{ } = word or expression can't be understood
{word} = hard to understand, might be this

Ladies and gentlemen, we have visitors today. And I think it is fit to say a word about this, because they all must feel like royalty today. And I'll tell you why.

I think it is befitting in a -- any course of a university, you build up a little tradition about academic usages and customs. Now 50 years ago, the German universities still had a custom of the days of the Reformation, that the governing prince of each kingdom or principality in Germany had to go once a year for a fortnight and study at his university; and sit there, like any other student in front of the professors, and receive their advice and counsel, because they were the keepers of his conscience. And the princes of the Reformation felt, you see, that they needed the instruction of the spiritual leaders of the community, which you cannot say of the president of the United States today.

And -- however, your student council has volunteered to play the royalty. I myself have attended, together with the king of Saxony, such lectures as a young instructor. And -- each January, the king of Saxony had to come over from his residence in Dresden, to the u- -- great University of Leipzig, and to sit there and listen to the most varied menu of lectures from deep sea to civil procedures. And so I feel royalty has arrived again.

These were days--in order to make you feel that there is really a very venerable custom to express the relationship of the academic and the government--this of course could only occur in times when there was practically no administration of the university, when the professors were the governors of the universities themselves, and were therefore ranking before even the ministers of state--what you would call here the secretary of state--the rector of the university took precedence and came right after the king in any procession or in any order of the day.

So I wish the student council would have the same sovereignty in this university.

Let's go back now to the difficult question of the slavery and its pertaining to the general history of the United States. We saw -- I -- told you that one of the best experts, a man from South Carolina, a white man from South Carolina, has published this unnoticed book on the slave trade, as he calls it, in 1925 already, and -- in which he says--it came out, by the way, in Columbia, South Carolina, and it deserves your -- your attention. Theodore E. {Gervais} said in this book of 1925, "It is apparent that the Negro question was a different question

in -- 1827 than it later became to the South. Mr. Hayne in 1828 still believed that the Negro question in the South would be solved by itself, by migration, and the stoppage of the slave trade." So two things, no additional entrance of slaves into the South and on the other hand, free movement into the new regions of the West, would dissolve the whole problem.

I tried to tell you that--because this is today quite forgotten--where the Negro -- slave question is -- treated as a -- as a stumbling block of all times in American history--and this is of the same character--I tried to tell you that Mr. Calhoun, the vice-president of -- of 1830, did very much to establish the illusion that the South needed to prevent the Ne- -- migration of the -- of the black people from his state, and passed legislation to this effect.

The one Negro who in Reconstruction days tried to move back into this direction was William {Hannibal Thomas}. And he hasn't even an article in the encyclopedia -- in the Biographical Dictionary of this country--which is, to say the least, very strange. William {Hannibal Thomas} saw that as long as the question between black and white would be a question of the South only, it would drive both not only apart; but it would do one thing, which in any social history of masses we today have to consider very seriously. Any -- question in a political commonwealth is soluble, as long as all parties concerned have some common expectation of a future good. If a colored person wants to move in a white neighborhood, and the white neighborhood only sees danger for its real estate values in this, obviously that is a -- irreconcilable clash. And it can only be bridged if despite this clash of interest, there is in the -- both races, some expectation of a common good for the whole of the country which outweighs this.

Now in the treatment of masses--not of the public, and not of the people, but of masses; we come to this, what this means--you always have there {to purpose say} -- ask the question: masses are men as of today--as a ward, as not yet ripe, as not up to standards--plus expectations.

In 1830, the black and the white man in the South still had common expectations. They don't -- seem to have this now. That's what makes the question so insoluble, you see. Ask: what are the expectations between you and me? I'm going to -- about to die. You are -- still have a long life before you. Still, there is, I should say, some interest in the -- in the subject matter, history, you see, which is our common good at this moment, and which holds us together. This may sound to you very cut and dried. But I want to make it cut and dry. I want to tell you that a community cannot live without common expectations. And the less ripe and mature a person is, the more is he ruled by expectations: fear, and hope.

If you compare this to the situation of a people, it is very different. A

people lives on faith. Their founding fathers have said so. A people, you see, is a relation between the dead and the living. There is no people if there is no George Washington, if there are no founding father, if you have no ancestor, no parents. You are -- behave because you are sons and daughters, and because you have learned to obey certain laws. Therefore, if you speak of people, the relation is always between the dead and the living. You may contradict the dead, but then you know that you have first to abolish the law; you cannot act without this law; you are not without a law; you have inherited this law. You -- you can change it. But then you have to talk back to the reasoning of the people who have preceded you.

