Socialism on trial

Google

This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project

to make the world's books discoverable online.

It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject

to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books

are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often difficult to discover.

Marks, notations and other maiginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the

publisher to a library and finally to you.

Usage guidelines

Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the
public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing tliis resource, we liave taken steps to
prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying.
We also ask that you:

+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for
personal, non-commercial purposes.

+ Refrain fivm automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google's system: If you are conducting research on machine
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the
use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help.

+ Maintain attributionTht GoogXt "watermark" you see on each file is essential for in forming people about this project and helping them find
additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it.

+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just
because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other
countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of
any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner
anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liabili^ can be quite severe.

About Google Book Search

Google's mission is to organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers
discover the world's books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web

at |http: //books .google .com/I

(jj, iS^ i^.^o. s-

'barvarb CoIIcflc If bran*

FROM THE

J.HUNTINGTON WOLCOTT

FUND

QIVEN BY SOOEK WOLCOTT [CLASS
OF 1870I Df UEUOSV 07 HIS 7ATHBR
FOK THE "PDKCHASE 07 BOOKS 07
PEUtANENT VALUE, THE PRETERENCE
TO BE GIVXK TO WOSKS 07 HISTORY,
FOUnCALECONOlCY AND SOCK)LOGY"

J

THE FREEMAN PAMPHLETS

SOCIALISM ON TRIAL

iy
MORRIS HILLQUIT

PUBLISHED BY

B. W. HUEBSCH
NEW YORK

y

SOCIALISM ON TRIAL

BY

MORRIS HILLQUIT

>fEW YORK, MCMXX

B. W. HUEBSCH, INC.

V-S "^

SA- \c\.3-C> .5

NOV 61920

"TKlt^tt^fu.A^

TO MY WIFE

COPYKZOHT, Z920» BY
B. W. HUXBSCH, INC.

PREFACE

On the first day of April, 1920, the lower house of
the legislature of the State of New York by an over-
whelming vote adopted a resolution expelling the five
Socialists who had been elected members of that body.
The imprecedented action was the culmination of a
sensational political proceeding, which was followed with
tense interest by the whole country. It had its incep-
tion on the opening day of the legislative session, January
7th, 1920y when the Speaker of the Assembly, Thaddeus
C. Sweet, without preliminary debate or notice of any
kind, suddenly ordered the Socialist members to the
bar of the House and coolly informed them that they
would not be allowed to take their seats in the Assembly
on the groimd that they had been elected ''upon a plat-
form that is absolutely inimical to the best interests of
the State of New York and of the United States," The
Speaker was immediately followed by the majority leader
of the Assembly, who offered a resolution in substance
condemning the Socialist Party as a revolutionary and
impatriotic organization, and directing that the seats of
the Socialist Assemblymen be declared vacant ''pending
the determination of their qualifications and eligibility."
The resolution was passed with only six dissenting votes.
After thus convicting a whole political party without
trial, the entire matter was referred to the Judiciary
Committee of the Assembly "for investigation" — a sort
of post-mortem inquest. The hearings in the peculiar
proceeding resulted in a divided report, seven

Mi;4inii;

■\

vi PREFACE

of the Committee reconmiending the expulsion of all the
Socialist Assemblymen, while five members upheld their
right to their seats and one favored the expulsion of
three and the seating of two of the defendants.

From a legal aspect the proceeding was a monstrosity.

The entire scheme of our political system is that the
people should govern through their elected representa-
tives. The right of the people to choose their own rep-
resentatives is supreme. TTie provisions of the New
York State constitution which had any bearing upon the
issue; are based upon this political axiom. The law
prescribes the qualifications of Members of the Assembly.
They are few in nimiber and plain in meaning. A Mem-
ber of the Assembly must be of full age, a citizen of
the United States and a resident of the State. He
must, of course, also have been elected by a pliu*ality of
the votes legally cast in his district at an election duly
held.

Since the existence of these qualifications and the fact
of the election may be, and in practice often are, ques-
tioned, and an appropriate tribunal must exist to de-
termine such questions, the constitution of the State
ordains that each house shall be ''the judge of the elec-
tions, returns and qualifications of its own members."

In passing upon the qualifications of its members, the
Assembly acts in a judicial capacity. It is legally and
morally bound by the provisions of the Constitution,
and the latter leaves no room for doubt as to the rights
of elected public officials.

After directing that all such officials take an oath to
support the Constitution of the United States and the
constitution of the State of New York, and prescribing
the form of such oath, it specifically and solemnly or-
dains that ''no other oath, declaration or test shall be
required as a qualification for any office of public trust."
To an unbiased mind it must be quite patent that the

PREFACE Til

intentions of this provision was to prohibit the exact
thing which the Assembly has done in the case of its
Socialist members.

Now that the proceeding has passed from the agitated
reafan of controversy into the serene domain of history,
the full significance of the precedent set in Albany gradu-
ally begins to dawn upon thinking America. As time
goes on the irretrievable ravages which the reckless ae*
tion has wrought upon the precious fabric of popular
government will become more obvious. In the calm
retrospect of future years the lawless disfranchisement
of a whole political party will rank with the Dred Scott
decision as a national calamity.

The banefuLp reced ent may never be applied again, or
it may be made the basis of an even more outrageous
politicat^^mm^ in some future fit of emotional public
hysteria^^ — It-.will always be with us. Like Banquo's
ghost, it will hover about the constitution — a sinister
reminder of the insecurity of representative govern-
ment and popular elections.

The action of the Assembly will not destroy the So-
cialist Party. Nor will it force it to modify its substan-
tial aims or character. The Socialist movement is too
strongly intrenched as a vital and organic part of the
modem political system to be annihilated by the edict
of a handful of naive politicians.

On the other hand, the action of the Assembly may
prove to be the making of the Socialist Party. The
plot for the ouster of the Socialist members of the As-
sembly imdoubtedly originated with the Republican
machine in the Assembly. Had the Democratic members
of the Assembly or the Democratic Party as such pos-
sesses! the political honesty, courage and wisdom to op-
pose the measure, the odium of the proceeding woidd
have fallen with its entire weight upon the Republican
Party. But the Democrats chose to make common cause

viii PREFACE

with their Republican rival in the perpetration of the
outrage.

The Socialist Party thus becomes the only place of
refuge for the liberty-loving citizen. The irony of the
political game has decreed that at the very moment when
the Socialist Party has been barred from a legislative
body as a ''foe of the constitution/' it finds itself the
sole political guardian of popular constitutional rights.
Henceforward Socialism will have a double appeal to the
voters, a political as well as an economic.

The following pages represent a full stenographic
record of my closing address as counsel for the Socialist
Assemblymen before the Judiciary Committee of the
Assembly. The hearing, which began on the 20th day
of January and was concluded on the 9th day of March,
covered most of the important phases of modem So-
cialist thought and policy. It leaves behind it a record
of more than 2200 closely printed pages. The closing
address, which attempted to summarize the issues from
the Socialist point of view, thus resolved itself into an
attempt at a rather complete exposition of the present-
day philosophy, program and methods of the Socialist
Pajty and its attitude towards the late war and the
great world problems arising from it. This character of
the speech and the historic circumstances under which
it was made, will, I hope, justify its present publication.

New York, May 15th, 1920

MORBIS HiLLQUIT

SOCIALISM ON TRIAL

The Charges. — Before beginning my argument, I
wish to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the other mem-
bers of the Conmiittee, for the great patience and for-
bearance which you have shown throughout this pro-
ceeding. I also wish to express my appreciation to counsel
on the other side for their conduct, which, on the
whole, has been courteous, and to say that if, in the
course of my remarks I should have occasion to criticize
some of their conduct in this proceeding it shall by no
means be taken as personal, but only as necessitated
by the exigencies of the case itself.

True to his promise, the Chairman has allowed a great
latitude to hoih sides in the introduction of evidence. We
have had an extraordinary wide range of testimony, some
relevant, some irrelevant; and today, when we come to
sum up the case, we are confronted by an unusual record,
I believe, of about 2,000 printed pages, covering every
conceivable historical, economic and sociological subject.

I believe it to be the object of a summing up to sepa-
rate the wheat from the chaff ; to come down to the actual
issues; to discuss the principal evidence on such issues,
and to give the view of counsel for the respective sides,
on the purport and meaning of such evidence; and I be-
lieve I can render no better service to the Committee in
their deliberations than to recall to them at the threshold
that after all is said and done, and after all the testi-
mony is sifted and weighed, we are here in a definite
proceeding and for a definite and concrete object. We
have gotten away from the facts of the case. We have
gotten away in som^ respects from the objects, and it may
be well to recall here the origin of this proceeding.

