Friday, March 22, 2013

Paschal Grousset, Speech pronounced at the grave of Verdure (1873)


Speech pronounced by Paschal Grousset
at the grave of Verdure


My friends, an awful bit of news came yesterday to strike us with astonishment and sadness. A man that we loved, that we esteemed, that we venerated like a father, had unexpectedly succumbed to the attacks of a sudden illness. Just a few days ago, we greeted him with a friendly word when we met him along this shore that he frequented, calm and smiling in the midst of misfortune, with every appearance of strength and health. Today, we pay our last respects to his corpse: [Augustin] Verdure will never again see France. He died, the doctors tell us, of a terrible malady which is called “general paralysis;” but, my friends, I tell you that he died of a far more terrible disease, which is called “deportation.”
At the age of rest and retirement, at a hour when the tired body and mind need to stop at the end of the road and contemplate the path traveled, Verdure, like all of us, was violently torn from his interests, his habits, his affections, from everything that gave charm and happiness to life. More painfully, if it is possible, than most, he was personally stricken. On the even of embarkation, his son-in-law, the natural and legal support of all that the old man left behind him, and of a grandchild still to be born, his son-in-law was dead, suddenly, in the same cell as [Théophile] Ferré, to whom he had brought advice based on his legal experience. Then, misfortune would have it that, since his departure from Brest, for ten long months, our venerable friend would remain without any news of his relations. Finally, if we must tell everything — and why shouldn’t we speak our saddest truths before the grave of this honest man? — the depressing spectacle that has too often given, even here, to our adversaries, men unworthy of the honor of being banished, the scandal of the failures and disorders that you know, these sources of bitterness had come to mix with deep personal sufferings. It was more than enough to crush that noble, pure, sensitive and proud heart. He was broken without making any complaint, without breathing a sigh.
My friends, those among us to whom it will be given to return to their hearth can say that they witnessed the death of a just man. The entire life of the citizen Verdure has been dedicated to the people, for which reason he came to die so far from his own. I wanted to tell you the detailed history of that life; but I lack the documents, and I must limit myself to a sketch in broad strokes.
Led early by a decided vocation towards the career of teaching, Verdure devoted himself to the most modest of tasks: he distributed to the children of his country, in the Pas-de-Calais, that primary instruction, the most necessary of all, and which is most lacking; in the accomplishment of his duties, he bore an untiring devotion, the rare patience that you have known in him, and which was in him one of the ornaments of the most solid and varied professional knowledge. It is there that in the heart of his village, among his family, his school and his garden, he lived his best years. This happiness would not last. Our friend had the fault of separating religious questions from school questions, of wanting to be a teacher and not a church-warden: the reaction of 1850 and the men who received their watchword from Mr. de Falloux, could not tolerate such detestable principles. Verdure was dismissed, with so many others, during that famous massacre of teachers, which has given primary instruction, in our country, a wound of which our latest disasters have measured the depth.
The career of teaching being closed to him, he had to think of other ways to use his multiples aptitudes. Verdure went to Paris and found, not without difficulty, work as a bookkeeper. But, if his daily labor belonged to his family, his leisure was always for the people: he dedicated it entirely from them on to the study of the questions of labor, of these great problems of the modern world, which we stupidly think to solve by shooting or deporting them, when it would not be too much effort, with the intelligence, amity, and good faith of all to resolve them. Verdure acquired in these matters, and especially on the questions of association, a competence based o an imposed mass of observations and experimental facts, patiently accumulated by him during the eighteen years of harmful servitude which has cost France so much generous blood, two provinces, all its treasures, and the first rank among nations.
It is with these credentials that he joined, in 1869, the Marseillaise; I will astonish no one by saying that he was for us, in that journal of so rapid and tragic destiny, a collaborator distinguished on more than one account by the excellence and precision of the documents which he prepared, as much as for the uprightness of his character and the complete reliability of his commerce. Seeing the misfortune of his country: none felt them more keenly than Verdure, and the sufferings of the siege, none contributed more to ease them. His perfect knowledge of the needs and miseries of that heroic Parisian population, always decimated, but never beaten, naturally designated him for the municipal functions in the eleventh arrondissement, where he had lived for long years. I was for him like a big family. The voters of that constituency sent him, on March 20, to the Commune.