So people are always ancestors and posterity. Masses are not ruled by this. Masses do not even know that any dead person has done something for them, because they are wards. They are a mob. But they have expectations. In the middle is the public. And that consists of men and women. And men have their will, and women have their feelings; and out of this the public acts. A combination of will and feelings always assuming that wo- -- will and feelings together produce reason.

So we have in -- when we speak of "the public and its government," the idea that people are -- can be made to reason. We have, when we have people, we have the idea that they are law-abiding, and that they will over- -- change the law only after they have experienced the dignity, and the value of the law. With masses, it's quite different. Masses have -- are certainly not law-abiding. If you ever have seen a mass go through the -- you see, a riot, I mean, they are out of this, of -- of this control. Otherwise you wouldn't call it a "mass." But they have great expectations of fear and hope.

Now the first great example of mass in this country have been of course the emancipated slaves. And in 1831, in the Nat Turner rebellion, you can study the content of a mass movement, which is only based on expectation in the future. Nat Turner was told by his mother, the rebel in Virginia, in 1831, that he was to be the Moses of his people. And you all know this -- the famous song, "Let My People Go." And that you can call the battle hymn of the Negro race. Moses leads the children of Israel out of Egypt, because they have nothing but children. They have no heritage. They are -- have no law. They are not law-abiding people. They are not a people. They have to be made into a people. And they certainly are not individuals and personalities. They are serfs, slaves. And so the hope, "Let my people go," is all that connects them.

And the question then is: who directs the hopes of masses? Who directs them? And for this purpose, I want to read to you two rather stunning quotations--stunning because they are literally the same. One said about the Negro by

his great -- their -- their -- his -- their great helper, General Samuel Armstrong, who founded Hampton, in -- the school of Hampton, in Virginia, at Hampton Creek. Who has heard of Hampton? Is it still known? Very few. Well, he was the great emancipator of the Negroes because he did not want to leave them sheltered and protected; but he wanted to make them stand on their own feet. And so this is what he said. Pardon me. I have to find this quotation:

"The North generally thinks"--he wrote in 1867--"that the great thing"--yes, it's worth your while to take literally down--"The North generally thinks that the great thing is to free the Negro from his former owners. The real thing is to save him from himself."

And this is the definition of any man still beneath the -- you see, the character of an individual or of a person, that he has to be helped to free him from himself. "The Ne-" -- "The -- the great thing is to free the Negro not from his former owners. The real thing is to save him from himself." Now Samuel Chapman Armstrong founded the first Negro school in Hampton, which tried to make such -- a road up to independence possible. He lived from 1823 to 1893.

The Supreme Court of these United States celebrated its centenary in 1890; that is, 23 years later, after General Armstrong said this about the Negro. And you know what the best thing that its speaker, a lawyer Phelps--P-h-e-l-p-s--had to say on February 4, 1890 about the Supreme Court of the United States? He says:

"Having its origin in the sovereignty of the people, the court is the bulwark of the people against their own unadvised action, their own uninstructed will. It saved them not merely from their enemies; it saved them from themselves."

I think that is -- should strike home. "It saved them from themselves." Nowhere in the Constitution of the United States do you read explicitly that you and I, although you are born free and equal, lose your freedom and equality right after birth, because of your own passions. And you have to be saved from yourselves.

So you can see that the first idea of the people of these United States wa- -- has been to save the Negro from themselves by the action of the Supreme Court of this country. For this purpose, there was passed the 14th Amendment--the famous 14th Amendment--which guarantees life, property, you see, and liberty to the -- every citizen of the United States. And so the idea is a natural one, I think, and you compare these two statements, that the court is the place where people can be saved from themselves.

What is a court of justice? It is always higher -- stands higher than you and I. When we go to court, and say, "Your Honor," to the judge, it's because he is exalted above us. Little may you like the idea that in all this equality business of the United States there is something higher and something lower. But you can't help, when going to court, noticing that the court is higher than your -- you are. This is the aristocracy of the land. And it is necessary that when people are pla- -- complainants, and defendant and plaintiff, that somebody must step in who stands higher than their quarrels. Otherwise he couldn't pacify.