In the last general election of 1919, Louis Waldman,

2 SOCIALISM ON TRIAL

August Claessens, Samuel A. deWitt, Samuel Orr and
Charles Solomon were duly elected by their respective
constituencies in the city of New York, to be members
of this body. They received a plurality, or majority
vote in each case. Their election was not contested. A
certificate of election was issued to each of them, and on
the 7th day of January, 1920, the opening day of the
first session of this Assembly, they duly presented them-
selves, took the constitutional oath of office, participated
in the work of organizing this Chamber and in some other
preliminary work until such time as they wel'e, upon the
motion of the Speaker of the House — upon his own
motion — called before the Bar of this House and, after
being lectured by the Speaker, a resolution was intro-
duced, submitted to a vote and adopted; and they
thereupon and under the terms of that resolution, were
suspended from their office pending this hearing.

This resolution is the authority under which your
Committee acts. It not only states the subject of your
inquiry, but it also defines and limits your authority in
the matter. It is the only legal warrant imder which
you gentlemen of the Committee are here to-day ; and it,
therefore, becomes very important to have that resolu-
tion and its wording clearly before you. I shall take the
liberty of reading it now. It is as follows:

'^Whereas, Louis Waldman, August Claessens,
Samuel A. deWitt, Samuel Orr and Charles Solomon
are members of the Socialist Party of America; and

"Whereas, the said Socialist Party did, at its
official party convention, held in the city of Chicago,
Illinois, in the month of August, 1919, declare its
adherence and solidarity with the revolutionary
forces of Soviet Russia and did pledge itself and its
members to the furtherance of the International
Socialist Revolution; and

'^Whereas, by such adherence and such declaration
made by the said party, the said party has endorsed
the iH'inciples of tiie Conmiunist Internationale now
being held at Moscow, Russia, which Internationale

SOCIALISM ON TRIAL S

is pledged to the forcible and violent overthrow of
all organized government now existing; and

"Whereas, section 5 of article 2 of the Constitu-
tion of the Socialist party of America provides that
each member of the Socialist party of America must
subscribe to the following: 'In all my political ac-
tion, while a member of the Socialist party, I agree
to be guided by the Constitution and platform of
that party'; and

"Whereas, section 13, subdivision 8, of the State
. Constitution of the Socialist party of the State of

\ New York provides: 'A member may be expelled

from the party, or may be suspend^ for a period
not exceeding one year, for the following offenses:
(f ) for failing, or refusing when elected to a public
office, to abide and carry out such instructions as
he may have received from the dues-paying party
organization, or as prescribed by the State or
National Constitution'; and

"Whereas, such instructions may be given by an
executive committee made up in whole or in part of
alien enemies owing allegiance to governments or
organizations inimical to the interests of tJie United
States and the people of the State of New York; and

"Whereas, the National Convention of the Social-
ist party of America, held at St. Louis, from April 7,
to about April 14, 1917, did duly adopt resolutions
that the only struggle which would justify taking up
arms is the class struggle against economic exploita-
tion and political oppression, and particularly
warned agamst the snare and delusion of so-called
defensive warfare; and such resolutions further pro-
vided ''as against the false doctrine of national
patriotism, we uphold the idea of international
working-class solidarity"; and

"Whereas, the Socialist party of America did urge
its members to refrain from taking part in any way,
shape or manner in the war, and did affirmatively
urge them to refuse to engage even in the production
of munitions of war and other necessaries used in

4 SOCIALISM ON TRIAL

*

the prosecution of the said war, and did thereby
stamp the said party and all of its members with an
inimicable attitude to the best interests of the United
States and the State of New York; and

"Whereas, the said Louis Waldman, August
Claessens, Samuel A. deWitt, Samuel Orr and
Charles Solomon, members of the Socialist party of
America, having been elected upon the platform of
the Socialist party of America, have thereby sub-
scribed to its principles and its aims and purposes,
against the organized government of the United
States and the State of New York, and have been
actively associated with and connected with an or-
ganization convicted of a violation of the Espionage
' Act of the United States ;

"Therefore, be it resolved, that the said Louis
Waldman, August Claessens, Samuel A. deWitt,
Samuel Orr and Charles Solomon, members of the
Socialist party, be and they hereby are denied seats
in this Assembly pending the determination of their
qualifications and eligibility to their respective seats,
and be it further

"Resolved, that the investigation of the qualifi-
cations and eligibility of the said persons to their
respective seats in this Assembly be and it hereby is
referred to the Committee on Judiciary of the As-
sembly of the State of New York, to be hereafter
appointed, and that the said Committee be em-
powered to adopt such rules of procedure as in its
judgment it deems proper, and that said Committee
be further empowered to subpoena and examine wit-
nesses and documentary evidence, and to report to
this body its determinations as to the qualifications
and eligibility of the said Louis Waldman, August
Claessens, Samuel A. deWitt, Samuel Orr and
Charles Solomon, and each of them respectively, to a
seat in this Assembly."

Now, Mr. Chairman, I call your attention, first of
all to the object for which this investigation has been

SOCIALISM ON TRIAL 5

instituted, and which is stated twice in the resolution.
One is that the Assemblymen mentioned be denied their
seats ''pending the determination of their qualifications
and eligibility to their respective seats"; and by the
other: you are asked to report finally your determination
as to "the qualifications and eligibility'' of these five
men. So that the only question before you — the only
question upon which you have the power to take testi-
mony and to pass upon it — is the question of the eligi-
bility and qualification of these five men. You have no
other authority under this resolution. I say this for the
reason that the nature of this proceeding and its legal
status have never been made quite clear; and in fact,
when you go through the record, you will find several
conflicting allusions to the nature of this proceeding.

There is, as you well know, first of all, the constitu-
tional provision to the effect that each House — and, of
course, also this Assembly — shall be the judge of the
elections, returns, and qualifications of its own members;
and that is the only provision which the Assembly had
in view in passing this resolution under which you are
proceeding.

You cannot adopt any other theory but that these five
men were denied seats not on account of their conduct
in the Assembly; but they were denied their seats at
the threshold of their terms, just upon a challenge of
their qualifications and eligibility.

llie oilier provision which has been mentioned here
is the one of the Legislative Law, section 3, to the effect
that each House has the power to expel any of its mem-
bers after the report of a Committee to inquire into the
charges against him shall have been made. Clearly,
this proceeding does not come within that provision ; first,
because the expulsion or suspension of these members
took place before any inquiry into charges; and also
because I think it has been held uniformly — and it is
quite clear from the context — that this section of the
Legislative Law deals only with conduct of members of
the Assembly in office. It could not be anything else.
For that matter I doubt that the Legislature would have

6 SOCIALISM ON TRIAL

a right to go back to ori^al qualifications by the enact-
ment of a similar provision.

Another provision which also has been referred to in
the course of this proceeding is that of the Public Officers
Law, section 35-a, reading: ^'A person holding any public
office shall be removable therefrom in the manner pro-
vided by law for the utterance of any treasonable word
or words, or the doing of any treasonable or seditious act
or acts during his term/'

Now, it is perfectly clear that this provision has abso-
lutely no application to the case before you; first, because
the offense here mentioned must be committed during
the term of office; and, of course, the term of office of
these Assemblyinen covered a period not beyond two
hours, during which time they are not charged with mis-
conduct in any shape, form or manner. Furthermore,
from the reading of this provision it is perfectly clear
that all that it meant to do was to specify one of the
offenses referred to in a general way in the Legidative
Laws, an offense for which a member may be expelled,
because this provision — "a person holding any public
office shall be removed therefrom in the manner pro-
vided by law" — assumes and refers to a defmite
procedure for such removal, mentioned elsewhere.

I do not suppose it will be seriously contended by
the otiier side or that any member of the committee
would entertain any serious doubts on the subject,
namely, that these five Assemblymen are tried here as
to their qualifications or eligibility for office under the
provisions of the Constitution of the State of New York,
article 3, section 10. That is one very important in-
ference we must draw from the reading of the resolution.

Thus you are asked to inquire into the eligibility and
qualifications of these men and to report your determina-
tion. Does that mean that you are given a general
roving conmiission? Does that mean that you are
limit^ in any way in the scope of your inquiry by the

Provisions of that resolution? ■ I hold it does not. What
maintain, Mr. Chairman, is that the numerous pre-
ambles in the resolution in form charging these Assembly*

SOCIALISM ON TRIAL 7

men with the commission of certain offenses or with the
possession of certain disqualifications are not meant to
be and coidd not have been meant to be conclusions in
the nature of a judgment. In other words, when the
Assembly, by its resolution said: '^ Whereas, the said
Socialist party did at its official party convention held at
the City of Chicago, Illinois, in the month of August,
1919, declare its adherence and solidarity with ihe revo^
lutionary forces of Soviet Russia, and did pledge itself
and its members to the furtherance of the International
Socialist Revolution," and when it further said, in the
nest clause, 'That Whereas, by such adherence and by
such declaration made by the said party, the said party
has endorsed the principles of the Communist Inter*
nationale now being held at Moscow, Russia, which
Internationale is pledged to the forcible and violent over*
throw of all organized governments now existing," the
Assembly did not mean to convey the impression that it
had investigated all these alleged facts, passed upon
them, and rendered judgment as therein set forth, for if
that had been the case there would be nothing to refer to
this committee. Also, it would be a perfectly novel pro-
cedure to render judgment without a tSrial, without a hear-
ing, without any evidence to support it. I take it, there-
fore, Mr. Chairman, that while the resolution is perhaps a
little unskillfully worded, the intention was to consider
these various recitals as charges, not as findings of facts,
somewhat analogous to the form of an indictment in which
the defendant is charged in i>ositive and concrete terms
with the commission of certain offenses, but which does
not stand as the judgment of the court but merely as a
basis for trial and investigation. And I hold that these
various recitals do not intend to do more than that ; that
they merely represent charges against these Assembly-
men or their party in concrete form, and if my conten-
tion is correct, and I don't see how any other conclusion
could be held, it means that this resolution, other than its
first enacting clause, is an indictment. And you gentle-
men of the committee are limited to the investigation of
these charges. There is nothing else before you.

