the prohibitionists contend, when we who are but human suggest that the eighteenth amendment and the volstead act should be changed, that the law is the law; and now that these are part of our statutes, they are there to stay, that they must not be tampered with or altered in any way; that it is up to every good american to accept them, not to complain, not to make any utterance which would be apt to disturb the sweet peace these laws are intended to bring to us.
they forget that it is they themselves who saw fit to change our laws. are they bad americans because they did so? when the shoe is on the other foot.... but the analogy is so obvious that there can scarcely be any necessity of arguing the matter.
i have written, in a previous chapter, about a few of the laws which are disobeyed. am i a bad american, a poor sport, for instance, because i refuse to believe in capital punishment? it is the law of my state that a man found guilty of murder in the first degree must go to the electric chair. called to serve upon a criminal jury, i plainly say that i do not believe in capital punishment. i am excused.89 my conscientious scruples are taken into consideration. i imagine that only a small percentage of us believe in sending a man to his death, even for so serious a crime as murder; yet the statute abides. we continue to send men to the gallows, or the chair—though some states have been wise enough to abolish the barbarous habit.
i have conscientious scruples about trying a man for violation of the volstead act; for it would hardly be possible for me to convict a fellow citizen who had been spied upon by a detective in a bathing-suit, as i read not long ago that one man had been. i am against the manner in which evidence is obtained; and i would distrust, even under oath, statements of witnesses who hired themselves to the government as plain-clothes men to visit beaches and bathing pavilions in order to discover some unlucky devil in the act of taking a nip from a pint bottle after he was shivering from his plunge in the ocean. there is a human element in such a case. i may be too emotional for perfect jury service. granted. but that is something beyond my control. i cannot change my temperament. i loath the spectacle of one part of the population striving to discover something evil in the other part. it seems unnecessary to me. peeping toms are a far greater menace than the people peeped at. i do not feel morally bound to respect a law which so many respectable fellow citizens likewise disrespect. i think stupid legislation is an abomination; that the world90 would be a happier place were it not for censorship of morals and manners. i think that most people instinctively know the difference between right and wrong, and that, through education, they can be made to understand and see all those little differences and shades which sometimes confound us.
there are divorce laws upon our statutes which millions of people violently and bitterly oppose. is a good roman catholic a bad american citizen because his conscience refuses to let him condone the rulings of our courts in divorce trials?
on april 24, 1922, in st. mary’s protestant episcopal church, emmerton, maryland, a sermon was preached by the reverend w. a. crawford-frost on the subject of “obeying a disreputable law.”
the minister took as his text the verses from esther 1:7 and 8: “and they gave them drink in vessels of gold, (the vessels being diverse one from another,) and royal wine in abundance, according to the state of the king. and the drinking was according to the law; none did compel: for so the king had appointed to all the officers of his house, that they should do according to every man’s pleasure.”
he said in part:
“recently president harding and secretary hughes have made pathetic appeals to the people of america to respect the law. that such a request should have been considered necessary is itself a sad commentary on the state91 of affairs existing in our republic. there is a difference between obedience and respect. all good citizens are called upon to obey the laws, whether they respect a particular law or not; but they are not called upon to respect a law that is not respectable.
“there are disreputable laws just as there are disreputable men.
“when is a man properly looked upon as disreputable? that depends on the time and place and the people who do the looking, but in most ages and countries there are some things that the universal conscience of man holds to be not respectable. thus lying, robbing, cruelty and blasphemy are disreputable, and a man who lies, robs, is cruel and blasphemes is a disreputable man.
“accordingly, if a law can be shown to lie, to rob, to be cruel, and to blaspheme god, it is a disreputable law and does not deserve respect, though all good citizens should obey it until it is repealed.
“to call upon the people of america to respect a law that is not respectable is fundamentally dishonest, for it breaks down the distinction between what is respectable and what is disreputable and calls upon us to admire and look up to that which we should despise and abhor.
“now i will give you reasons why i consider that the volstead act lies, robs, is cruel and blasphemes god. it may be that my arguments are not sound, but they appear to me to be so, and all that a man can do is to go according to his conscience and his common sense.
“it seems to me that it is a lie to say that all beverages containing more than one half of one per cent of alcohol are intoxicating. no man’s stomach can hold enough of a drink containing twice that proportion of alcohol to become inebriated thereby. it is a physical impossibility. he would have to absorb at least a gallon at one time to do it....