From that date citizens, I have nothing to tell you of the life of our friend: it became public and was never lost to your view. You saw him seated in the Councils of the Commune, bringing his eminent qualities, a great modesty and precious special knowledge, a conciliatory character joined with an inflexible rectitude of judgment and principles. You see him, on the other hand, presiding over the difficult administration of that populous arrondissement, where so many regrets will meet the news of his end, and giving to that weighty task every moment that that the assembly of the Hôtel de Ville left to him. Then, when the hour of defeat was sounded, Verdure escaped as by a miracle from the death that struck the best among us. Verdure was taken, led to Versailles, brought before a military tribunal, inscribed on the tables of proscription. History when it reviews this trial, will judge the judges; it will be astonished by the singular crime reproached by them in this gentle defendant, who looked them full in the face, strong in his acts, his conscience and his honesty. Do you know what that crime was, my friends? Ah! Don’t search for it in the Code, for you will not find it there: it is called the crime of philanthropy. “Verdure,” the report of his accuser says literally, “Verdure is a utopian philanthropist...” A utopian if you wish, citizens, but a philanthropist for sure! Yes, Verdure was a philanthropist, a friend of men, a friend of the people; he wanted the good and the just; if suffered from the sorrows of others and from the evils of humanity; he wanted to cure them, or at least to relieve them; it is to that we that he gave what he had of strength, intelligence, courage and life: it is for that cause he has died as he lived, as a free man, as a son of the Revolution.
We, citizens, who accompany this good man to that grave, where his wife and daughter cannot come to weep, let his life serve us as an example and his death as a lesson! Do you know what I was thinking of just now, seeing the long spiral of the cortege that we have made for him uncoil on the flanks of these barren hills, seeing all the heavy hearts and all the damp eyes, looking back again towards that immensity of the oceans that separates us from our homeland? I thought of some very different cortèges that you will have been able to see, like me, spread along some avenues of our Paris, pompous funerals of some power of the day. I saw again those cars draped with velvet and silk, this plumed litter, those horses adorned with silver and all those social vanities accumulated to dress up the dead. But I also thought of the ordinary impressions of the crowd suite passage of this pomp, to those impressions which are so often summarized in two words: indifference and scorn. I heard them recall the titles of the dead man, enumerate his positions, evaluate his wealth, count the perjuries of his life; and there was always someone to say out loud what many thought: one villain less!
How different it is here, my friends! A poor casket carried by some exiled laborers; on that casket, a crown of wild flowers; for that casket, a hole dug in the sand of an isle lost beyond the borders of the world. But, behind that casket, a unanimous support of sad friends, a concert of regrets and affection, some mute sorrows and some expansive despairs, mourning on all the faces and even on the very ones who guard us, forced to respect, grasped by the majesty of this death!
However, these men, escorted in such dissimilar manners, the one towards a marble necropolis, the other to this desert, they both started from the same point; they both emerged from the French nation as our fathers have rebuilt it on the principle of equality; both were chosen by the free suffrage of their fellow citizens; both had their hour of triumph; both, in all, went to the same end, to unavoidable crucible where the immortal matter goes to melt, to return in a new form in the great current of life... Why is it that the sentiments awakened by the view of their funerals differ so profoundly? Do you ask it, my friends? It comes from an abyss which is found between them and of which the masses have a profound sense. One made politics a stepstool towards fortune and honors; his thoughts have all been individual; he has deserted the cause of the people to serve that of his own selfishness; he has made his place by base acts; he has raised himself by treasons; he has ruled over some corpses. The other has only seen in politics an instrument of progress; he has entered the lists with generous ideas and guarded them up to the end; his life has been a life of self-denial and struggle, of renunciation, suffering, and sorrows nobly borne, from faithfulness to duty... And that is why the justice of the world comes to the threshold of death, avenger for the one, restorer for the other. That is why the remains of the one, before being cast to the ridicule of history, already encounter on their way the ridicules of opinion; — while the other, the vanquished, the exile, sleeps in that inestimable peace, a satisfied conscience, and, in that glory, the sorrow of the people.