8 SOCIALISM ON TRIAL

In other words, the Assembly has said to you as fol-
lows: '^ Whereas, it is claimed that the party to which
these five Assemblymen belong is committed to certain
poUcies, and has committed certain acts, and whereas,
It is claimed that such poUcies and acts are inconsistent
with their holding office, disqualify them and render
them ineligible." Therefore you gentlemen of the Com-
mittee are directed by this Assembly, through this resolu-
tion, first to. ascertain the facts. Are these charges upon
which the Assembly acted in the suspension of these
members, are these charges true or are they false, or are
they true in part and false in part? If so, in what par-
ticulars are they true, and in what particulars are they
false? And if your decision on the question of fact is
that these charges are supported by evidence, or any of
them are supported by evidence, then you must determine
a second question, as a question of law, whether
upon the existence of such facts as you have ascertained,
these men have been rendered disqualified oi" ineligible
to office by the Constitution or by law. So that your
task is a two-fold one. You must inquire into the facts,
and I repeat, the facts recited in the resolution, determine
the truth or falsity of the charges, and then determine as
a question of law, whether or not the existence of such
conditions render these five men eligible or qualified to
hold the office as members of the Assembly.

Curiously enough, at the very outset of this proceeding,
at the first session of tibis Committee, a statement was
read by the Chairman presumably in behalf of the Com-
mittee, giving a somewhat different version of the issues
before this Committee. A version not in all respects in
accord with the resolution. The source of the statement
has never been made clear in this proceeding. Whether
it was the individual opinion of the Chairman, a state-
ment of the Committee, or in the nature of an attempted
superseding indictment, we do not know, but the fact is
that this statement contained several additional charges
not found in the original resolution.

These were: First, that these five Assemblymen were
^'members of a party or society whose platform or prin-

SOCIALISM ON TRIAL 9

ciplee and whose doctrines, as advocated today, call for
or demand, the complete destruction of our form of gov-
ernment by the fomentation of industrial unrest, the
bringing into play of force and violence and direct action
of the masses. That was not, the latter part, at least,
contained in the original resolution. Further, that these
men affiliated with that party or society, have subscribed
to and advocate such principles, and are in favor of abso-
lute substitution of minority for majority rule." That,
likewise, is a new charge, not embraced in the resolution.

Then, "that in 1917, when our country was at war with
Germany, and summoned the strength of the people to
that great struggle, the party or society to which these
men belonged, and to whose program they have sub-
scribed in open convention, and witii calculated delibera-
tion, denounced the war as criminal, its purpose capital-
istic, its motive profiteering, and pledged every man in
the party to oppose the war, and all means adopted by
the government for carrying on the war in every possible
way."

And further, "that the men herein named, by voice and
vote, in public and in private, opposed every measure
intended to aid the prosecution of the war to a success-
ful conclusion, and gave aid and comfort to the enemy."

I wish to call the attention of the Committee to the
fact, that this charge contained in the statement read by
the Chairman, is the first attempt to lay any definite
charge upon the five men individually. In the resolution
the only connection between them and guilty conduct is
their membership in the Socialist party of the United
States. There is not a word; there is not an inference
in the entire resolution which would hold any of these
five men individually guilty of any misconduct. Here,
for the first time, in a supplemental, informal statement,
they are charged individually that they have, by their
votes and by their voice, committed certain acts of
alleged misconduct.

TTien, further, "that they secured their nomination and
procured their election under the pretense to the people
that they were mei^ly availing themselves of a legal

10 SOCIALISM ON TRIAL

established means for political representation; whereas
in truth and in fact it is claimed that this was done to
disguise and cover up their true intent and pujpose to
overthrow this government, peaceably if possible; forc-
ibly, if necessary."

This, the alleged procuring of their election or nomina-
tion, by false pretenses, is likewise an entirely new sup-
plemental charge.

Then, ^'the claim is made that these men, with others,
engaged in a large and well-organized conspiracy to
subvert the due administration of law, to destroy the
rig^t to hold and own private property, honestly ac-
quired; to weaken the family ties which they assert is
the seed of capitalism, to destroy the influence of the
Church and overturn the whole fabric of constitutional
form of government."

Here, for the first time, the theory of a conspiracy is
sprung upon us. In the original resolution these five
members of the Ass^nbly were charged with membership
in a political party, and it was claimed that that polit-
ical party had rendered itself unfit for membership of
the political community in the country by its conduct.

In the suppl^nental charge, it is no more a party.
It is a conspiracy between these five men and various
other persons uidcnown, to do certain tilings, likewise
not mentioned in the original resolution. And to show
how far the statement goes and how ill-advised were
those that prepared it, it will suffice to call attention
to this particular charge, namely, that one of the objects
of the alleged conspiracy was to destroy the influence of
the Church.

The charge is ridiculous. It is controverted by the
evidence, but the point alone — the idea of a legislative
body in any State of the Union making the object of a
charge that certain men are alleged to have conspired
to undermine the influence of the Church I Since when
is the State, since when is any legislative body con-
stituted a guardian of the influence of the Church?
Isn't every political and social doctrine of this country,
from the early days of the Colonies, down to this last

SOCIALISM ON TRIAL 11

day, absolutely opposed to the theory that it is the busi-
ness of the State to preserve the influence of the Church?
Does not the Constitution of the United States, at least
by implication, emphasize that very foundation of our
social and political life? And how does this Assembly
of the State of New York come to charge, as an offense,
that any of its members were engaged in any conspiracy,
to undermine the influence of the Church? I repeat the
charge is absurd; but I also wish to call attention of the
Committee to the desperate length to which the framers
of these charges went when they prepared the supple-
mental charge.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I hope that the entire supple-
mental statement, inasmuch as it is supposed to be part
of this proceeding, in so far as it is supposed to constitute
a basis of additional evidence against these Assembly-
men now xmder charges, should be disregarded from
beginning to end; should be thrown out of your
minds, and from your consideration, together with all the
testimony based upon it.

The charges which were made against us, the charges
which we were summoned here to defend ourselves be-
fore you, are charges formulated by this Assembly. If
any additional charges were to be made against us, there
was only one way of effecting it. The Assembly could
amend or supplement its resolution. You gentlemen of
the Committee could not do it. The agent can not
extend the authority conferred upon him by the principal.

I say you have no legal right to add any charges. You
had no legal right to hear evidence on those additional
charges. You should absolutely disregard it. But, if
there was, at least, a semblance of legality or propriety
in those additional charges made by the Committee, in
the statement read by the Chairman, there certainly was
none in the further additional charges made by coimsel
for the Committee; and they have made additional
charges.

It seems to be a sort of general free for all proceeding.
Here are five men brought before a court on something
or other. Everybody who feels like hitting them, go on
and do so and do it in your own way.

12 SOCIALISM ON TRIAL

Counsel in submitting their so-called brief at the
close of their case, I repeat^ did make definite and addi-
tional charges against these five men. These are, first
that the provision contained in the national constitution
of the Socialist Party, prohibiting members of the party
f rcan voting for any appropriation for military or naval
purposes, or for war, that this is in conflict with the pro-
vision of the Constitution of the State of New York
which enjoins upon the Legislature to make annual
appropriation for the maintenance of the militia, and tibat
consequently that fact disqualifies these five men from
taking seats in the Assembly. I am not going at this
time into the merits of the contentions. We will do that
later, but I call your attention to the fact that this is
distinctly a new charge, not contained in the resolution,
not contained even in the Chairman's statement, but
wholly invented by coimsel for the Committee.

Likewise, the charge that the Socialist party has for
its purpose the substitution of the Soviet form of gov-
ernment in the United States. That was not contained
in any of the previous charges. That was discovered
by counsel for the Committee; and so, likewise, that
the Socialist party is an anti-national party ; and finally,
counsel for the Committee take it upon themselves to
prefer, formulate and state specific charges of individual
misconduct against these five Assemblymen. I call
attention to the fact that when the resolution was adopted
there was no such charge, or shadow of a charge, in it.
But, in order to conform the charges to the evidence im-
properly introduced, specific charges are made against
the Assemblymen, and learned counsel on the part
of the Committee even go so far as to suggest that these
five men are guilty of a violation or violations of the
Espioni^ Law and should be convicted under the terms
of that law.