92 “the volstead act robbed thousands of men whose capital was invested in what they considered to be an honorable industry and one that promoted the health and happiness of mankind on the whole, even though five per cent injured themselves by it.
“it robbed them by taking away their property from them without compensation. it robbed their employees of their living by throwing them out of work. it robbed the taxpayers, who now have to pay out of their own pockets by compulsion the billions of dollars that were formerly spent cheerfully and voluntarily by the users of alcoholic beverages.
“the volstead act is cruel to invalids who under it cannot afford to get the proper alcoholic beverages needed to preserve their lives. i could quote scores of the highest medical authorities to prove this, but only have space for a few:
“dr. paul bartholow, of the jefferson medical college: ‘beer, ale and porter are much and justly esteemed as stomach tonics and restoratives in chronic, wasting diseases. alcohol is an important remedy in the various forms of pulmonary phthisis. in convalescents from acute diseases there can be no difference of opinion as to the great value of wine as a restorative.’
“dr. samuel c. l. potter, of the cooper medical college, san francisco: ‘in anemia and chlorosis good red wines are almost indispensable. it is an absolute necessity in the treatment of lobar pneumonia. in fevers, alcohol is often most serviceable.’
“dr. frederick c. shattuc, of harvard university: ‘in typhoid fever if the heart shows undue weakness i consider it a grave error in judgment to withhold alcohol. the danger of forming the alcohol habit is practically nil in the subjects of acute general infection. they are more likely to acquire a distaste than a liking for it.’
93 “dr. daniel m. hoyte, formerly of the university of pennsylvania: ‘alcohol has long been used to abort a cold. the patient takes a hot bath, and after getting into bed drinks a hot lemonade containing one or two ounces of whiskey. this produces diaphoresis and aids in the elimination of the toxins.’
“dr. binford throne, writing in forschheimer’s therapeusis: ‘all cases of diphtheria have more or less myocarditis, and all should be given stimulants from the first. the best is good whiskey or brandy.’
“dr. charles p. woodruff, surgeon in the united states army in the philippines, wrote in the new york medical journal, december 17th, 1904, as follows:
“‘in 1902 i obtained a mass of data on the physical condition and drinking habits of a regiment of infantry which had about three years in the philippines. i must confess to being somewhat disconcerted and disheartened at first by the total; the excessive drinkers were far healthier than the abstainers, only one half as many were sent home sick and one sixth as many of them died. i had hoped to prove the opposite.... the damage done to these young men by occasional sprees is not so great as the damage done by the climate to the abstainers. what a lot of misstatements have we received from our teachers, text books, and authorities!’ he concludes:
“‘i suppose some medical editors would advise hiding these figures on the ground that they would be an advantage to the whiskey dealers who buy kansas corn from prohibition farmers. they would no doubt rather see our soldiers die than let them know that a drink of wine at meals might save their lives.’
“in his report he had stated that approximately 11 per cent of the abstainers died, while about 3? per cent of the moderate, and less than 2 per cent of the excessive, died. about 15 per cent of the abstainers were invalided94 home, about 9 per cent or 10 per cent of the moderate, and about 8 per cent of the excessive drinkers.
“and yet in the light of stupendous facts like these the volstead act is passed, hampering physicians in their work of mercy and making it sometimes impossible for them to give the remedies that god intended to prevent suffering and preserve human life. could diabolical cruelty go further than that?
“to torture an invalid is as devilish as it is to burn a well man at a stake.
“more. it is a thousand times worse because it is so much more widely spread. hundreds of invalids are being tortured all over the united states to-day for every white man that ever was burned at the stake by the indians.
“every loyal member of the protestant episcopal church should hold that the volstead act is a blasphemy against god. jews, unitarians and others who do not consider that jesus was god, are entitled to hold different views from us regarding the religious aspect of this act, but for us there is no escape. we believe that jesus was god, and we believe that he made wine at cana and that he ordered it to be drunk publicly in his memory for all time to come. our church has declared that unfermented grape juice is not wine and should not be used for it in the sacrament of holy communion. a law to say that wine containing more than one half of one per cent alcohol should not be allowed to be made and carried about freely from place to place, implies that jesus did wrong in making it and ordering it to be used publicly by christians. if he did wrong, he was not god. therefore, the volstead act from the standpoint of our church, blasphemes god.