And -- you like it or not, in the realm of the Judiciary, there is absolutely no doubt that the population of the United States is divided into those who hold the high office of judge, and those who hold the low position of parties. The Judiciary is the aristocratic element in our Constitution. And it is a pity that it isn't called that way, because you are so much down on -- aristocracy. But of course any best government must be a mixed government; and it must have elements of democracy, aristocracy, dictatorship, and monarchy all in one. The ancients knew this. You can read it in Aristotle and Plato. It has cunningly here always om- -- been omitted in your theory of government, that government are only decent government if they are mixed in these four forms.

We talked already of Mr. Nixon as a crown prince. And today I have to tell you that the mass instinct in all of us can only be governed or corrected if there is this division between high and low in the land. You immediately see that the Supreme Court has not been able to fulfill this function with regard to the Negro; but that it was first tried, opens an avenue for you to understand that for the last hundred years, the problem has been between corporations--who rule us while we are masses--and masses, or as we said, "wards."

The first definition of a -- the situation comes--not strangely, I think, enough--again from the chief justice of the Supreme Court, the famous Marshall. Marshall has said about the Indians what we expect to say -- him about other wards of government today, with labor, children, refugees, immigrants. He said the Indians occupy a territory to which we assert a title independent of their will. So we -- gather that masses have to be ruled independent of their will, like children, like orphans or lunatics. Sick people. You have to do something whether they will it or not, which must take effect this -- in this title, "In point of procession, when their right of procession ceases." Meanwhile, the Indians in this country, Marshall said, "in a -- are in a state of pupilage. Their relation to the United States resembles that of a ward to his guardian."

So there is with any modern man -- you people--9,000 here now--are in danger of becoming just mass. Very difficult.

I just heard that a -- a woman student here probably couldn't graduate, because the business machine had mistaken her to be a boy -- a man. So she is treated in the mass. And we will be treated more and more like that. If you have heard The Consul by Menotti, you know what is expecting us; that will grow. More and more are we -- be treated in -- on the highway and in the airplane, wherever we go, as masses. And it's increasing every day. And it's very difficult in this -- when I see these punch cards, you see, I would always like to punch this man in the nose.

And when I hear that -- and already it has immediate consequences; because we have these machines, they invent these yes-and-no examinations, you see, which the devil has invented. Which are no examinations, but are just sham and fiction. You answer them best without knowing anything. Just by the lottery of -- of probability. And you will get a better result than if you know anything.

So we are--into this institution, you see, and in your -- all institutions of higher learning at this moment--mass is intruding. I only mention this to make sure that you understand that we all are in this danger of falling prey to the behavior of mass man. These are not the others. You and I are a mob. We are mob at a fire, usually, you see. We are a mob -- in many instances. Certainly the home-warriors are always a mob during war, because then they indulge in hate.

So where you have the development of mass, you need guardianship. And who is the guardian?

So the Indians and the Negroes have put a very general question before this country, the Constitution of which has no answer to this. On paper, the whole problem of guardianship does not exist for grown-up people. It is assumed that we all can stand on our own feet. With the red Indians, the attempt has been made to keep Marshall's theory as guardians, long after the Negro has been emancipated.

And I here have a book which is called Red Man's Moses. And I mention it at this moment to show you that the concept of Moses, who leads the people out of Egypt, is very fruitful indeed in this analogy. -- It is not a Christian, but it is a -- Old Testament, condition of Christianity that masses should become men and women before they can reach the higher standards of Christianity.

Now this man was a General Pratt. He founded first in Hampton, together with Armstrong--and later by himself in Pennsylvania, in Carlisle -- Carlisle, Pennsylvania -- C-a-r-l-i-s-l-e -- a school which defied the treatment of the Indian bureau by which the red men were, you see, marooned on their reservations, so-

called--these deserts which we have left them--and were allowed one cow perhaps, and the sale of -- of curios which haven't -- weren't even -- aren't even made on these Indian reservations, but manufactured somewhere else.

The whole exhibition of an Indian reservation, you see, I think is one of the saddest spots on the map of the United States. Our own maps of course only show roads and highways, and never show the -- the dark spots on this map. They should be there, these Indian reservations, to remind you that the problem of the ward of the government has not been solved, because it hasn't been recognized as a constant problem, not just for Indians and Negroes, but for all of us with regard to our being treated in the mass.