To what extent counsel for the Committee have gone
in the preparation and formulation of charges against
these five men can be best judged by this: that they
have had the sad courage to t^ke up the records of these
men in previous sessions of the Assembly, to drag out

SOCIALISM ON TRIAL 13

their votes, their action in such Assembly and to make
that a basis of their criticism. If ever there was a sacred
right recognized in the political fabric of our coimtry it
is the xmtrammeled right of an elected representative
to any legislature, State or national, to speak his mind
freely and according to the dictate of his conscience, to
vote and act upon all measures before him as an abso-
lutely free and untrammeled agent. And our Constitu-
tion specifically provides that the acts and votes of
members of the legislature should not be questioned any-
where else in any proceeding of any kind including a
proceeding of this kind.

Nor is that all. Counsel go so far as to make the
charge with reference to August Claessens that during
his term of oflSce, previous terms, he had introduced
"aflSrmative legislation of an offensive character." Think
of it, gentlemen. Consider it soberly. Have they come
down to that? Have they come down to the point where
a measure introduced by a member of your House or of
any other legislative body which to him, we must assume,
represents a measure of public welfare, that such a
measure of a£5rmative legislation, not personal miscon-
duct, not personal misbehavior, but a measure of affirm-
ative legislation, subsequently happens not to meet with
the approval of learned counsel for your Committee and
is made a basis of a proceeding for removal from the
Assembly? I merely point that out to show to your
Committee the length to which this modification of
charges has gone, the piling of charges upon charges, and
I again repeat that with respect to all these new charges
discovered by coimsel for your Committee, they are not
before you. You have no right to go into them. You
have no authority from your parent body for it. You
must disregard them and disregard all the evidence in
connection with them. This proceeding otherwise will
certainly set a precedent, a very novel precedent in the
jurisprudence of tiiis country.

Imagine for a moment a defendant charged with
larceny brought to trial. The District Attorney tries
the case upon an indictment of forgery. The judge sub-

14 SOCIALISM ON TRIAL

mite it to the jury upon the theory of arson and perhaps
the jury brings out a verdict of assault and battery.
This is i>ractically what you have before you for the
record will show that even with all this latitude, with
all this superstructure of various charges, the evidence is
not confined to the charges.

The Evidence

Now, with reference to that evidence there is one point
I wish to make, and gentlemen of the Committee I wish
to impress that upon your minds as strongly as I can.
I say regardless of the question of the relevancy or
irrelevancy of the testimony offered here and regardless
of the intention of my friends on the other side, whom I
do not charge with wilful malintentions, I say the evi-
dence so absolutely distorts the vision of those who read
it as to be absolutely worthless and worse. My criticism
is based upon two points, not so much on the point that
utterances, platforms, declarations and other statements
of the party or certain individuals have been miscon-
strued or misread. That may^ pass. But there is an-
other important point and that is this. The testimony is
so one-sided as to absolutely blur the vision. Let me
tell you what I mean by it.

The Socialist movement is about 70 to 75 years old
in its modem phases. It has produced a literature of
hundreds upon hundreds of volumes in all modern lan-
guages. The Socialist movement in the United States
is almost half a century old. The present party is 20
years old. It has had numerous conventions^ national,
state and local. It has adopted himdreds of official
proclamations of all kinds. Its press is large. Take for
instance the Call alone that has been cited here so often.
It is a daily. There are 365 editions of it every year.
It is in its 13th year of existence. Consequently it has
published roughly about 4,500 numbers. Each of them
contains an average of from four to five editorials or
contributed articles. So that this paper alone has pub-
lished about 20,000 different editorials and contributed

SOCIALISM ON TRIAL 15

articles. Now, this is only one paper. The Socialist
party at all times has had an average of about 100
papers, daily, weekly, monthly, in English and other
languages, supporting its policies. Imagine how many
statements ^ of all kinds these have contained. The
Socialist party is always campaigning, almost every
member is a speaker, a propagandist. Millions of
Socialists' speeches have been made in this country within
the last couple of decades. Now, here is my point.
Every indiscreet statement that creeps into our literature,
our press or our public forum, every foolish, irrespon-
sible statement — and such are boimd to occur occasion-
ally — is at once seized upon by our professional
opponents, the anti-Socialist leagues, the National Civic
Federation, and they are immortalized ; they are printed,
and transmitted from book to book and from paper to
paper and then all are collected and turned over ready-
made to a Lusk Committee or any other committee that
investigates great social problems. Learned counsel on
the other side, I make bold to state, have practically
every incriminating utterance of any kind ever made by
the Socialist party or any of its subdivisions or any of its
members or any of its adherents and of everyone who
ever called himself a Socialist. They have it all, and
what do they produce before you, twenty, thirty, forty
utterances and they ask you to judge the character of the
Socialist party by these. What becomes of the thousands
and hundreds of thousands, the millions of other ex-

Eressions of the Socialist party which are not brought up
ere? Do you think you can get a real conception of
the Socialist movement by reading these conglomerations,
these collections of slip-ups, if you want, and nothing
else; nothing of the whole literature, proclamations,
speeches, statements of the Socialist party? Why,
gentlemen, imagine, if you please; imagine I am a for-
eign correspondent in the United States and I am re-
porting back to my country conditions in the United
States. I am perfectly truthful except that I select my
material. I don't care for marriages. I don't care for
births. I don't care for ordinary politics. I don't care

16 SOCIALISM ON TRIAL

for the every-day life of the United States, but every
crime, every murder, every assault, every lynching, every
strike, every boycott, every political scandal, I report
at once. I am absolutely truthful. In every case I
am painstakingly truthful. What conception will they
get on the other side? Why that the United States is a
country in perpetual war. That it is the most lawless
nation existing. Would that be correct? No. Would
they have a right to arrive at those conclusions upon the
basis of the testimony before them? Yes. Is the testi-
mony false? Not formally so, but actually it is. It is
true in the dry word. It is a lie in its soul and substance.
And that is, gentlemen, the nature of the testimony be-
fore you. Think of it. To drag in here the one indis-
creet article written by Victor L. Berger in 1909, eleven
years ago. He is a man sixty years old, the editor of a
daily paper, writing day after day, and he once in a
moment of caprice or whim, as it may happen, writes
one article which makes him the good-natured butt of
his friends. It doesn^t represent him truly. It isn't a
very incriminating article if you read it knowing Victor
L. Berger, but it contains some rather extravagant state-
ments. Gentlemen, what professional writer doesn't have
one such slip-up on his conscience in a career of thirty or
forty years of daily newspaper work? That is brought
up here. That is paraded before you. From that you
are asked to infer not only that Victor L. Berger is a
firebrand (and he is just the opposite), but that the
party endorses and approves of that one little slip of his
and that we stand for violent revolution. There is a man
by the name of Perrin, who is engaged on the Call. He
writes an article, a shocking article, I admit. We all
admit it. We read it the next day and the telephone wire
of the Call begins to get busy with inquiries. "How
does an article of this kind come to be printed in the
Call?" The man is fired, but the article is here and
it is asked of you to make it a basis of your decision of
the qualification, or the eligibility of these five men, who
at that time were not of age and who at no time approved
of ^he article, because the Socialist party distinctly dis-

SOCIALISM ON TRIAL 17

appn>ved of it. Then they produce every kind of gossip
they can possibly get. There is a man who ran against
one of these defendants and was beat^i by him. Natu-
rally he is somewhat sore and he has certain xmf avorable
opinions about his opponent. He is allowed to testify as
to them. Then there is another man who goes around
and heckles speakers and gets answers. He mdces no
notes. The speeches are oral. In due coiu*se he comes
here and gives his version of them, and it goes. Finally
they call an expert, an expert on Socialism, the only ex-
pert you gentlemen, counsel for the Committee, have
called. You know Socialism by this time is not a dark
mystery. It is a perfectly well-known subject. T^e
libraries are filled with volumes on it. It is a science.
It k taught in the colleges and universities as part of
political economy. Whether you agree or disagree with
it, it is there and it is a recognized science. You want
authorities, non-Socialists. Why don't you call some-
one who has made a study of it, call the professor of
any university, a non-Socialist, but who knows tiie sub-
ject — Professor Ely, Professor Commons. You do not.
But there is a certain man, a professional anti-Socialist,
who knows his Socialism from the various excerpts I
have referred to and from talks with individual Social-
ists. He comes before you and you ask him what is the
Socialist attitude on religion? "Oh, hostile.*' How do you
know? "I spoke to thousands of Socialists about it.'' And
if yon don't believe him all you have to do is to call
those thousands of unnamed Socialirts in rebuttal. That
is easy.