“every true churchman, consequently, should despise and abhor the volstead act as lying, robbing, cruel and blaspheming and unworthy of respect, although it must be95 obeyed by all good citizens till it can be repealed. we give it obedience, but not respect.
“‘but,’ some will say, ‘if this is so, why should we obey such a law? would it not be better to rebel against it, to flout it openly and take the consequences?’ it is unjust. it is tyrannical. it is un-american. it is due to a combination of religious and universal ignorance of physiology. it is the result of active political propaganda carried on by money of persons who are financially interested in prohibiting alcoholic beverages. the weapons used have been trickery, deception, falsification of statistics, lobbying, slander and abuse. it has been forced on legislators by intimidation of the grossest kind. good men have been afraid to oppose it, for fear of being called ‘boozers,’ ‘bootleggers,’ lawbreakers,’ and other opprobrious epithets. it was smuggled in as a war measure when our young men were overseas, and later on was made more and more stringent, till it far surpassed in tyranny any thought entertained by its supporters in the beginning. why should we obey such a law? would it not be more american to treat this piece of iniquity as our forefathers treated the stamp act?
“no. it is our duty to obey it. we could not repeal the stamp act, and we can repeal this. in the case of the tyranny of george iii there was no legal redress. all that freedom-loving men could do was to rebel. that tyranny was forced on us from the outside. this we have allowed to be imposed on us in our supineness by tyrants in our own household. the two cases are not similar. we must obey the volstead act till we can repeal or amend it....
“bolingbroke declared, ‘liberty is to the collective body what health is to every individual body. without health no pleasure can be tasted by man; without liberty no happiness can be enjoyed by society.’
“i refuse to be silent when i see america, the hope of96 mankind, likely to be bound hand and foot by the tyranny of ignorance and religious fanaticism....
“the maxim of john philpot curran, ‘eternal vigilance is the price of liberty,’ was never needed in america more than it is at this moment. this is no time for patriots to be silent.
“according to burke, the people never give up their liberties but under some delusion. in this case the delusion is that they are following christ while they are really following mahomet, the anti-christ. that delusion must be exposed until everybody sees it clearly.
“we must not forget what colton said: ‘liberty will not descend to a people. a people must raise themselves to liberty; it is a blessing that must be earned to be enjoyed.’
“how can this be done? listen to savonarola: ‘do you wish to be free? then above all things love god. love one another and love the common weal; then you will have liberty.’
“it is all right to regulate drinking by law, provided it is the right kind of a law.
“the extraordinary thing about our text is that it shows the legal regulation of drinking to be no new thing, for it existed in the time of queen esther, 510 b.c., or just 2432 years ago, because our text says ‘and the drinking was according to the law.’
“but the law allowed all the liberty that was right and proper. it says: ‘none could compel; for the king had appointed to all the officers of his house that they should do according to every man’s pleasure.’
“it was a joyful and festive occasion, like the wedding at cana, and ahasuerus then, as did jesus later on, recognizes that the proper use of wine would promote happiness and health and that the guests present would be trusted not to abuse it.
97 “but though laws regulating drinking may be necessary to well ordered society, these laws must be equitable and sensible, regulation, according to the scriptures, not prohibition. the drinking should be ‘according to the law.’ one great trouble about the volstead act is that the drinking goes on just the same but it is not ‘according to the law,’ and instead of getting pure liquors people are being poisoned by the thousands all over the country.
“would it not be better to follow the bible and have the liquor drunk according to the law?
“this can only be done by modifying the law so as to make it conform with the bible. if the law is dishonest, cruel or unjust, we must vote to change it if we love god, and love our neighbor and love the common weal. we must either repeal it altogether or amend it, so as to make it honest, kindly and fair, so that we may have law and liberty at the same time.
“and americans will do it. in the immortal words of daniel webster: ‘if the true spark of religious and civil liberty be kindled, it will burn. human agency cannot extinguish it. like the earth’s central fire, it may be smothered for a time; the ocean may overwhelm it; mountains may press it down; but its inherent and unconquerable force will heave both the ocean and the land, and at some time or other, in some place or other, it will break out and flame up to heaven.’”
this is powerful language which strikes at the very root of things, but dr. crawford-frost is not the only fearless clergyman who has spoken his mind on this all-absorbing question. archbishop glennon, of st. louis, has scored the eighteenth amendment. in an interview given at atlantic city in august, 1922, he bravely said:
98
“the constitution has been considerably weakened by the addition of the eighteenth amendment, for the prohibition clause limits rights, while the rest of the constitution grants rights. matters referring to alcohol and drugs should be left to the police courts of the various cities and states.”