The other day I read in The Examiner a -- a story, a short story in which masochism, murder, obscenity were unfolding -- it was only five or six days ago. Some of you may have read it, too. Unfortunately I have subscribed to this paper. And -- well, it is amazing to -- to see that this -- such a story can enter all -- all private homes and be read by the children of this family without any warning. And it's amazing that we have not developed any sense of what we are allowing to -- to happen to people who certainly have not reached their own expectations of maturity, who are just masses waiting to grow up.

And so I feel the -- the whole problem of the mass, of course, is a problem of our century. It's a problem which connects us with the rest of the world. As people, and as persons, we can just be Americans. We know what we want. We have our frontiers. We have our laws. But now comes this strange feature about all masses. Masses all accuse the society in which they occur of a wrong. And wrongs and injustices are the common property of the whole human race. There are no national wrongs. You only have national laws. As soon as anything wrong--like lynching in the South--occurs in this country, it's a property of the human race. You can be as nationalistic as much as you like. { } American, for the Constitution. As soon as a wrong is done in this country, it is no longer your private concern. That's why it is a big lie of the Southerners to say that they have to cope alone with their Negro problem. That's nonsense.

Injustice, gentlemen, makes the whole world over into a new community. Because he who abolish the injustice is the next ruler of society. That's how -- state lines are changed, because of a wrong. That's what the Civil War was about. The federal government, as you know, at that time acquired jurisdiction, so to speak, in the place of the revolting states, so that the 14th Amendment could be passed, and make the -- the -- the whole, the centralized government certainly acting in the place of the governor of those states. That's the meaning of the emancipation ukase. The United States hadn't ceased to exist under our Constitution, but the government in Washington acted in their stead.

The whole -- any mass movement in the United States therefore, has been accompanied by a tremendous international sympathy and sharing. The -- you must not think that the Negro question between 1831 and 1860 has been an American question. It is -- was a worldwide question. Victor Hugo was just as boiling over in Paris with the facts of slavery as the Abolitionists were in the North. Lincoln sent Victor Hugo, the great French poet, his own portrait, thanking him for his -- for his effort to help the slaves. Victor Hugo intervened in the John Brown case, and tried to save John Brown from hanging, by telling the people of Virginia that they would forfeit their reputation in Europe.

The workers, as you know, from the mill towns in England wrote to the North in the Civil War that they were starved, and lost work, but they would hold out, because they shared the -- the cause of the North against the South. And this they did when everybody here in the South hoped that these mill town workers would force England to join hands with the Confederacy.

People, when there is an injustice, do not follow their self-interest. Believe me. That's one of the big lies you are sold today over the counter in psychology and sociology. This is not true. I -- we talked about this in Calhoun's case. It is simply not true that everybody, because it is advantageous for him, will uphold an injustice. Otherwise, no change would ever occur. You would never abide -- be alo- -- you see, abide by a decision of the court. This is one of the biggest lies you are fed. Do you think that a man who is willing to lay down his life for his country as a soldier at the same time will not swallow the -- much sweeter pill, that in this one case, he has done an injustice?

The greatest citizen is always he who goes to the court and pleads guilty. And it's a mania in this country at this moment to always expect that the culprit will deny the guilt. That should be exceptional. A -- a decent citizen, if he has murdered somebody, says "I did it, from passion," or whatever it was. This is a story. And it is in all other countries. It is only in American hoax-poax and a bad education that you do not tell your children when they grow up, that they have to say in court, "Guilty." That's the difference between a civilized country and a barbarous country.

But you always have only the detective story: how long can he hold out, how long can he disprove his guilt? Never saw -- seen such a behavior. That's why you have a juvenile delinquency and all this. If there would be a training in admission guilt, this would -- lose half of its interest, the whole game. It's a game now, how, you see -- the perfect crime. Perfectly unnatural. You don't behave this way at home. When you have done wrong to your husband or your wife, the first thing you want -- wish to feel is to acknowledge this. Should it be different in -- in -- in the relations of citizens and the state?

This childishness of our -- of -- at this moment of all the principles hasn't existed a hundred years ago. It has only overcome you now through the movies and through many strange influences. Absolutely un-American. And it is unhuman -- inhuman, too.