Source : Achille Ballière, La déportation de 1871 : souvenirs d'un evadé de Nouméa (1889) : 415-419.
Working translation by Shawn P. Wilbur

Friday, December 28, 2012

Ernest Lesigne, "Socialistic Letters," No. 8

-->
SOCIALISTIC LETTERS

VIII

These socialistic letters have earned me, as it should be, some unfriendly observations, with which I find nothing wrong, strong partisan that I am of the freedom of the press.
Before such a touching agreement to criticize both content and form, to declare that writing in French, I must know nothing of what I say, and that it is very bold of me to dare address social questions without first being awarded a diploma by the regular doctors, there is nothing to do but make a strong mea culpa for the great liberty and recognize that there are some very astounding geniuses in the world, these days.
But where I have failed to be moved, is when I have seen that the accord extended to completely refusing me the title of socialist.
Oh, illustrious colleague, you are very difficult!
Not communist, certainly; but not socialist, come on then!
Is he a socialist, who urges all the groups, associations, and syndicates, all the free assemblies of individual forces, as the sole means of providing prevention and remedy against the hazards of life, accidents, disasters, miseries, maladies, lay-offs, and disabilities that can affect one today, and strike another tomorrow?
Is he a socialist, who would like to see the poor portion given to the child by nature supplemented by a well-stuffed and wide-open fund, which would make itself creditor of every individual born, with the simple responsibility of reimbursing it in their adult years and, giving them full liberty, free initiative, complete choice of teachers and of profession, would furnish them all the pecuniary means proper to insuring their complete development?
Is he a socialist, who wants for all the complete expansion and free functioning of all their faculties of production and consumption, the maximum of liberty and the maximum of well-being, the complete satisfaction of activities and needs, the right to labor and the rights of labor; the harvest after the sowing, enjoyment after labor?
Is he a socialist, who produces the elimination of all the parasitism, the end of all monopolies?
Is he a socialist, who proclaims men, women and children equal in rights, who asks the communal power to safeguard the rights of children against men and women; to safeguard against men, the rights of women, who asks the national power to safeguard the right of the individual against the oppressive commune, and who asks popular suffrage to protect the individual and every association, communal or otherwise, against the oppression of the state?
Is he a socialist, who encourages the means of transforming sterile France into a true garden of abundance, capable of meeting the needs not of thirty-eight, but of a hundred millions inhabitants?
Is he a socialist, who advises the use of the current political tools, as detestable as it is, to destroy the whole odious arsenal of laws, decrees, orders, ordinances, veritable war measures dictated by the monopolists of goods against the accession of the workers to property, to the possibility of living in liberty?
Is he a socialist, who wants to see undertaken seen through in our generation that immense labor, wonderful source of prosperity, which shall distribute the fertilizing waters over fifty million hectares of cultivable land, to make sure that no drop descending from the hills and mountains could be lost in the sea; who declares it possible to go, by fast roads, from one end of France to the other for ten sous, to talk from one end of France to the other for a few centimes, to traverse by railroads all the corners of the country, even to the villages most deprived today, which tomorrow would become prosperous if we would apply the socialism of these Socialistic Letters?
Is he a socialist, who says: “The must no longer be servants among us; there must be no more poor among us; and, to accomplish that, all the workers must be possessors and sharers of their instruments of labor; that the cultivators have their lands, the industrial workers their tools, their workshops, their factories, their mines; that the postal workers have their offices, the professors their colleges, their schools, the telephone operators, the telegraphers, their telephones and telegraphs, all being able to receive orders, credits, commissions or profit sharing from individuals, communes or the state concerned?
Is he a socialist, who report, with profound joy, the coming of a next economic revolution, as beneficial as decisive, the advent of the little mechanization, which will make liberty where the large machine had made slavery; the reappearance of art, of individual skills in labor, the disappearance of the proletariat, and consequently the conquest, by the laborer, of dignity, liberty, and security?
You see very well that he is a socialist.
Ernest Lesigne

Le Radical, July 19, 1887, p. 2.

