer, or

distributor shall not be prosecuted."--Cons. of Belgium (Art. 18). But
this same Constitution later on says quite pointedly (Art. 96, clause 2)
when prescribing the administration of justice,--"In case of political
offenses and offenses of the press closed doors shall be enforced only
by a unanimous vote of the court." Also (in Art. 98) "The right of trial
by jury shall be established in all criminal cases and for all political
offenses of the press." A further reading of the provisions of these
constitutions will show that the whole intention of the documents is to
grant various rights and privileges to the people.
In contrast with these establishments of the freedom of the press by the
constitutions and governments of the various European countries, the
Constitution of the United States merely says in the First
Amendment--"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of
speech or of the press." Stating this in other words, our Constitution
merely protects an already existing, inalienable right. Its guarantee is in
an entirely different sense from that of one of the above named
European constitutions.
In case of riot or disorder, the divinely constituted government of a
country of Continental Europe need merely "suspend the constitution,"
usually by the method of executive decree, and it suspends the freedom
of the press and all constitutional guarantees with it, as was done in
Hamburg, Germany, recently. In the United States this would be
impossible. Even though Germany or some other nation should invade
this country and destroy the governments at Washington and Albany,
let us say for extreme illustration, yet if any person were unjustly
thrown into prison in any part of New York state and a judge of any
duly constituted court happened to be nearby, he undoubtedly would
issue a writ of habeas corpus and the person be brought into the court
for substantiation of the charges in a legal manner according to the
common law. It would not matter whether there were a government or
not, the inalienable common law rights of an American citizen would
continue to exist and the destruction of the government would only
remove one of the means of protecting these rights and not destroy the
rights themselves. In other words, the judge would merely act on the
common law rights of the individual.

Furthermore, in the United States no person, whether high or low,
official or private citizen, is immune from the operation of the common
law. All are finally subjected to it, and the temporary immunity of the
President, a Governor, or any other official, only exists during the term
of office for which that official has been elected. At the expiration of
the term the obligations and penalties of the law immediately are again
in operation. On the other hand, in the countries of Continental Europe
the officials are not subject to the common law but to the Droit
Administratif or Administrative Law, which is an official law for the
regulation or trial of officials. The average European would consider it
almost an act of sacrilege to hale an official into court like any other
private citizen.
All the above goes to show