Home     Contents     Orarch Menu


905 Central Square Bldg., Cambridge, Mass.
No. 6                                              MAR 1940

Subscription $1 a year, 50 for 6 months. For discussion groups, each additional copy per month above the first fully paid year's subscription, 25 per year.

Issued by the Boston Liberty Group. This paper is issued by a group, and is not the property of any individual.

Contributions of news or articles are welcomed.




                This being the year for the regular decennial census prescribed by the Federal Constitution, there comes with it the regular quota of objections that Americans always have to any attempt of the government to horn in on their private affairs. This year questions are more personal than ever, and so the decennial census revolt is more widespread than ever.
                An extremely false impression has been circulating
probably started by the vicious New Dealers, as have been most of the lies circulated in America in the last seven years, to the effect that the whole census revolt was started by a certain New England senator, whose only function in connection with the whole affair has been to inform Washington official circles of the groundswell existing among the population. This senator may be open to plenty of criticism, as are all politicians; but his character has nothing to do with the case.
                One might as well argue for or against either side of the war by discussing the character of some war correspondent.
                Actually, it takes no politician to make Americans resent official intrusion into their affairs; it has been instinctive with the inhabitants of this continent for centuries. The objection to answering census questions has actually been with us at every federal census, and to an increasing degree as inquiry has been more personal. This time, the questions have become so personal and so detailed that the objection has reached official attention
and the administration (which happens to be operating under the theory that nobody would assert individual rights except for a conspiracy of moneyed interests against the government) simply blames one of the senators!
                To what extent the snoops will be faced with an actual strike on the part of their victims
to what extent the administration would resort to mass arrests to uphold its alleged right to arbitrary searchremains to be seen. Maybe very little will happen; but it is the American people asserting its traditional right, and this can be a very powerful force once it gets going. 
                The constitutional authorisation for a census every ten years was never intended to cover any detailed government inquiry into private lives. The census was authorised by the constitution for just one particular purpose, namely, apportioning Representatives among the several States. The census was never provided, even in the constitution drawn up by the "Cincinnati conspiracy," as a means of snooping into everybody's private life, or of torturing confessions out of people.
                The Orarch doubts if this "census revolt" will turn out to have the importance some people are inclined to place in it; and we doubt if the taking of a census is the proper occasion for such a revolt; but we stand firmly for the strictest limitation of the sphere of governments, especially as against individual rights, and we believe that people should use every possible occasion to defend their rights against governmental enroachments which are now unhappily all too frequent. Orarchy means the limitation of governmental jurisdiction--to an absolute minimum--and an orarch cannot but approve of any efforts of the people to take the law into their own hands when a government oversteps the bounds set for it by the people who form the source of its power and authority, and who must set the limits of that authority and see to it that those limits are respected.


                "What 'ud become of this here country if able men 'n' good citizens took to runnin' for office 'n' got elected? Dang near ruin it, wouldn't it? Where'd politics be? And if ya hain't got no politics ya hain't got no parties. 'N' if ya hain got no parites what's the use havin' a Govament? Hey?"Clarence Budington Kelland    other quotes



                There has been considerable argument over the new "Hatch Act," still further limiting the rights of public employees to participate in political activity. It may be, as some say, limiting their rights as citizens; but this argument would hardly have any moral application as against persons claiming any actual authority over others, whose rights therefore should be limited. Unfortunately, most of those against whom this limitation is directed, are hardly people who can be considered as in authority in any sense of the word a large proportion are laborers or non-pushers.
                Another misapprehension is, that it would actually keep those jobs from being used for political purposes. It should be extremely obvious that no administration will use such laws to enforce penalties against their own supporters; it therefore penalises a large class of public employees if is they should give any indication of activity politically against the administration. The passage of such an act, therefore, insures a larger political machine than ever before in the hands of the ruling administration. From that angle, it is very much of a restriction on the freedom of opinion of citizens.
                Query for those who support general government ownership: If everybody is to go on the public payrolls, and if those on public payrolls are not allowed to participate in political movements, what becomes of "democracy"?
                There seems to be better point in Senator Hatch's other suggestion, that the government should supply campaign expenses for anyone who wishes to run for office. But that is not likely to go far in Congress; because, to use again a quotation cited elsewhere on this page, "where'd politics be?"


                The amount of candidates "sounding off" for a try at the presidency is getting to be "worse and more of it."
                Among all this mess of screwballs taking themselves seriously, and expecting the American people to take them seriously, it is a relief to find a self-admitted screwball who makes no attempt to conceal the fact. Such is the candidacy of Gracie Allen (Mrs. George Burns) of California, the well-known radio comic, who has announced her candidacy for President, on a ticket she names the "Surprise Party."



                The American minister to Canada has just been shooting his mouth off with a war-mongering speech which pleased the Canadians but has created a terrible uproar in the United States.
                Any pro-allyism from an official representative of America must indicate, to the world outside in general, that that is the sentiment of the country, and that America is ready to go to war for Britain at the drop of the hat. This may be true of the President personally, but it is hardly the same with the people as a whole. Last fall there was a feeling of fatalism in this countrya feeling, sponsored by the most vicious of the New Deal propagandists, that participation in the war was inevitable and not to be resisted; but this feeling has declined since then so strongly and steadily that few traces of it are now to be seenit has been replaced by a determination to keep out at all costs, Presidents or no President.
                The mere rebuke that this envoy got is hardly sufficient. And much more to the point is the statement of that other diplomatic representative of the United States, that Americans do not know what the war is about, and want no part of it. The Orarch, of course, cannot approve of any of themthey all represent a system that is fundamentally inconsistent with any proper conception of rights; but, to "give the devil his due," we might as well recognise when somebody has brought up a point worth considering (in other words, "he's got something there").



                 A certain well-known restaurant in Boston is, at the present writing, affiliated with a strike, with pickets marching up and down under police protection whining something about "a living wage," and deceiving the public into thinking that wages and hours are at issue in the strike.
                The fact is that no such question is at issue between the restaurant and its employees. The restaurant had agreed with certain unions that an election should be called under the so-called "Baby Wagner Act" (a state law in imitation of the national Wagner Act) and that it would abide by the result of the election. Now a strike is on against holding such an election, and demanding immediate resignation of the A. F. of L. unions.
                Why? Are the unions afraid they would loss the election? Are they anxious to force an unwilling majority to truckle to the domination of a minority? Or is it the same spirit that made a European dictator recently invade a neighboring country to prevent a plebicite being held there?


                Oklahoma has lately followed the land of Vermont taking steps to prevent Federal authorities from taking land by force for use as a dam site. In this case, Oklahoma is calling out its National Guard to resist Federal invasion.



                The Orarch has planned to give occasionally the text of anti-war verse of the World War period. The "mammy song" of 1914, sickly sentimental but powerful in peace appeal, was "I Didn't Raise My Boy to Be a Soldier." Though it was considered seditious in 1917-18, many people kept and played phonograph records of it; and in other countries, people were arrested for singing it. The words of the refrain were:

"I didn't raise my boy to be a soldier,
    I brought him up to be my pride and joy.
Who dares to place a musket on his shoulder
    To shoot some other mother's darling boy?
Let nations arbitrate their future troubles,
    'Tis time to lay the sword and gun away.
                   There'd be no war today
                   If mothers all would say:

'I didn't raise my boy to be a soldier.' "  audio

Home     Contents     Orarch Menu