You might as well take a policeman who makes love
to the maid of a great authority on geology and call him
fts an expert on geology because he knows all tibe
kitchen gossip of the authority on geology. That is pr6«
cisely what Collins did. Gentlemen, to all those who
know anything about the subject, that is a joke. Before
a serious body of this kind, in a proceeding of this
importance, to introduce these anti-Socialist pradlers of
rumors an an authority when you could have had so
many competent authorities, by no means pro-Socialists

18 SOCIALISM ON TRIAL

— people who have made a study of it and who have
the proper qualifications!

The Chairman. — We will take a recess until two
o'clock.

(Whereupon, at 12:35 p.m.| a recess was taken imtil
two o'clock.)

AFTERNOON SESSION, 2:15 p.m.

The Chairman. — Proceed.

Me. HiLLQurr. — Mr. Chairman, I have been en-
deavoring at the outset of my remarks to prove to you
tliat many of the charges, and much of the evidence be-
fore you, are irrelevant to the issues in this proceeding,
and that they are outside and beyond the scope of your
authority.

The fact, however, is that the charges have been made;
that the evidence is on record, and I am, therefore, at
this time to meet it — all the charges and all the evi-
dence, and for the convenience of tiie presentation and
discussion, I have summarized the charges under eight
main heads.

They are as follows:

First: That the Socialist Party is a revolutionary
organization.

Second: That it seeks to attain its ends by means of
violence.

Third: That it does not sincerely believe in political
iaction, and that its politics is only a blind, or
camouflage.

Fourtib: That it is unpatriotic and disloyal.

Fifth: That it unduly controls public officials elected
on its ticket.

Sixth: That it owes allegiance to a foreign power,
known as the Internationale.

Seventh: That it approves of the Soviet Government
of Russia, and seeks to introduce a similar regime in the
United States; and, finally,

Eight: That the Assemblymen personally opposed the

SOCIALISM ON TRIAL 19

prosecution of the war and gave aid and comfort to the
enemy.

I think you will find as we proceed in the discussion of
these points, that every charge, major or minor, comes
within one of these heads. I wish to call your attention
at this time that the only charge against the Assembly-
men individually, improperly introduced as we claim it
to be, is the last or eighth charge. To this charge I
expect my colleague, Mr. Stedman, to reply. Personally,
I am concerned in this argument with the first seven
charges. All of these charges, if you examine them care-
fully, are distinctly charges against the Socialist party
as such. In other words, it is the Socialist party of
the United States that is on trial before you. On its
qualification to be a member of the political commimity
of this coimtry, your decision will depend. Hence, it is
very important for your committee to know something
more or less definite about this Socialist party which is
on trial before you.

Socialism

We come thus squarely, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen
of tiie Committee, to the question: What is the Socialist
Party of the United States? What are its aims, and its
methods? I think that it is highly important for all
of you gentlemen to understand that, or at least our
view of it.

It would be somewhat too simple, almost childishly
naive, to ascribe the Socialist movement in this country,
in every coimtry in the world, a movement which has
sprung up many decades ago, a movement which has
proceeded and is growing rapidly and steadily^ a move-
ment which is in control of a number of very miportant
countries of Europe, I say it would be childish to ascribe
it to the machinations, to the malevolence or malice of a
few agitators determining to create a movement of oppo-
sition in order to raise disturbances.

A movement of such age and such achievements, as
well as dimensions, must have some more real, some more

20 SOCIALISM ON TRIAL

rational cause; and I believe that if the special I^eg^a-
lative Committee wanted to investigate into the cause
and conditions of radical movements in this coimtry —
and your Committee also — would start with this
inquiry: ''What causes have produced the Socialist move-
ment here or elsewhere," you would come very much
closer to a scientific, satisfactory and rational solution
of the question confronting you.

We Socialists differ from the other political parties in
our first, and cardinal, assumption, which is that organ-
ized government everywhere has for its primary object
and fimction to secure the physical, mental, moral and
spiritual well-being of its members. We do not consider
the govenmient as a mere policeman, sitting over us and
passing upon our daily quarrels. We believe the func-
tions of the government are more substantial, more vital;
and in that we really do no more than endorse, and per-
haps extend, the very well-known declaration which the
foimders of this republic have made popular all over the
world, and that is that the object of every government
and of every people is to attain and maintain the right
to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. To us, these
are not phrases to be recited glibly on the Fourth of July.
To us, this declaration is a living truth.

What we mean when we assert tlie right of the people
to life is the right of the people to actually live; not
merely to breathe, but to have the means of maintaining
their lives; to have food, to have clothing, to have
shelter, to have all the means to sustain modem civilised
life.

When we speak of liberty we do not mean merely a
condition outside of jail. We mean by it actual polit-
ical and economic independence; the freedom of men
from men ; the equal freedom of all insofar as such free-
dom is compatible with the existence of organized gov-
ernment.

And when we speak of the right to the pursuit of
happiness we mean the right — the concrete right — of
every man, woman and child to simshine, to air,
to enjoyment, to amusement; to the blessings of civiliza-

SOCIALISM ON TRIAL 21

tion ; to the products of arts and science. We mean by-
it the right to enjoy life as fully ^^ as nobly , as the best
members of our community are privileged to do.

Starting out with these premises we say that
neither our government nor any other modem govern-
ment has at all achieved those fundamental objects or
fimctions for which they have been organized.

We assert that every advanced country can to-day
easily assure the physical, moral and mental well-being
of every member of such country; that it can produce
with the modem resources all the food, all the clothing,
all the necessaries of life, and that it need not suffer any
one, any member of the commimity, to go hungry or to
succumb in misery in their daily existence.

Take our own country, the United States, and
we probably have the most striking illustration of this
proposition. Here is a great and powerful coimtry,
3,000 miles wide, 3,000 long, blessed with every element
of natural wealth. The land is abundant, mostly fertile.
It yields products of practically every clime and yields
them in abundance. We have inexhaustible wealth of
metals and minerals and forests; we have coast lines on
both sides from one end of the country to the other.
We have ports and waterways, and we have an alert,
active capable population of about 120,000,000, of whom
the vast majority are ready and eager to lend a hand
in the production of the wealth required for the suste-
nance of the life of the nation. We have developed the
modem processes of wealth production to such an
extent that we can create to-day ten times, in some cases
100 times, more than our fathers or forefathers could
with the same effort, and we have an industrial organiza-
tion the Eke of which history has never known. If all
this wealth, if all these resources, if all these great indus-
trial factors had been scientifically, rationally and ■
reasonably organized, there is no reason in the world
why there should be slums in any of our cities, why there
should be under-feeding of children, and appalling child
mortality, why there should be want, why there should

22 SOCIALISM ON TRIAL

be misery, why there should be those ghastly struggles
for existence going on in the heart of this country day
after day everywhere.

Capitalism

But our country and our industrial system are not
organized rationally. In fact, they are not organised
at alL The people of this country, as the people of every
other country, do not own their country, and that is the
fundamental indictment of Socialism against present
conditions. It is not the people of the United States —
the one hundred and twenty million men, women and
children who constitute that people, that own tiie United
States.

There is the tremendous stretch of land, a large slice
of the surface of the globe, that if anything, should be
the common heritage of all those who live on it, but it
is not. It has been parceled out into lots and plots^ and
turned over by the gradual processes to a comparatively
speaking, small number of landowners, who own the sur-
face of the United States, and by whose permission the
rest of the people who own no land, the vast majority,
are tolerated upon the surface of this cqimtry.

And when we come to the natural wealth below the
surface of the earthy the vast stocks of minerals and
metals, the stocks which a benevolent Nature has created
in the course of many thousands of years, and upon
which today we depend for our light, for our heat, for
our energy in the production of wealth, we find another
group, and a comparatively small group, of our fellow
citizens who hold that against the rest of the whole
country, and say, "this is ours; the Almi^ty God has
not meant the sources of life for the people who need it
for their lives — no, he has reserved it for us to turn it
into franchises, to capitalize it into stocks and bonds, to
derive profits, and make our individual fortunes on it";
and so, with the oil wells, and so with the great arteries
of trade and commerce and life in this country, the rail-
roads, and so with our factories, with the marvellous

SOCIALISM ON TRIAL 23

maGhinery of modem production created by the agency
of many, many generations past as well as present, and
ihe natural heritage of all men. They are owned by a
small minority, comparatively speaking, a handful of the
people who hold it as against the rest of the coimtry.

So that the situation is this, for the majority of the
people, the working class of the United States: they stand
there to-day ready, willing, eager and capable of turn-
ing those natural resources, that raw wealth, into con-
sumable products for themselves, their wives and chil-
dren, to turn it into food, into clothes, into dwellings, to
turn it into other necessaries. They cannot do it at
this time without the use of modem implements of labor;
that they cannot do it without the natural resources, the
raw material, and between them and these sources of
their lives stands that small capitalist class and says,
''Hold on, this is ours, the land and the fullness thereof,
the land and all above it and all below it, is ours, and
if you want to live, if you want to eat, if you want to
work, you must first secure a license from us and such
license we shall not give you unless you stipulate to pay
us a tribute, unless you stipulate to turn over to us for
our personal profits a large and substantial portion of
the product of your toil."

