LAST DITCH OF DEMOCRACY - Majority Rights

Adams HAD a public to whom law and justice, equity, meant
something. He could arouse indignation. He had also the moral courage
to stand up for law AGAINST the popular passion, as shown in his
defense of the British soldiers in Boston, the implements, not the fount
of the tyranny exercised against the people of Boston.
Today one HAS no such public. One has no law court. One can only
insist that, IF there WERE a court, the line of justice COULD be
demarked, and that from the European, continental side, there is an
appeal to such equity.
And in contrast to the jitterbug state of mind DELIBERATELY induced
in the American public by years of foetid press propaganda and
demoralization, I have cited and shall continue to cite Franco Rusconi,
now in military service, one of the four editors of Il Barco, a student
paper issued in Genova, three of the four editors being in military
service and the fourth carrying on the editing. Rusconi calls not only for
peace WITH justice, but for peace AS justice.
That may be a fine and delicate distinction, a demarcation of the idea
beyond the general grasp. I doubt if it IS beyond the general grasp. It is a
profound distinction.
Highbrow stuff if you like. And Marshall Field and Colonel McCormick
are possibly responsible for the lack of such highbrow stuff in America.
When you start tearing down, there is no saying where it will end. The
contempt for intelligence, the contempt for equity was not an overnight
product.
YET there is no government with the consent of the governed UNTIL
the governed believe that government includes at least SOME sense of
justice. It is precisely on that ground that the majority was once
respected. I mean that there arose in the U.S.A. in the time of Miss