when he was asked if he thought prohibition a benefit to the country, he said:
“for those who drink too much, yes.”
the most reverend james duhig, d.d., archbishop of brisbane, australia, interviewed in new york, in the late summer of 1922, deplored the dry law. he admitted that he had not observed any drunken men in the streets of the metropolis, but that fact, he said, was beside the issue, because it was the principle of prohibition with which he took issue. he said:
“in australia they are against prohibition. i myself have written strongly against it, and all that i have been able to learn of the results of it in the united states has only served to confirm my belief that australia has taken the right view.
“australia was amazed at america going dry. you cannot make men sober by an act of parliament. what we need is a reasonable control of the liquor trade, not its total abolition. extremes are always dangerous, and i consider prohibition an extreme course.”
in the state of nebraska recently an attempt was made to put through the legislation many autocratic99 laws. people were not to be allowed to speak a foreign language, and certain restrictions were to be placed on the wearing of religious garb, etc. a visitor to that state, george a. schreiner, of south africa, deprecated such legislation, and stated that “laws of intolerance defeat their own ends.” it is interesting to see the reactions on those who come to our country for the first time. mr. schreiner expressed himself wisely when he said:
“it all reminds me of the attempt recently made in japan to put a law on the statutes against bad thoughts. of course, that was very absurd and still, in a way, it was a very honestly meant piece of legislation. the author of the bill wanted to get at the root of what he considered an evil—a danger to japan. elsewhere and in your own state the same thing has been attempted by being aimed at, as it were. i feel that a great deal of intolerance has been born of the war, but we ought to be fair even with jupiter and mars. much is blamed on the war, when, in reality, the war served simply as an excuse to waken latent passions in man.”
the outlook, which is certainly a sane periodical, whose editorial integrity cannot be doubted, sees a menace in too much legislation. only confusion and distrust can result when the people are confronted with a mass of judicial arguments and interpretations of those arguments. in a sensible editorial recently, entitled “why not ‘limitation of legislation’?” the editors spoke their minds thus:
“this harassed old world needs ‘limitation of legislation’ as well as ‘limitation of armaments.’ statutes, laws, and100 regulations of all sorts make each year confusion worse confounded. it has been asserted that every person in the united states, unwittingly, in 99 cases out of 100, violates every day some federal state or local law or regulation; perhaps the honest judge himself in going from his home to the court room where he hands down every day his judgments of justice breaks some minor regulation, for which offense a policeman, if he were nearby and had studied his book of regulations carefully enough, could place the eminent judge under arrest.
“a leading authority on american police administration recently estimated that the average policeman, to enforce the city ordinances, state laws, and congressional enactments, committed in whole or in part to his charge, must have a working knowledge of at least 16,000 statutes. this fact was pointed out in a recent speech in washington by james a. emery before the american cotton manufacturers’ association.
“why not a congress sometime which would subtract 500 useless or foolish or annoying laws from the statute-books, instead of adding 500 laws to those same bulky volumes? such a congress might earn recognition as the greatest the world had yet seen.
“in one of our state legislators a few years ago an extreme illustration occurred of the desire of a member to have his name attached to some piece of legislation. this particular member was sent to the legislature from a more or less rural district. he introduced a bill providing that a bounty of five dollars be paid by the state for the hide of every loup-cervier (the canada lynx or wild cat) killed in the commonwealth. most of the members did not know what a loup-cervier was and had to consult the dictionary, or some other member who had beaten them to the dictionary, to find out what this particular animal (popularly known in some places as lucy vee) was. the legislator101 who desired to have his name go down in history as the author of an addition to the laws of the state is said to have traded his vote on practically every other piece of legislation which came up at that session for votes on his pet measure, which was passed. the state pays as much as twenty or thirty dollars some years for the animals killed on which this bill offered a bounty!
“if there is one place above all others where there is pride of authorship, it is in the halls of america’s state and national capitols; and, as in the field of belles-lettres, there is plenty of plagiarism. similar bills also are frequently introduced by a half dozen or more members, each hoping his may be the one which will stick and bear the mark of fame.