The great masses of the American people, as the
great masses of the people in every modern coimtry, are
held in submission to this small class of industrial auto-
crats. They work or they starve, according to the dic-
tate of that class. If a time arrives when it does not
pay the owning class to continue the operation of the
industries of the country, they are not responsible to
anybody for continuing it. They shut their factories,
their mines and mills, they throw millions of workers out
of employment, cause the direst poverty, because it suits
their business ends, and the whole country stands there,
powerless to interfere with this industrial autocracy;
absolutely impotent to assert its own will. Again it
bows.

And so we have all the social evils of modern days
resulting from this condition; the few millionaires and

24 SOCIALISM ON TRIAL

multi-millionaires, and the millions and millions of men,
women and children whose whole life is one of toil and
privation; who are deprived of all joy, all sunshine, all
life in the true sense of the term. And so we have the
class of the idle, who take pleasure after pleasure with-
out rendering any useful service to society; and on the
other hand, the children of the poor beginning their
lives — their joyless lives — in the factories, at a tender
age, growing up stunted physically and mentally, making
miserable citizens, a weak foundation for the hope of
future generations.

We have made that indictment ; we have made it more
than once, and once in a while, we are met with this
lucid statement, "Well, if you don't like this country
what is there to hold you? Take the first ship and go
elsewhere." There has been even some implication of
an argument of this kind in the course of <^is hearing,
and I want to take this opportunity to say and to assert
that an argument more silly and more immoral has
never been advanced. I say "silly" because it isn't the
United States alone in which these conditions prevail.
They prevail in every modem country. Our complaint
is not specifically against the regime or system of the
United States. It is an indictment of the whole civilized
or capitalist Society.

And then again, "Leave this country ; go to a country
that suits you better." Just think of that argiunent,
gentlemen. Suppose in this city of Albany you have by
misfortime a corrupt, incompetent administration on ac-
count of which you find your streams polluted, the sani-
tary conditions neglected, your health menaced, your ex-
istence poisoned. A number of citizens get together and
protest against these conditions and against this admin-
istration and its misdeeds and the political ring turns
to such protesting citizens and says, "Gentlemen, if con-
ditions in Albany don't suit you there are plenty of other
cities in the United States. You may go elsewhere."

Suppose, to take another illustration, you and I and
somebody else have entered into a partnership in busi-
ness and have given our joint efforts to the business for

SOCIALISM ON TRIAL 2S

years and years. At a certain moment I, as one of the
partners, discover that another partner of mine has been
inefficient, perhaps dishonest, that the business is suffer-
ing, going bad, our joint interest being gradually de-
stroyed. I try to introduce reforms in our business
manag^nent and methods and the very partner who
profits by his own dishonesty turns to me and
says, "If you don't like the way we conduct this business
there is nothing to hold you in this partnership ; you can
get out." You wouldn't consider this a good argument,
and so exactly does the other argument present itself to
us. Gentlemen, bear in mind once and for all that we
take the position that America is ours just as much as it
is yours; that America is ours just as much as it is that of
any other class of persons or individuals in this coimtry.
These men, here, these five Assemblymen under charges,
come here as representatives of many thousands of work-
ingmen who have given their youth, probably the greater
part of their lives lo the enhancement of the wealth of
this country, who have been instrumental in building up
this coimtry, in making it what it is, great and powerful
and prosperous, and these men have a right to say
to-day that the wealth which they have helped create be
equitably distributed and that the workers have a
proper share of it and a proper share of life. They
are not going to quit this coimtry. They do not have
to quit this country any more than you. They propose
to stay. They propose to contribute the best that is in
them for the advancement, for the benefit, for the better-
ment of this country and also for the bringing in of a
better, juster social system of wealth production and
wealth distribution.

Had it been merely an economic question perhaps it
would not have been so vital, but it isn't a purely eco-
nomic question. It is very much more than that. It
goes to the very substance, to the very life nerve of our
national existence. You see this condition, the condi-
tion of the small class owning the country, and a large
populous class working for it, has created what we have
referred to here in the evidence, from time to time, as the

26 SOCIALISM ON TRIAL

class struggle, and we have been foolishly charged with
fomenting that class struggle. Do you know, gentlemen,
we are the only political party that not only is not fo-
menting class struggles but tries to eliminate all classes
and all class struggles. But the fact of the matter is
that, imder present conditions, there is nothing but a
struggle of classes in the country. You may not call it
struggle ; you may call it antagonism, but it is a persist-
ent and vital antagonism.

And it operates throughout the entire field of our life
and economy. It exists between employer and worker
everywhere, whether it expresses itself in strikes or
walkouts or blacklists or in no overt acts at all; and
whether the personal relations between employer and em-
ployee are very bitter, or on the contrary very friendly.
The fact of the matter is that the employer, imder present
conditions, must see to it that he makes profits, must see
to it that he pays as little in wages as he possibly can,
and that he gets as much out of his worker as he possibly
can. It is the law of present economics. It would mean
business extinction if he were to follow it.

The worker who has nothing but his labor power must,
whether he wants or not, see to it that he gets every
dollar of wages he can; that he conserves his energy —
his only property — as much as possible; and between
these two opposing interests there is, and must be, a con-
stant conflict. There is warfare between employer and
employee; there is a constant competitive warfare be-
tween capitalists of different classes, and within each
class separately. You know all about it. You know the
history of our. great financial and industrial institutions.
You know how they have been built up on the
ruin of smaller industrial concerns. You know
how they have been devouring their smaller brethren.
And there is just the same war between worker
and worker, because whenever, in times of industrial
depression particularly, a job is open, there are
hundreds of workers looking for it, each one eager to
get it, each one — or most of them — having wives and

SOCIALISM ON TRIAL 27

children to support; each of them ready to take any pay
so long as he is allowed the privilege of working and
earning some wages, and underbidding each other and
cutting the wages against each other and bringing chil-
dren from their homes to work and compete with the
adults and bringing their wives into the factories to
compete against the men — all because necessity compels
them.

And there is antagonism between landlord and tenant;
there is antagonism between producer and consiuner. It
is not an industrial system operated for the benefit of
all the members of the conununity. It is a system of
strife and violence, where each is engaged in war against
all, and all against each.

And in this war of interests, every class and every
individual of necessity tries to exert the greatest possible
power in its, or his, behalf: and so it comes that the
capitalist classes, the most powerful classes, in order to
maintain their supremacy, go into politics and see to
it that their interests are in control of the government
and all its departments as much as they can. All we
have been hearing and saying about political corrup-
tion and machinations in this coimtry in the last decades
— and many volumes have been written on the sub-
ject—have had their mainspring in this desire of the
privileged classes to maintain their privileges against the
people; and all the corruption of our schools and of our
presses and of our public institutions — of which there
have been many and various public indictments — had
their mainspring in the same source.

This is not a mere Socialist contention. No! It is
borne out by the naked facts and conditions in this
coimtry. Only so far back as 1914 the Industrial Rela-
tions Commission — a Commission appointed by the
President of the United States and composed of men who
may be considered more or less neutrals in the class war,
and at any rate not Socialists — found and published the
following illinninating facts:

Speaking of certain industrial communities dominated
by corporations, they say: "In such coiomimities demo-

28 SOCIALISM ON TRIAL

cratic govemment does not as a rule exist except in name
or fonn, and as a consequence there now exists witMn
the body of our Republic industrial conununities which
are virtually principalities, oppressive to those dependent
upon them for a hvelihood and a menace to the peace
and welfare of the nation. The wealtii of the country
between 1890 and 1912 rose from $65,000,000,000 to
$187,000,000,000, or 188 per cent; whereas, the agp-e-
gate income of wage earners in transportation and mining
and factories has risen between 1890 and 1909 only 95
per cent. It was found that the income of almost two-
thirds of these families was less than $750 per year, and
almost one-third were less than $500; the average for
all being $721. The average size of these families was
6.6 members. Elaborate studies of the cost of living
made in all parts of the coimtry at the same time have
shown that the very least that a family of five persons
can live upon in anything approaching decency is $700.
It is probable that owing to the fact that the families
investigated by the Immigration Commission were to a
large extent foreign bom, the incomes reported are lower
on the average than for the entire working population.
Nevertheless, even when fair allowance is made for that
fact, the figures show conclusively that between one-half
and two-thirds of these families were living in a state
which can be described only as abject poverty.

It has been proved by study here and abroad that there
is a direct relation between poverty and the death of
babies ; but the frightful rate at which poverty kills was
not known, at least in this coimtry, until very recently,
when, through a study made in Johnstown, Pa., the
Federal Children's Bureau showed that babies whose
fathers earned less than $10 per week died during the
first year at the appalling rate of 256 for every thousand.
On the other hand, those whose fathers earned $25 per
week or more died at the rate of only 84 per thousand.
The babies of the poor died at three times the rate of
those who were in fairly well-to-do families. The tre-
mendous significance of these figures will be appreciated
when it is known that one-third of all the adult workmen

SOCIALISM ON TRIAL 29

reported by the Immigration Commission was earning
less than $10 per week, which is exclusive of time lost.

