freedoms for the good of
all, he surrenders to a paternalism of all the people. That were
better called, once for all, a fraternalism.

It is not enough, however, to show that the title is in our case a
grave misnomer. The editor adduces several recent instances which he
considers exhibitions of the increasing tyranny of all the people. He
believes the tyranny of all the people, if they are as selfish as they
are now, would be more hopeless than the despotism of an individual;
for the single tyrant is after all amenable to revolution, while the
whole nation as a tyrant is accountable to nothing. To his view,
indeed, the occurrences I am about to repeat prove the new tyrant is
already created. They exhibit a "tyranny which shows that persecutions
are only limited by the power vested in the State."

Let us examine the data for this astonishing conclusion. My limits
will not allow more than a bare reference to the incidents which are
fully described in the May editorial.

Case I. is the incarceration in Tennessee of a Seventh-day Adventist
for working on Sunday. Of this it may be remarked that had it happened
two centuries ago it would have been symptomatic; to-day it is a
curiosity.

Case II. is the arrest of a Christian Scientist in Iowa for practising
contrary to the rules of the State. I presume this cannot be fairly
disposed of by suggesting that there has been some aggravated occasion
for such stringency. But it is certainly true that the State has the
right to prevent malpractice--a right none of us would wish renounced.
And as soon as there are sufficient data to convince an intelligent
public opinion that the theory, with its perilous repudiation of all
medical skill, is not fatal to human life, it will receive an
ungrudged status.

Case III. is the arrest of a minister, of pure life and unquestioned
standing, for sending obscene literature through the mail. The sole
charge was the publication of an earnest and chastely worded article
on marital purity; but the real cause was supposed to be his severe
criticism of the Society for the Prevention of Vice nearly a year
afterward. If these facts are verifiable this is a monstrous outrage.
But unhappily it is not the first instance where revenge has been
taken on the innocent by due process of law. Without doubt the people
ought to be more aroused by it than they are. Yet such a sporadic
instance of miscarried justice is scarcely a reason why the State
should c