[Footnote:  For a discussion of this point, see F. Paulsen, System of Ethics, book iii, chap.  IX, sec. 9.  International Journal of Ethics, vol. 18, p. 18.] Should existing laws always be obeyed?  Year by year we are extending our network of laws over human conduct; more and more pertinent becomes the them? and the further question, Are there times when the law may be rightly disobeyed?  We shall discuss the second question first.  It is obvious that our whole social structure rests upon the willingness of the people to obey the law.  The watchword of republics should be, not “liberty,” but “obedience”; their gravest danger now is not tyranny, but anarchy.  We must individually submit with patience and good temper to the decisions of the majority, even if we disapprove those decisions.  We must abide by the rules of the game until we can get the rules changed.  And all changes must be effected according to the rules agreed upon for effecting changes.  This law-abiding spirit is the great triumph of democracy; only so long as it exists can popular government stand.  Though it be slower and exacting of greater effort and skill, evolution, not revolution, is the method of permanent progress.  We must, then, band together against any groups that, in their impatience of reform or opposition to the common will, cast aside the restraints of law.  However dearly we may long for woman’s suffrage, we must sternly repress those excited suffragettes who would gain this end by defiance of law and destruction of property; even if they further their particular cause by their violence-which is highly doubtful-they do it at the expense of something still more precious, the preservation of the law-abiding spirit.  Other organizations will not be slow to profit by the lesson of their success; and we shall have Heaven knows how many causes seeking to attain their ends by destructiveness and resistance.  Similarly, the more serious and menacing rebellion of labor against law must be firmly controlled; much as we may sympathize with their grievances, we cannot countenance the attempt to remedy them by violence.  The Industrial Workers of the World, with action, [Footnote:  Cf, in a pamphlet issued by them:  “The I.W.W. will get the results sought with the least expenditure of time and energy.  The tactics used are determined solely by the power of the organization to make good in their use”.  The question of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ does not concern us.  In short, the I.W.W. advocates the use of militant ‘direct action’ tactics to the full extent of our power to make them.” (Quoted in Atlantic Monthly, vol. 109, p. 703.)] have made themselves enemies of society.  The advocates of “sabotage,” the “reds” in the socialist camp, the preachers of practical anarchism, must be treated as among the most dangerous of criminals.  On the other hand, the spread of the spirit of lawlessness among the lower classes should serve to warn the upper classes that present social conditions will not much