On this showing of Johnstown, these workmen may
expect one out of four of their babies to die during the
first year of life. The last of the family to go hungry
are the children, yet statistics show that in six of our
largest cities from 12 to 20 per cent of the children are
tmderfed and ill-nourished. The most alarming con-
dition is that of the rapid growth of tenant-farmers — in
1910, in each 100 farms in the United States 37 as com-
pared with 28 in 1890, an increase of 32 per cent during
20 years.

Between one-fourth and one-third of the male workers,
18 years of age and over, in factories and mines, earn
less than $10 per week. From two-thirds to three-quar-
ters earn less than $15, and only about one-tenth earn
more than $20 a week. This does not take into con-
sideration loss of working time for any cause." ^

Then follow the final observations, which are so very
eloquent, so very telling, that I should like the Committee
to retain it. "The rich, two per cent of the people in
the United States, own 60 per cent of the wealth. The
middle class, 33 per cent of the people, own 36 per cent
of the wealth — that is approximately the average. The
poor, 65 per cent of the people, own 5 per, cent of the
wealth." That is a telling story. Sixty-five per cent
of the people — over 75,000,000 people of the United
States together own one-twentieth part of its wealth, and
if you will exclude the highest strata of these workers,
if you will reduce it, say, to 50 per cent, or a little more,
that is half of the people of the United States, you will
be justified fully in saying that they own practically
nothing in this world; that this coimtry with its wealth,
to which they have contributed by their toil, has not
given them any return of any kind, and that they face
the dread of starvation from day to day. -^

"This means," says the report in brief, "that two mil-
lion people who would make up a city smaller than
Chicago own 20 per cent more of the nation's wealth than
all the other ninety millions of the country." Then, to

30 SOCIALISM ON TRIAL

prove the extent to which concentration has gone, the
report makes this interesting observation. 'There is
at least one individual, one out of the 110,000,000, who
owns approximately one billion dollars in wealth. The
average wealth of the working people is |400 per head.
Hence, this one individual owns as much as two million
and one-half workers in the coimtry." And bear in
mind, gentlemen, that was the condition in 1914, before
the war. Since that time conditions have become incom-
parably worse and the contrast very much greater. In
tliat year there were only seventy-five hundred million-
aires in the United States. Today we count about thirty-
five thousand, more than four times the number. The
cost of living since 1914 has more than doubled. Wages
have not kept pace. The picture so eloquently sketched
by this report of the Industrial Relations Commission is
rosy, as compared with conditions as they exist today.

Now then, in view of that, the Socialist Party says that
there is nothing wrong with this country or its people
except the industrial system. The Socialist proposes as
a remedy for this evil the nationalization of the coimtry's
principal industries. They say it is altogether wrong;
it is inmioral, if you want, to allow such a vital function
as feeding the people and maintaing them in health, to
be carried on by a group of irresponsible capitalists for
their private profit and aggrandizement without any con-
cern for the men, women and children who have to be
fed day after day, and who often die from mal-nutrition.
We say it is an absolute wrong to allow the great industry
of clothing, of sheltering the people of this country to be
carried on by individual capitalists or profiteers for their
own private interests. We say this coimtry, as every
other country has it as its first concern to see to it that
the wealth which an Almighty nature or Providence has
placed within their reach, which an industrious people
have increased a hundred fold by their efforts, and which
generations and generations of thinkers, inventors and
workers have brought to the present degree of perfection,
shall be the common heritage of the whole people. We
say it is the duty of every self-respecting, rational people

SOCIALISM ON TRIAL 31

organized in a proper way and on a civilized basis, to
take these life-sustaining agencies out of the hands of
private individuals, out of the realm of speculation, out
of the chaos of competition that rules and ruins at the
same time, and turn it over to the people to organize it
properly, to organize it rationally, scientifically, to or-
ganize it with a view of eliminating waste, to organize
it with the view of producing the maximum of wealth and
distributing it as equitably as possible among all of
the people.

This is the program of the Socialist party. It is not
a thing we have adopted just here or within the last
years. It is the program upon which our party has
been foimded many, many years ago. It is the program
which has been imderlying all of our activities, ever
since the existence of the Socialist party. And if you
want, you may call that a revolutionary program. It
is revolutionary, and in that sense, we the adherents
of that program, we Socialists, are revolutionists. We
don't object to the term. We glory in it. So long as the
end sought to be accomplished by us is commendable,
is for the welfare of humanity, we don't care how you
label it. But we ask you, gentlemen, and we ask those
who framed the charges against us, since when is it that
the term "revolution" or "revolutionary" has become a
term of opprobriunL in a country which owes its existence
to a successful revolution? Since when has the doctrine
been proclaimed in this country that a change, a funda-
mental, radical, revolutionary change in our mode of
government, in our mode of life, is not permissible so
long as the people wish to introduce it? There has been
a very characteristic incident in that coimection. You
remember when Mr. Littleton opened this case in a very
eloquent address, he took me to task for having said this.
"What is treason today may become the law of the
land tomorrow." And he said to you by way of warning,
"It will, if you let traitors write your laws." It seem^
to be an eloquent argument but what it revealed is that
my good friend Mr. Littleton and those of the same social
and economic school with him have gone to the point

32 SOCIALISM ON TRIAL

where they already consider the fundamental law of this
land, the constitution of this country, with its bill of
rights, and the Declaration of Independence, as traitor-
ous. They are ashamed of it; they discard it. Aye,
they don't have the courage to repeat it all. Mr. Little-
ton on that occasion read from the Declaration of Inde-
pendence, and he read only a portion of it which I shall
repeat to you. He said, quoting the Declaration of Inde-
pendence, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that
all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator
with certain inalienable rights among which are life,
liberty and the pursuit of happiness ; that to secure these
rights governments are instituted amongst men deriving
their just powers from the consent of the governed."
And he stopped right here and stopped dead because be
did not dare to read what follows, and what follows is:
"Whenever any form of government becomes destructive
of these ends it is the right of the people to alter or to
abolish it and to institute new government, laying its
foundations on such principles and organizing its powers
in such form as to them shall seem most likely to effect
the safety and happiness," — well, gentlemen, we are
here to remind you that this eloquent sentence is a legiti-
mate and organic part of our Declaration of Inde-
pendence just as the part read by Mr. Littleton and we
say to you that we believe, sincerely believe, that the
present form of our industrial system, our industrial
regime, has become destructive of the very ends pro-
claimed as inalienable rights in our Declaration of
Independence; that life, liberty and the true pursuit of
true happiness have become impossible today under the
prevailing iniquitous, economic system, and we say that
we have the right and that we have the duty to demand
that this system, this pernicious system, be altered; that
it be abolished, and that the people of the United States
form a new industrial system, basing it upon such prin-
ciples, upon such conceptions, as they, the people of the
United States, not Mr. Littleton, not counsel for the
other side, not even you gentlemen of the Committee or
members of the Assembly, deem proper, but the people
as the people, the people as a whole, deem proper.

SOCIALISM ON TRIAL 33

That is all tiiere is to the first point or oharge against
us, that we are a revolutionary party.

The Chairman. — We want to suspend for 15 minutes.

Mr. Hillquit. — I shall be very thankful.

(Whereupon, at 3:15 p.m., a recess was taken for 15
minutes.)

AFTER RECESS.

Violence

The Chairman: Proceed.

Mb. HiLLQun: The first charge, Mr. Chairman, to
which I addressed myself before adjournment — ^the
charge that the Socialist party is a revolutionary organ-
ization — acquires real significance and legal importance
only in connection with the second charge, namely, that
the Socialist party seeks to attain its ends by means of
violence ; and I take it that this Committee will proceed
upon the theory that if we advocate a change, no matt^
how radical ; so long as we advocate it by peaceful, con-
stitutional and lawful means, we are within our ri^ts.
If we advocate it by means of violence, by illegal and
unlawful means, then, of course, we become lawbreakers.
The charge that the Socialist party advocates a violent
change is contained in the resolutions of the Assembly
and in the supplementary charges in the following form:

First, that the Moscow Internationale is pledged to
the forcible and violent overthrow of all organized gov-
ernments existing.

Second, that the Socialist party has endorsed the prin-
ciples of the Moscow Internationale, therefore, by in-
ference also the policy of overthrowing all forms of
government by violence, and by a second inference,
also overthrowing the government of the United States
by violence.

In the Chairman's statement this is isomewhat ampli-
fied by the charge that the Socialist party strives to
foment unrest and "to bring into play force, violence and
direct action of the masses." In the course of the testi-

34 SOCIALISM ON TRIAL

mony the general strike has been added as one of such
charges. Then, also one portion, or paragraph, of the
St. Louis Resolution was introduced into the evidence in
support of this charge. The portion reading, "The only
struggle which would justify taking up arms is the class
struggle against economic exploitation and political op-
pression."