Working translation by Shawn P. Wilbur

Tuesday, December 25, 2012

Max Nettlau, Biographical Notice of Ernest Coeurderoy


BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE

OF

ERNEST CŒURDEROY (1825-1862).

I

In June 1852, two events, quickly covered with the veil of silence, would deeply effect the exile community in London. Ledru-Rollin, Louis Blanc, Pierre Leroux, Cabet, Félix Pyat and their friends, some Blanquists, Proudhonians and independent socialists, some refugees from May 15 and June of 1848, as well as June 13, 1849, and the great majority of the outcasts from the coup d’état, rubbed elbows then in a common exile. It was the time of the “Unions Socialistes” and other efforts, destined to fail, to create a fictive solidarity between people who, as the history of September 1870 to May 1871 has demonstrated, would fight again, to death, as soon as one of their groups came to power.

Three men saw clearly from that moment and protested. The “Verse Recited June 24, 1852 at the Grave of an Exile,” by Joseph Déjacque, was one of these acts; recalling June 1848, said to the exiles and former men of state gathered there:


... Today as then, assassins and victims
Find themselves present... Sublime teachings!
Those who banished us are banished in their turn.
.    .    .    .    .    .    .    .    .    .    .    .    .    .    .

Crime is always a call to crime.
The coup d’État of June, that nameless vampire,
In you, Tribunes, in you, Bourgeois, is incarnated;
And December is only its legitimate child!...
.    .    .    .    .    .    .    .    .    .    .    .    .    .    .
There is only one talisman for all: Liberty...

The other act was the publication of the little booklet The Barrier of the Combat, by Ernest Cœurderoy and Octave Vauthier (Brussels, 1852). “The political comedy that plays out around us has wrung the same cry from our heart, and we have published The Barrier of the Combat; this was like kicking an anthill,” wrote Cœurderoy a little later; “Like me, you curse all authority,” he said to his collaborator, the brother of Louis-Léger Vauthier, the Fourierist engineer, representative in 1849 and prisoner of June 1849. Octave Vauthier appeared to be limited to this single public protest; Joseph Déjacque, the worker, was driven by poverty to America; he did not stop, and la Question révolutionnaire, the libertarian utopia l’Humanisphère, and the journal le Libertaire which he wrote by hiself, from 1858 to 1861, in New York, show him as an isolated, but tireless propagandist of the most advanced ideas of his time. Cœurderoy, a refugee from June 13, 1849, was limited, in his articles published from 1849 to 1851, to an impersonal propaganda of socialist and revolutionary ideas without a distinct school; by The Barrier of the Combat he finally regained his complete independence, and from 1852 to 1855 he gave us four books and two booklets, among which the two parts of the Jours d’Exil constitute his principal work.

The fate of these publications, the most majestic expressions of liberty and revolt of their times, is a little unknown chapter full of intrigues and adventures. The irreverence with which the authors of The Barrier of the Combat had yanked the beards of the pontiffs of the proscription was a welcome pretext to dispense with seriously discussing the ideas of Cœurderoy; only Alfred Talandier discussed them courteously, in 1854. For the rest, “the conspiracy of silence, the most odious conspiracies, then, to every extreme, calumny, choler and hate, exhausting their rage on this collection of heresies and on its unfortunate author” (words of Cœurderoy on the subject of his first book.) He was made “an exile in exile.” This explains how his writings, banned equally by the governments and the exiles, have been lost, to the extent that, of the six volumes and booklets, we know of perhaps fifty copies, the majority of which are in the hands of three or four collectors. The years from 1856 to 1862 in the life of Cœurderoy are so little known that we do not know if he had suddenly ceased all publication after 1856, for reasons which are a separate problem, or if some publications have been completely suppressed, destroyed, or if instead, despite long years of research, they remain still elusive? Although his memory has received a belated satisfaction in the well-done article dedicated to him, in 1869, in the Dictionary of his compatriot from Yonne, Pierre Larousse, the oblivion into which the work of the writer had fallen was so great that between 1880 et 1883, his mother, octogenarian, isolated and perhaps discouraged by her long sufferings, made a resolution — which she executed with her own hand — to burn the writings of her son, of which she had gathered a very great quantity; and probably she also destroyed what she possessed of the manuscripts, letters, etc., of the neglected thinker.

