74
THE GREEN BAG
durable and intolerable as that of the mob. It is no doubt true that ultimately the people reach wise and sane conclusions. Our system rests upon that idea. But in order that such conclusions may be reached, it has been found essential that the way thereto must be hedged in by such restraints as will make them the result of intelli gence and reflection, rather than prejudice and excitement. If the temporary popular demand was always crystallized in legis lation, regardless of constitutional limita tions, we would have a choice assortment of incongruous, heterogeneous, extreme, draconian, conglomerate of law, disfiguring our statute books, State and Federal, in which it would take at least "a pair o' patent double-million magnifyin' gas microscopes of hextra power" to discern a trace of "the voice of God." The most tragic event in our recent history shows the evanescent character of public sentiment. In September, 1901, Pres ident McKinley -was foully assassinated. All Christendom was shocked. The public indignation was intense. The dastardly crime was committed in the State of New York, whose laws wholesomely punished it with death. But many States have no death penalty, and there was much earnest discussion as to the inadequate protection furnished under such circumstances in those States. The courts of New York, orderly, firm, and dignified, rose to the occasion and meted out justice to the miserable assassin, "promptly and without delay" in a manner that left nothing to be desired, and that may well be emulated everywhere. The demand for Federal legislation that would adequately protect everywhere was universal, insistent, and imperative. The statesman who did not have some specific waiting to be enacted into law did not measure up to the demand of the hour. It excluded for the time being every other idea from the public mind. It was the first question considered by acting President Roosevelt in his first message. After appro
priate and eloquent reference to the mur dered President, he insisted that "the Federal Courts should be given jurisdiction over any man who kills, or attempts to kill, the President, or every man, who by the Constitution or by law is in the line of succes sion for the presidency, while punishment for an unsuccessful attempt should be proportioned to the enormity of the offense against our institutions." The crime was anarchistic and he declared "anarchy is a crime against the whole human race; and all mankind should band against the anarchist." . . . "This great country," he said, " will not fall into anarchy, and if anarchists should ever become a serious menace to our institutions, they would not merely be stamped out, but would involve in their own ruin every active or passive sympathizer with their doctrines." The subject occupied about one tenth of the message and closed with this resounding period: "The American people are slow towrath, but when their wrath is once kindled, it burns like a consuming flame." There can be no doubt the executive discharged its full duty. The House and the Senate engaged in a lively rivalry as to which would most promptly and completely meet the exigency. Both formulated and passed bills. The debates will show with what difficulty they were confined within consti tutional lines and reasonable procedure and penalties. Even then the Senate bill contained a unique section creating a Praetorian Guard, unlimited as to number, mysterious as to> powers and duties, defined by regulations to be made by the Secretary of War, and tobe kept by him a profound secret. This happy and hysterical thought emanated from the prolific 'brain of a distinguished Democratic Senator. These bills promptly died in conference. Their demise excited no remark, much less regret. Attention had been directed to other things. Sessions have come and gone, and so far as I know there lias been no demand