Now to come back, however, to the main proposition: injustice defies frontiers. The nation is based on its righteousness, and on its functioning for laws, and on operating prosperity, that the economy works, you see, for example. If you get a depression, it is all very different, you see. Even Mr. Roosevelt had as first to convene a -- an economic conference in London when he came to office, you see, because the crisis of course demanded measures wherever they had to be established.

And since you live in this wonderful sphere of rational enlightenment, there is never a line drawn between justice and injustice. Justice is -- can be compartmentalized. You can give -- do justice to your own citizens. Injustice cannot be compartmentalized, because if you treat a part of the people of this country not as your citizens, it is the duty of everybody else to treat them as potential citizens of the world, and to bring pressure on this country.

And this is today the situation in the Negro question, obviously. And it is right that it should be this way. And so too long has the -- this despair settled in this country that the South must work out its own salvation. It hasn't done anything. And they still are allowed to have two senators and representatives based on the number of Negroes living in their states, which is really the greatest joke I ever have heard of any constitution. And as long as you do not give the black people in the South one senator and the white people the other, I don't see how justice can be done. You can have -- arrange them in two different constituencies.

But the injustice in these political things far outweighs to my mind what has been happening in the field of -- of -- even of schools. And I think we are not on the right track with this so-called desegregation issue. This way we won't solve it.

The problem then is once more: where there is injustice, gentlemen, flagrantly and deliberately done, there are no common expectations. The man who is treated unjustly is treated not as an equal, obviously. That we call an injustice. And when he is not treated as an equal, he -- and the injustice has no prospect of being rightened in due course of law, he has no longer the same future with the party that is wronging him.

Now history of mankind consists of fulfillment of common futures, of

common expectations. That's all that history is about. All the separation of those units who no longer share the common expectation and thereby establish, like the 13 colonies, an independent life of their own. Independence means that the -- expectations are no longer prevailingly identical.

I said to you that the people in the 14th Amendment in this country tried to give the aristocratic, high chair of justice also to the Negroes by admitting them to the federal courts instead of the state courts. There have been practically, after the first five years, no case--or -- for -- from 1872, I think, to 1945--based on the 14th Amendment successfully in the case of the Negroes. It has proven itself strangely enough that although the Supreme Court is meant to save us from ourselves, the masses were not included--that is, the wards of the government, the in- -- the unfree or not-yet-emancipated groups were not included.

The 14th Amendment, most of you will well know, has worked out in favor of the corporations. It took a number of years before the corporations, the legal persons of this country discovered that what was meant for the Negroes could be used by them. And we have to ask ourselves whether this is an accident, or whether we can learn from this distortion or this perusal of the 14th Amendment something with regard to all the masses. As I said, labor, children, p‚ons, Mexicans, Japanese, women, students, professors, teachers in this country--who certainly are treated not as equals to the business profess- -- world. You see, the difference between a teacher and a -- and a man -- worker in the factory today is very pronounced. You can put -- impose on a teacher any extracurricular activities. No limit. You have to sit at school luncheon with these children. All this is not reckoned. They aren't paid for this. It's all, you see, unlimited chores. Just unheard-of. It's a -- the modern form of slavery. Teachers are not paid for what they perform, but for their being mothers, and -- and aunts, and -- and nurses, and everything besides. Teachers are today in a state of servitude. Not the -- the college professors. We are privileged, still. It will come, too.

Why can't the Supreme Court -- why did the Supreme Court first tend to the corporations? And why has it only quite recently now, in the famous decision of Mr. Earl Warren, your California leader, come about that the school issue has been, you see, decided on the merits of the 14th Amendment? I think the reason for this is that only through the Civil War--in the middle of the century, in 1850 and afterwards--did it become the main feature of this society of ours that the masses no longer move within a city, or a town, or a village, or a state, but within the whole area of the United States. The 14th Amendment, you see, said that the federal courts would provide protection for any individual living in any one state, if he was impaired in his standing there.

The first group that had to, so to speak, to develop this country--like the

railroads--had to -- were the first to assert this interstate commerce problem, this central problem, this -- you -- here it's very often called--I don't like the expression--nationalistic problem of a United States government in an -- an order of things, you see, for the whole of the United States, regardless of state lines.

And so the connection between the Negro cause of the 14th Amendment and the corporation case is this: that the Negroes no longer could be the wards of Virginia, or South Carolina. They had to become the wards of the central government. But the first people, who every day had to cover the whole ground of the United States actually, were not the Negro who still stayed in Alabama, living in his -- in his little home, with or without a mule, but the corporations that really roamed the -- all the 48 states, you see, by its trade.