Thus only rare copies of the six publications from 1852 to 1855 and the articles published from 1849 to 1851 have survived all these vicissitudes; and all those who have read one of the writings from 1852 to 1855 have been struck by the originality and literary power of Cœurderoy, of his absolute sincerity, of his love of liberty and beauty, of his wide-ranging conceptions of a free and happy future, of his hatred of oppression in all its forms, — in sum, thinking they were opening a good book of propaganda, of which there are so many, they have been astonished to find themselves face to face with a work of art which, from the point of view of the intimate union of art and ideas, is probably unique. That is especially true of the Jours d’Exil, of which the second part, the last work of Cœurderoy, also marks the apogee of his talent.
[to be continued...]

Emile Digeon, The Voice of One of the Hoodwinked (1869)


THE VOICE OF ONE OF
THE HOODWINKED

(1869)

*

THE “JANUARY 19” OF MR. EMILE OLLIVIER[1]

BY WAY OF A FORWARD
______

I.

Page 13.

“In 1848, being hardly 22 years of age, I was named commissioner general in the departments of Bouches-du-Rhône and Var, by Mr. Ledru-Rollin, who had goodwill for me and friendship for my father…

Page 103.

“June 19, 1857. — Voters, it is not necessary for me to expound my faith to you: My name and my past have taught them to you...”

Page 11.

“Thursday, January 10, 1867, at five o’clock in the evening, I was introduced at the Tuileries, into the cabinet of the Emperor…”

Page 290.

“...Why should I not have accepted the audience offered to me? There is some reluctance that I will explain: I understand that no approach can appease those who complain about the coup d’état only because it was made against them, instead of being done with them. THEY HAVE BEEN HOODWINKED.”

II .

We know how, and with what ease Mr. Ollivier let himself be appeased by the steps of the Emperor.
But it is difficult to see how he dared to imply perfidiously that there exist, among the victims of December 2, some men who would have taken part in the bloody overthrow of the Republic, if the president Louis Bonaparte had invited them!
He knew however that, if that had, like him, begged at the door of the victors, they would, like him, have obtained mercy and favor for themselves and their own.
They have preferred prison, exile, transportation, and death.
Oh! Mr. Ollivier will never be among the hoodwinked. He has placed himself among the ranks of the hoodwinkers.

*
THE IMPERATIVE MANDATE

I.

Among all the questions raised by the electoral agitation, there is one which should, above all, attract the attention of the true democrats, — I mean by true democrats those who reject every system of under which the people are not allowed to exercise their rights in a direct and continual manner.
That question is the limitation and determination by the voters of the mandate entrusted to the deputies: — limitation of duration, without stopping at that fixed by law; determination of the solutions of certain political or social problems.
We have been surprised to see all the candidates, even those who call themselves radical democrats, refuse to submit to these conditions. — Their dignity will not allow them, they have said, to enter the legislature with that mark of mistrust.

II

And these same me accept each day, from a private individual, for private business, some mandates very carefully determined in advance, the duration of which depend solely on the will of the principal.
They understand that a friend, that a relative even, should take the precaution of limiting their power and imposing them some business solutions.
Their dignity is not appalled by it.
Indeed, where is the man who can believe himself shielded from error or aberration, and have the complete certainty of doing nothing contrary to the interests of those who have given him his mandate?
Are the public interests, where faulty results can be disastrous, less sacred than those of individuals?—Are they less worthy of precautions?
In this respect, therefore, no acceptable reason authorizes the candidates to refuse to submit to the will of the voters.

