LAST DITCH OF DEMOCRACY - Majority Rights

However, not to raise undue prejudice, let us consider some habits of
gangster, or the nature of American gangsterism.
Has it been observed that the head gangster occasionally takes steps to
get some guy acquitted? Not of course by proof of the ruffian’s
innocence, but by “other means,” let us say “other means.” Has this a
precedent? Have you looked into the history of crooked acquittal or an
attempt at crooked acquittal?
Can you divide control into two sorts, open and secret? And if so, have
you, or your professors, your teachers history, yet given sufficient
attention to the history of secret controls, to the history of secret
taxation?
Don’t start with a parti pris, don’t start with a prejudice. Don’t assert that
any one race has the monopoly of secret controls, or of a technique of
secret taxation. Look into it. Think a bit about secret taxation. Then
think of law. I know that is hard. It is antipathetic, unsympathetic, no
American likes to think about law, let alone keeping it. But still, draw
back a moment, think about law. What is the aim of law? And of law
codes?
Is law there to preserve public order? Is it all like traffic regulations,
designed to keep things moving more comfortably for the public? Or is
there another kind of law, or code, or regulation, just made to give the
beak a chance to shove FINES on to the public? And if so, can you
distinguish it?
I should say it was fairly easy to distinguish the moment one starts
looking at any law code from that angle. Code or hoax, or codification of
fool regulations would be sought by the— —“cui bono,” the old
question, WHO gits the rake off? Where do the fines go? Who gets ’em?
When you, those of you who are my age, and were old fashioned and
read the Bible in childhood, when you did, IF you did, you did NOT