“the united states ‘easily holds first place in the manufacture of statutory law,’ declared mr. emery in his speech. ‘a single congress,’ he added, ‘usually receives some 20,000 bills. many of the states consider not less than 1000. during the year 1921, 42 legislatures were in session. judging from past years, congress and the states annually enact an average of 14,000 statutes. the state and national legislation of a single year recently required more than 40,000 pages of official print.’
“certainly, it is time for a congress on limitation of legislation.”
the same paper has this to say, editorially, on “the achilles heel of prohibition”:
“national prohibition has not been long on trial. the final effect of the fundamental change in our constitution involved in the enactment of the eighteenth amendment has not been, and cannot be, yet determined. all the evidence which we have seen, however, tends to show that the nation is better off materially and physically under102 prohibition than under the system which permitted the sale of intoxicating beverages. benefits to be derived from the elimination of the drink traffic did not wait upon our national experiment for demonstration. they have been obvious for centuries in the experience of peoples from whom alcohol has been barred by religious authority. there remains, however, a very serious problem confronting the defenders and advocates of national prohibition. it is the problem of maintaining the respect for law and order and that mental habit of ready acceptance of legal enactments which is one of the strongest bulwarks of applied democracy.
“we do not doubt for a minute that the majority of the people of the united states are in favor of national prohibition. even in great cities where the liquor interests have had their stronghold we suspect that the number of men and women who would vote for national prohibition, were it put to the popular test, is much larger than the ‘wets’ are willing to admit. we say this in order that this editorial may not be considered as an argument for the repeal of prohibition amendment by those who are working for such ends upon premises which we regard as distinctly unsound.
“to say that there is a majority in favor of the amendment does not imply that there is not a large and active minority in favor of its repeal. the greatest problem confronting advocates of national prohibition lies in the fact that this large minority has not accepted the amendment with that good faith and willing spirit which we have grown to look upon as characteristic of the spirit of the losers in our political controversies. there have been great changes in our government prior to the enactment of the prohibition amendment, but almost invariably these changes, once effected, have been acquiesced in by their most ardent opponents. we are not speaking of individual103 violators, but of the public attitude towards the law.
“one of the strongest denunciations of those who have failed to acquiesce in the eighteenth amendment was recently voiced by judge ben b. lindsay, of colorado, in a statement to the press. judge lindsay said:
“‘is the eighteenth amendment going to be enforced? at the present time it is not being enforced with any degree of success, but has raised up a trail of evils in its wake which are as bad, if not worse, than those it sought to avoid.
“‘so far the great majority of prosecutions have been against the poor and uninfluential people who are victims of the tremendous temptations afforded by the example of the rich.
“‘just what do i mean? i mean that the wealthy and more favored class in this country must accept a responsibility which is now being ignored. they must be willing to give up their pleasures and abide by the law intended for the good of all. so far they have not set the example.
“‘the theaters, jokesters, and parodists are encouraged in making a mockery of the constitution of the united states. when a rich or influential citizen fills his cellars with smuggled liquor and the police are called off, in nearly every case the “conspiracy of the rich” is immediately set in motion. what is this “conspiracy”?
“‘it consists of their influence in reaching officials and suppressing newspaper publicity concerning themselves. so long as some of these officials and some newspapers are lending themselves to this “conspiracy,” they are creating class prejudice. an example of this occurred in our city within the past week. a friend of one of our most influential newspapers became involved in a bootlegging case and was successful in suppressing all mention of it in that particular paper which pretends to be against this evil.
104 “‘the greatest need in this country to-day is to abolish “special privileges,” and the new “special privilege” which the eighteenth amendment has created is the right of the rich to have their booze while the same right is denied to the poor.’
“judge lindsay has laid his finger upon a moral danger which exists in the widespread levity towards an important section of our national constitution. the same menace was singled out for warning by prohibition commissioner haynes when he recently said: ‘one of the greatest dangers now confronting the republic is that we may lose our vision of the sanctity and majesty of the law.’
“how shall we guard ourselves against this menace? the protection cannot be found merely in increased activity of the enforcement officials. it cannot be wholly met by the vigilance of the police. it is a moral danger, and it must be met with moral weapons.
“if we turn to the states which experimented with prohibition prior to the enactment of the national amendment, we shall find precedent an uncertain guide to an understanding of the situation which confronts us. maine, which has the longest record under prohibition, has almost the poorest record in maintaining respect for its prohibition laws. kansas, on the other hand, after a generation of disturbance and conflict, settled down to obedience to the law backed by a wholesome and widespread public opinion.