And so the Supreme Court just proved, by its application of the 14th Amendment, that the court can only become active if the parties can move to the court, and that the court is only then able to help ourselves, as this speech said, you see, if they have only to deal with parties who are mobile through the whole jurisdiction of the court. The -- the failure of the 14th Amendment is obviously in the distance between this court business and the very existence of a -- of a -- little farmer in -- somewhere in a corner, who is quite out of reach, who perhaps today can act through the mediation of the {AAC}, you see, but he cannot act himself. And wherever you have progress made on the basis of the 14th Amendment, it is not done by any individual, but it is done through these associations which imitate corporations.

So we -- hold this fast as a result: the 14th Amendment rightly thought that injustices should be taken over -- should be -- of the states should be fought off by central legislation, and central jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and all the federal courts in the land. But it missed its aim to save the wards of the government, because a court needs parties to go to court. And the problem of the corporations has been, over these last -- 80 years, the problem: who can go to court? We'll see that the labor question and the -- all the other questions--take the unions--are questions to find parties which can go to court for the member of the mass which can -- who cannot afford to do this. And since the AAA, you see, has become active in the South, the situation been such that suddenly the 14th Amendment is again quoted after having -- lying fallow for 70 years. Nobody could do anything about it.

So please keep in mind this -- strange paradox. The same thing that was invented to protect mass men, members of a mass, has only been applied for the last 90 years for corporations, practically. That's ironical, but it is not injust, because the corporations fulfill as legal persons the one requirement that a court has to make with regard to the parties that sue: that they can move and -- ask for

a judge; that they are -- have time, money, opportunity to go where the court is; and that they can miss out on their work; that they can forgo the day's wages, or even week's, and year's, you see.

The whole hunt of the last 90 years has to -- therefore been the question: how do I represent people who have not yet -- who have to be saved from themselves--how do I find from the -- for them representatives in court? If you find somebody who can represent my wrongs, while I am not properly able to voice -- to articulate what's -- what's lacking in my own existence, then I can be helped. Otherwise I cannot.

And it is never mentioned in your textbooks that the problem of organizing the articulater, the plaintiff, is the problem of modern injustices in our society. It is not the question that we do not know what is right and wrong. We know it very well. And it is not the question that the -- law denies such a complaint--in most cases, at least--but it is that the law is negligent from one group after another to consider the forms under which such a suffering can be made vocal. We are still, you see, in the tradition of 1850, that every man has his own will, and every woman her own feeling. And if they -- go together, they can express their intentions clearly, can vote for such a -- president, or such a government. And under this fiction, you still elect your Congress and your president.

But these -- the issues, as you well know, that can come before such a huge machine for 200 million people, are very few. They are -- and very -- they are very crude, so to speak, very general. If you decide between a Democrat and a Republican today, you very well know that you have no idea how he can vote on Bill 275 that comes before the Congress, you see. That depends on -- on so many things. You have nothing to do with in your intentions. And it depends on whether his confrŠre in the next seat will help him with his law, so that Bill 275 and 273, you see, will be coupled, and he votes for one {vote} and the -- or the other votes for the other. This has nothing to do with your wishes and reasons why you voted for your representative.

So the problem is not any longer in this world of modern masses, such that you can foresee when you elect anybody how he might vote when your own personal interest is at stake. Your vote has very little to do with self-interest today. This is the most idealistic country I know. And -- as you know, the -- the workers' representation has failed completely in its swinging the vote, because it ha- -- pe- -- the workers know that what their committee, you see, whom he -- they support, it doesn't mean very much in the long run. Things aren't decided that way.

As you know today, the -- the labor { } -- the vote runs through the two

parties. And it has nothing what the -- what the parti- -- what the unions suppor- -- whom the unions supported. And so it's really decisive at this moment. It's very, very criss-cross.

The public has its government, but the issues of the mass, and the injustices done to me when I am treated in the mass, are not articulated in our process of legislation. This is not American. This is worldwide. The whole world today has so much democracy, so much legislation, so much constitutional liberties; and it has no effect on the daily existence of the people where it really { }. Because we all are expected to move in -- in masses.

At this point, I think I should stop. And we shall then next time turn to the first white mass people in the United States, the sailors of the merchant marine.

I here have still a number of papers.