III

Several propositions have been made as to the restriction of the duration of the mandate.
Some are based, above all, on the obvious utility of the periodic public meetings which can only, according to the present law, take place during an electoral period, — it is a question of causing, by the resignation of the deputies, the more frequent repetition of elections.
The others attach themselves principally to the strength that opposition deputies would draw in successive reelections, which would demonstrate the continuation of their perfect agreement with the will of the people.
It is easy to think that, in the face of these periodic affirmations, the other deputies would eventually understand that, by their immobility, they could be reproached for no longer being representatives of the national will.
Those who had a bit of modesty would be carried along by the movement, and the electoral law would find itself modified in fact.
In any case, it is incontestable that the resigning deputies who were reelected would return to the chamber with a greater authority, as much because of the ratification of their mandate, as because they would be able, in the midst of their electoral meetings, to realize the new aspirations of their electors.
From all points of view, then, we must reject the claims of the candidates to escape a formal commitment as to the restriction of the duration of their mandate.

IV.

No doubt can any longer be admitted on the subject of the necessity of determining in advance the solution of certain vital questions. — These solutions are precisely what should constitute the program of each democratic candidate.
They must be embraced in the professions of faith—like, for example: the suppression of the budget for religions; the abolition of the permanent armies; the more equitable division of the taxes which should only weight on the excess, since everyone will not have the necessities; the organization of labor by free association; etc., etc.
They should be especially recommended with an eye to a future which could be forthcoming — it is no longer necessary to risk being taken by surprise.

V.

It is important that the voters say loudly, that they do not intend to send to the legislature conciliators in order to obtain, by an arrangement with the men of the government, the arbitrary restitution of our liberties, who could, after the concession of some of these liberties and even to accomplish that, think themselves authorized to accept honorific posts, either in the commissions named by a reactionary majority, or in the scientific missions or other missions organized by the government.
Our deputies must know that their mission is to struggle energetically to arrive at the final and complete triumph of the eternal principles of our great revolution, that the irresistible logic of history has inscribed at the beginning of the constitution.
No weakness for beloved names, no attentions for unjustified sensitivities— let us demand some formal commitments.

VI.

Let us think back to the elections of 1857 and those of 1863:—With what indignation would we not have rejected the idea of subjecting Mr. Ollivier and Mr. Darimon to the commitment of not crossing the threshold of the Tuileries.
We would not want to consider even the possibility of aberration, in the presence of men whose past seemed, to nearly everyone, to respond to the future.
Let us beware of committing the same carelessness, and arriving at the same result.
History demonstrates that, by a singular contrast, the people always show, either an excess of confidence, or an excess of mistrust.—And, a stranger thing, it is when its representatives find themselves faced with a power armed with all the seductions that it takes fewer precautions regarding them; it is for the day of triumph that they reserve their strictness and demands.
As long as it will be thus the nation will be deceived or led astray.
When then will we understand that all those who, to any degree, aspire to the honor of representing the people should be subject, at least as much as the courtiers are to the Imperial Majesties of which they are the sovereign.


VII.

As long as the law does not subject the deputies à the constant possibility of revocation, it will be indispensable to take the most rigorous precautions in their regard.
In a truly democratic government, the national representation, the aforementioned word, should only be the consistent expression of the progressive modifications of public opinion,—so that, if a deputy ceased to be in harmony with their electors, they must be able to recall him.
When this will be so, the mandate of representative of the people will only be sought or accepted by men of real devotion.
It will be useless to require the commitment to accept no public function; for then the constituents will directly choose their administrators.—The jobs which demand special knowledge, will be given, after competition, by juries drawn by lots from among those who will fill the job immediately above.
In such a system there would only be, apart from the direct election of the people, ministers and ambassadors, who will be named by the Chamber of Deputies and revocable at its will.