“will the nation follow the precedence of maine or of kansas? the determination of this all-important fact depends on the sum total of the attitude of our individual citizens towards the maintenance of our fundamental law. it is the right of any one to work for the repeal of the eighteenth amendment if he or she so desires, but it is the bounden duty of every one to see that so long as the eighteenth amendment is part of our constitution it is105 accorded that respect upon which the whole structure of democratic government rests.”
but here we get right back to where we started. citizens cannot be forced to respect a law for which, inwardly, they have a great contempt. even a spiritual energy cannot be brought to bear, i fear, which is strong enough to bring about this desirable end. the youth of our land, at least in our great cities, laugh at the eighteenth amendment—which means that they will laugh at other laws, and finally express nothing but derision for the government.
this concentrated feeling is far more serious than scattered inebriety. it strikes at the very base and roots of society, and, once having gained a sure hold on the people, cannot be checked. an observer who loves america cannot but see in the youth of the land a total disrespect for order and the old sanctities; a violation of moral codes, and a failure to establish rectitude in niches of the heart. there are no convictions, no principles among the young and growing population. there is no desire to conform, no aspiration for a betterment of conditions as they are. instead, there is intolerant laughter, and one is called an old fogy who attempts to assert that marriage vows mean something and that girls who drink cocktails in taxicabs out of thermos bottles are in grave peril.
there is a studious avoidance of responsibility. yet one should not be surprised. the example set106 is none too worthy. it is known that hypocrisy exists in high places; that inconsistency is a national trait; that men in office say one thing and do another.
i heard a young man remark not long ago: “oh, they think it’s wrong, do they, to drink? well, how many congressmen in washington have replenished their wine-cellars, do you suppose, since mr. volstead ran this country, eh? i’d like to get affidavits from bootleggers in washington, as to just what stock has been laid in.”
that feeling—how can one counteract it? one has no answer for such a sage youth. alas! he does some thinking, after all; but our silly legislation has caused his thoughts to run in a direction from which we would gladly divert his mind. the fact of the matter is that most of his elders have thought long and solemnly on these same things.
it is not a pretty topic to consider. we will not face the facts—that is the trouble with america, as i see it. i know one assemblyman in new york state who bravely ran on a wet platform in a dry community, as a matter of principle. he was weary of lying to himself, and to his constituents. he said that as long as he kept a wine-cellar, and deliberately transported some of its contents when it suited him, in his car, he could not face his friends. he must come out in the open and accept their blame or their approval. he ran for office with a clear conscience; but others will not thus declare themselves. behind veils of verbiage they discreetly conceal their political107 faces; alone with one another, or with you and me, they will speak their true mind on prohibition—particularly if their tongues are loosened by one or two glasses of whiskey.
these are the men who are a danger to the republic they pretend to serve. janus-faces have they. they are all things to all men. the time will come when, before we go to the polls, we shall know just where each candidate stands on every issue. there will be no equivocation. declarations must be made. masks must be off.
of the menace of hypocritical office-holders and senators, edwin markham has spoken eloquently in these ringing lines. they should be known to us all in these times of shattered dreams and false avowals. the old established ship of state could weather the gale if the crew were honest and remained on deck.
the fear for thee, my country
in storied venice, where the night repeats
the heaven of stars down all her rippling streets,
stood the great bell tower, fronting seas and skies—
fronting the ages, drawing all men’s eyes;
rooted like teneriffe, aloft and proud,
taunting the lightning, tearing the flying cloud.
it marked the hours for venice: all men said
time cannot reach to bow that lofty head:
time, that shall touch all else with ruin, must
forbear to make this shaft confess its dust.
yet all the while, in secret, without sound,108
the fat worms gnawed the timbers underground.
the twisting worm, whose epoch is an hour,
caverned his way into the mighty tower;
till suddenly it shook, it swayed, it broke,
and fell in darkening thunder at one stroke.
the strong shaft, with an angel on the crown,
fell ruining: a thousand years went down!
and so i fear, my country, not the hand
that shall hurl night and whirlwind on the land;
i fear not titan traitors who shall rise
to stride like brocken shadows on our skies:
these we can face in open fight, withstand
with reddening rampart and the sworded hand.
i fear the vermin that shall undermine
senate and citadel and school and shrine;
the worm of greed, the fatted worm of ease,
and all the crawling progeny of these—
the vermin that shall honeycomb the towers
and walls of state in unsuspecting hours.
