Changes

A month later, Henry found himself under indictment for making a "more than fair share" shipment of Rearden Metal to [[Kenneth Dannager]], a coal-mining magnate who had bought his coal fields. Floyd Ferris found out about this, and threatened to have Rearden indicted if he did not fulfill the order for Rearden Metal made by the Project X account. Henry still refused, and the indictments came.

A month later, Henry found himself under indictment for making a "more than fair share" shipment of Rearden Metal to [[Kenneth Dannager]], a coal-mining magnate who had bought his coal fields. Floyd Ferris found out about this, and threatened to have Rearden indicted if he did not fulfill the order for Rearden Metal made by the Project X account. Henry still refused, and the indictments came.

Ken Dannager took that occasion to retire and vanish. Henry faced his trial and defied the court. He said that he did not recognize the court's right to try him, because he did not recognize the thing that had brought him to trial as a crime.

Ken Dannager took that occasion to retire and vanish. Henry faced his trial and defied the court. In essence, he argued lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and then made remarks to this effect:

{{cquote|No, I do not wish my attitude to be misunderstood. I wish to state it for the record. I work for nothing but my own profit—which I make by selling a product they need to men willing and able to buy it. All that I have earned, I earned through voluntary consent: the voluntary consent of those who hired me when I started, the voluntary consent of those who work for me now, and the voluntary consent of those who buy my product. I refuse to apologize for my methods,...[and] I refused to apologize for my money. If this is evil, make the most of it. If the public feels that it cannot tolerate this, then let the public destroy me. This is my code, and I will accept no other.

{{cquote|No, I do not wish my attitude to be misunderstood. I shall be glad to state it for the record....I work for nothing but my own profit—which I make by selling a product they need to men willing and able to buy it....I made my money by my own effort, in free exchange and through the voluntary consent of every man I dealt with—the voluntary consent of those who employed me when I started, the voluntary consent of those who work for me now, the voluntary consent of those who buy my product....I refuse to apologize for my ability—I refuse to apologize for my success— I refuse to apologize for my money. If this is evil, make the most of it. If this is what the public finds harmful to its interests, let the public destroy me. This is my code—and I will accept no other.

I could say to you that I have accomplished more good than you could ever hope to accomplish—but I won't say it, because I do not cite the good of others as a sanction on my right to exist, nor do I accept the good of others as a justification for my destruction. I could say that you do not serve the public good, that when you have violated the rights of one, you have violated the rights of all, and that a country of rightless citizens is a country doomed to failure. I could say it, but I won't. It is not your particular policy I challenge, but your moral premise. If it could be proved that some good could actually come through the taking of my blood, and I were asked to immolate myself so that others might live—if I were asked to serve the interests of the public apart from, above, and against my own—I would refuse. I would refuse even if half a second remained before I would be murdered; I would refuse in the name of a man's inalienable right to exist. In short, if it is now the opinion of my fellow citizens, who call themselves the public, that their good requires victims, then I say: the public good be damned; I will have no part of it!}}

I could say to you that I have done more good for my fellow man than you can ever hope to accomplish—but I won't say it, because I do not seek the good of others as a sanction for my right to exist, nor do I recognize the good of others as a justification for [my] destruction....I could say to you that you do not serve the public good—that nobody's good can be achieved at the price of human sacrifices—that when you violate the rights of one man, you have violatee the rights of all, and a public of rightless creatures is doomed to destruction....I could say it, but I won't. It is not your particular policy I challenge, but your moral premise. If it were true that men could achieve their good by means of turning some men into sacrificial animals, and I were asked to immolate myself for the sake of creatures who wanted to survive at the price of my blood, if I were asked to serve the interests of society apart from, above, and against my own—I would refuse...I would fight the whole of mankind, if one minute were all I could last before I were murdered, I would fight in the full confidence of the justice of my battle and of a living being's right to exist. [In short], if it is now the belief of my fellow men, who call themselves the public, that their good requires victims, then I say: the public good be damned; I will have no part of it!}}

His speech drew a standing ovation, and in the end the court dared do no more than levy a fine and then suspend that fine. That fine was never collected.

His speech drew a standing ovation, and in the end the court dared do no more than levy a fine and then suspend that fine. That fine was never collected.