VIII.

We know in advance that those who have an interest in maintaining the abuses of favoritism will cry out against utopia!
They will not dare say that such an organization would be bad—they will declare it impossible to achieve, especially in that which concerns the dismissal of the deputies.
But the men of good will should not recoil before the alleged impossibility of resolving such a problem.
They should say: It must be resolved.
Let all put themselves to work, in order that, when the hour arrives, each can bring their stone for the rebuilding of the social edifice.

IX.

Meanwhile, we must seek, in the legal mechanism of the Constitution, all possible means to bring us to the goal: The constant ability to freely and directly exercise our collective sovereignty.
Since the Constitution does not oppose it, let us compel our representatives to limit the legal duration of their mandate, and to follow our instructions for the solution of vital questions.
If we lack the time to obtain their prior commitments, we could, after the elections, address by writing, to those who are appointed, some collective notifications so that they have to take our desires into account.
Let us profit from the lessons of the past.
Voters, the moment is solemn:
Take care of yourselves!

*

THE OATH

To the future Representatives of the People.
_____

By deciding to pass courageously before the dragon which, according to the mythological expression of Barbes, guards the entrance of the legislative body, you have certainly not intended to let yourself be devoured by it.
_____

The oath incorporates two distinct commitments,—The first, obedience to the Constitution,—the second, fealty to the Emperor.
The idea of obedience to the law excludes that of reciprocity,—the idea of fealty to a person, on the contrary, logically implies, if it is true that slavery is abolished.
_____

The law could have said obedience to the constitution and to the Emperor. In the presence of human fallibility, it did not want to.
It must have foreseen the case where he would misunderstand the obedience that he owes to the law itself.
And, so that no doubt exists in that regard, it declared him responsible.
_____

You all know that the invincible logic of history has put the Constitution under the superior guarantee of the formal recognition of the principles of our glorious revolution, in the forefront of which appears liberty.
It follows, then, that by first taking the oath of obedience to the Constitution, you have, foremost, made a commitment to affirm, demand, and defend, for and against all, without exception, these eternal principles.
Read them attentively: you will find there the enumeration of our rights and instructions on the means of enforcing them.
_____

The lawfulness of the previous arguments cannot be contested.
It is, doubtless, by some similar considerations that Mr. Emile Ollivier has been logically led to write, in his January 19, page 304, the following phrase:
“The responsibility of the Emperor, which could only be put into action by a plebiscite or by a revolution, is the constitutional recognition of popular sovereignty, in the name of which the english revolution of 1688 and the french revolutions of 1830 and 1848 were made.”
_____

But while recognizing the accuracy of the legally revolutionary assertion of the author of the 19 Janvier, do not follow him in his foolishness!—Do not seek to become married.
Let his example serve as a lesson for you—you would soon be reduced, like him, to mourning your lost virtue, saying;
“They are like those bad sorts who compromise honest girls and do not marry them.” (19 Janvier, page 353.)
It is true that M. Ollivier does not give up so easily;—he is like those girls who always love the bad sorts who have seduced them, and stray, more and more, from the friends they had when they were wise.
He seeks again for those who have... compromised him.
The question is to know if he will be married to his little bundle of slowly allocated liberties—or if he will marry the large bundle of arbitrary restrictions.
_____

As for you, do not accept as restored what one can still give you, as one has already taken it.
Do not forget the cry of alarm of the old Trojan:
“Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes.—I fear the Greeks, even when they bring gifts.”
And I would add : It is especially than that it is necessary to mistrust them.
They are Greeks, and that is enough.
_____

And if they say they are regenerated by the absolution.
Respond to them with all the moralities:—that the validity of the absolution is always subordinated, not only in the absence of violent pressure on the one who gives it—but also to the sincerity of the remorse manifested by complete restitution and by definitive renunciation.


[1] Émile Ollivier, Le 19 janvier: compte rendu aux électeurs de la 3è circonscription de la Seine, 1869.