Law and Rights by Eugene Leland

Pacific Press Publishing Association · Mountain View, California · Jul 9, 1912

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 39, No. 26.

Law and Rights

By Eugene Leland

It seems to be a settled principle with some, that when somebody happens to say something that is catchy in form, the saying must be true because of its catchy form.

That is a very dangerous principle to be governed by in one's actions. It is just as easy to state a flagrant falsehood in flowing phrase of catchy alliteration, as it is to state the most sacred truth in that way. And when the falsehood is thus stated, there is the more danger that the wicked principle will be taken up and enacted into law, because its evil character is covered up and hidden by the beautiful language in which it is expressed.

There is a saying of this character used by the advocates of Sunday legislation, which falls from the tongue as glibly as if the saying were absolute gospel truth, when in fact it is a glaring falsehood. The saying is this: "The right of one to rest, demands a law of rest for all."

Now that saying is put in a very catchy way, and it has caught a great many. It is liable to catch a great many more, unless the bait is taken off and the barbed hook exposed.

The fallacy of the saying lies in the fact that a right (used in this sense) can never be enacted into law without destroying the right altogether. A right is the freedom of choice between doing and not doing. One can not be said to have the right to do a thing without having at the same time the right not to do it. That is, he has perfect freedom of choice in the matter. His own will is the only restraint that is put upon his action.

But a law is designed for the express purpose of taking away the freedom of choice from the individual. A law says to the individual that he must do, or that he must not do, as the case may be, according to the will of another besides himself. He has no choice in the matter.

To illustrate: A man exercises a right when he contributes to a public subscription of some kind. He is perfectly free to pay as much or as little as he likes, or nothing at all. He exercises a right when he

makes a purchase of some article for his own benefit, or for some other purpose. He is perfectly free to choose the kind of article that he will purchase, and the price that he will pay for it.

On the other hand, a man does not exercise a right when he pays his taxes. He must pay them. There is no choice in the matter. Similarly, a man exercises a right when he enlists in the army for the defense of his country, or for any other purpose, because he has the freedom of choice between going and staying at home. But when he is drafted into military or naval service against his will, he does not exercise a right in going. He has no choice in the matter. He must go. Such illustrations might be multiplied indefinitely, but enough has been said to show the difference between a right and a law, and that when a right is enacted into law, the right is thereby destroyed.

Take the case of the saying referred to above, "The right of one to rest, demands a law of rest for all." If "one" has the "right" to "rest," "all" have the same right. But it is strongly implied, if not directly stated, in this saying, that in order that "one" may enjoy his right to rest, "all" must be deprived of their right not to rest.

Now that is asking too much. It savors too much of tyranny. A law that deprives "all" of their right not to rest, including the "one" for whom the law is enacted, is a very bad law. After it is enacted, the "one" for whom it is enacted, rests, not because he has his right to rest secured to him, but because he dare not do otherwise. His right to rest has been destroyed. Laws are not enacted for the purpose of creating rights, nor should they be enacted so as to destroy human rights. Just laws are those which protect men in the enjoyment of the rights which they already possess by nature.

Every man has the right to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience; but when another man steps in and requires him to worship according to the dictates of another's conscience, that other man thereby deprives the first man of his rights. So far as the exercise of those rights is concerned, he has destroyed them altogether, not only for the other man, but for all men, including himself.