It is safe, it seems to me, to assume the following axioms: First, to
obey the law is in no sense to attain justice; second, it is not
possible to obey the law strictly, thoroughly, in any country in the
world.
That obeying the law has nothing to do with justice is indisputable, and
this is especially true in the political sphere, in which it is easy to
point to a rebel, such as Martínez Campos, who has been elevated to the
plane of a great man and who has been immortalized by a statue upon his
death, and then to a rebel such as Sánchez Moya, who Was merely shot.
The only difference between the men was in the results attained, and in
the manner of their exit.
Hence I say that Lerroux was not only base, but obtuse and absurdly
wanting in human feeling and revolutionary sympathy, when he concurred
in the execution of the stoker of the "Numancia."
If law and justice are identical and to comply with the law is
invariably to do justice, then what can be the distinction between the
progressive and the conservative? On the other hand, the revolutionist
has no alternative but to hold that law and justice are not the same,
and so he is obliged to subscribe to the benevolent character of all
crimes which are altruistic and social in their purposes, whether they
are reactionary or anarchistic in tendency.
Now the second axiom, which is to the effect that there is no city or
country in the world in which it is possible to obey the law thoroughly,
is also self-evident. A certain class of common crimes, such as robbery,
cheating and swindling, murder and the like, are followed by a species
of automatic punishment in all quarters of the civilized world, in spite
of exceptions in specific cases, which result from the intervention of
political bosses and similar influences; but there are other offenses
which meet with no such automatic punishment. In these pardon and
penalty are meted out in a spirit of pure opportunism.
I was discussing Zurdo Olivares one day with Emiliano Iglesias in the
office of _El Radical_, when I asked him:
"How was it that Zurdo Olivares could save himself after playing such an
active role in the tragic week at Barcelona?"
"Zurdo's salvation was indirectly owing to me," replied Iglesias.
"But, my dear sir!"
"Yes, indeed."
"How did that happen?"
"Very naturally. There were three cases to be tried; one was against
Ferrer, one against Zurdo, and another against me. A friend who enjoyed
the necessary influence, succeeded in quashing the case against me, as a
matter of personal favour, and as it seemed rather barefaced to make an
exception alone in my favour, it was decided to include Zurdo Olivares,
who, thanks to the arrangement, escaped being shot."
"Then, if an influential friend of yours had not been a member of the
Ministry, you would both have been shot in the moat at Montjuich?"
"Beyond question."
And this took place in the heyday of Conservative power.