Now, the testimony on both sides has been pretty clear
on the subject. The prosecution has sought to establish
this point principally by inferences. I think I shall
not be contradicted if I say that they have not read a
single official party declaration or any other authoritative
Socialist statement advocating violence as a means of
attaining the Socialist ends. It has been rather a matter
of innuendo and inference from certain scattered utter-
ances here and there as against all the testimony of all
Socialist witnesses, which has been perfectly definite and
consistent. I shall say to you now, gentlemen, that there
was not on this point, nor on any other point, a desire
on the part of the Socialist spokesmen to cover up or
conceal anything in their program. They have been
perfectly frank. To conceal or to cover up any part
of the Socialist program would go directly against the
Socialist interests and the entire existence and aims of
the Socialist movement.

Otu" is a movement of propaganda. We are a minority
party. Our object is to convert the majority of the
people to our views. Consequently, we must advocate
our views publicly. To hold certain views and conceal
them would be diametrically opposed to the purposes of
the Socialist party. If we had assumed that anything
in our program is such that we cannot stand for it
publicly, what object would there be having it in our
program as a part of our propaganda? I don't know
whether I make myself clear. As a political party, we
are not paid or hired to stand for certain things. We
stand for the things which we believe to be true, and
for the things that we stand we always make public
propaganda. In other words, we are never in a posi-
tion to deny any part of our program.

SOCIALISM ON TRIAL 36

On the question of violence in connection with the
Socialist propaganda, we have made it perfectly clear
that we wish to introduce a radical, economic and indus-
trial change. A change of this kind cannot be intro-
duced by methods of conspiracy. It cannot be introduced
by acts of daring or violence of a minority. Because it
means a process of social or economic evolution. If
it were a question of an old time revolution, hav-
ing for its aim the deposing of one sovereign and
electing, or proclaiming another sovereign; or even for
that matter, deposing a dynasty and proclaiming a
republic, perhaps a few conspirators could imdertake the
task and get away with it; but to transform the economic
basis of society; to socialize all the principal industries
of the country and to organize the whole working com-
mimity as a public instrumentality for the operation and
management of such industries, how can that conceivably
be accomplished by conspiracy or by violence?

We Socialists, as strong believers in social evolution
have always been the first to decry and ridicule the
romantic notions of changing the fundamental forms of
society, the economic basis of society, by acts of violence
or by conspiracy; and as has been brought out in this
testimony, in the very early days of the Socialist move-
ment — in the days of the First Internationale this was
the bone of contention between the Marxian Socialists
on the one side, and the Bakimin anarchists on the other.
Our position is a simple one. We say we are striving
for the industrial transformation of society and the polit-
ical changes which, of necessity, must accompany them.

When we say "we," we mean the Socialists of all the
world. Now, of course, there are cases where there is
no way except the way of violence for political changes.
For instance, absolute monarchies with no parliamentary
systems of representation, no ballot boxes to introduce
innovations in governmental systems. Say, Russia,
under the Czar, even before the days of the Duma.
What kind of change could the people of Russia ac-
complish politically, economically, or otherwise, except
by overthrowing the Czar? They could not vote the

36 SOCIALISM ON TRIAL

Czar out of ofGice because they couldn't vote. They
could only throw hun out physically. In an instance
of this kind, of course, whether we say it, or don't
say it, everybody of any political sense knows ihst
where there is no medium of popular expression; where
there is nothing but a system of repression, violence
alone will change that system. Let me give you another
example. There was oiur own Revolution. What was
the situation? The majority of the people of the
Colonies wanted certain changes, at first not even inde-
pendence; later independence from England. Could
they accomplish it peacefully? No. Why not? Be-
cause they had no voice in the matter. They could not
determine their own destiny. They were subject colo-
nies. Their policies and their life were directed from
England. Consequently they could only emancipate
themselves by a physical act, by simply saying "We shall
no longer be your subjects," and taking the consequence
of a war. The Revolution was not accomplished by
parliamentary methods because such methods did not
exist. But where there is a machinery for righting of
grievances, for changing of governmental forms, we
Socialists say that that is the method which we adopt.
That is part of omt program. At the same time we can-
not blind ourselves to history. We cannot ignore
the fact that in actual practice revolutions, changes,
fundamental, governmental and economic changes, have
often been accompanied by violence. We say that in
most cases the violence has come not from the victorious
majority but from the defeated minority. In most cases
it has been forced upon the majority. And we have
cited a number of such cases to you. Now, we say the
Socialist Party is not a party of non-resistance and we
say further, the hypothesis having been placed before
us, that if a majority of the people of this country were
to vote for a Socialist change in the form of government
and the capitalist minority were to attempt force to
prevent them from coming into their lawful inheritance,
we would repel or advise repelling such force by force.
Did you expect a different answer? Would any Amer-

SOCIALISM ON TRIAL 37

ican make a different answer? No. And that is all
there is to the theory of violence in the Socialist move-
ment.

Notwithstanding all the disjointed fragmentary state-
ments that sometimes have been made in the course of
an impromptu speech, or perhaps in an ill-considered
article, I say there is absolutely nothing as definite, as
concrete, as conclusive as this position of the Social-
ist Party. In order to clinch this argument, gentlemen,
I want to read to you a few veiy brief passages from
a little booklet of mine which is in evidence here, '^So-
cialism Summed Up," not because I want to quote
myself as an authority, but because, and I want you to
b^ this in mind, gentlemen, this book was written before
these Assemblymen were suspended, before we had any
idea of ever being called before any bar to defend the
political tenets of the Socialist Party. It was written
both for the purpose of making converts and, of course,
you do not make any converts unless you place your
actual position before them; and also for the purpose
of enli^tenment of our young party members.

It has been officially published by the national office
of the Socialist party. It has been circulated in many,
many thousands all over the country. This, having been
written at a time when it could not have had for its
object controversial points surely states the true position
of the Socialist party on that subject. It is as follows:
''The introduction of the Socialist regime depends on
two main conditions. First, the economic situation of
the country must be ripe for the change." Bear that in
mind, gentlemen. We do not claim that we can go to
Zululand to-day and organize a Socialist party, or a
Socialist movement, because economic conditions are
not ripe for it. We do not maintain that we can intro-
duce a Socialist regime before the economic conditions
of a country are ripe for it, and we must wait for such
point to be reached.

"Second, the people of the country must be ready for
it." The people of the country, not a small minority
party, not a group, but the people of the country.

38 SCX3IALISM ON TRIAL

The first condition takes care of itself. The task of
the Socialist movement is to bring about the second
condition, and it is this aim which determines the
methods and practical program of the movement.

Whether the Socialist order is to be ushered in by
revolutionary decree or by a series of legislative enact-
ments or executive proclamation, bearing in mind, of
course, the conditions in the different countries, ''it can
be established and maintained only by the people in
control of the country."

''In other words, Socialism, like any other national
political program, can be realized only when its ad-
herents, sympathizers and supporters are numerous
enough to wrest the machinery of government from their
opponents, and to use it for the realization of ^eir
program."

Does that sound like a conspiracy to overpower the
government of the United States and overthrow it by
force and violence? But to make it still clearer:
"Modem Socialists do not expect the socialist order to
be introduced by one great cataclysm, nor do they
expect it to be established by a rabble made desperate by
starvation. The Socialists expect that the cooperative
commonwealth will be built by a disciplined working
class, thoroughly organized, well-trained and fully quali-
fied to assimie the reins of government and the manage-
ment of the industries. Next to the education of the
workers in the philosophy of Socialism, the prime task
of the Socialist movement is therefore the political and
economic organization. The Socialist movement of each
country presents itself primarily as a political party."

And again: "The objective point of the Socialist
attack is the capitalist system, not the individual capital-
ist. The struggles of the movement represent the organ-
ized efforts of the entire working class, not the daring
of individual leaders or heroes. The intellectual life of
the working class is determined by the training of the
men and women constituting that class, and not by the
more advanced conditions of a small group of it. A
coimtry may be educated, led and transformed into

SOCIALISM ON TRIAL 39

socialism ; but it cannot be driven, lured or bulldozed into
it. The Socialist's conception of the world process is
evolutionary, not cataclysmic. Socialism has come to
build, not to destroy. This is the accepted position of
the modem Socialist movement."

Now, gentlemen, I want to say that if, in print and
publicly, I referred to this position as the accepted posi-
tion of the modem Socialist movement, it certainly was
the accepted position of the modem Socialist movement,
for I could not afford in the face of the opposite, to
write that sentence.

Then: ''The accepted position of the modem Socialist
movement is, however, not to be taken as an assurance,
or prediction, that a Socialist victory will in all cases" —
that means in all countries — ''come about by orderly
and peaceful methods, and will not be accompanied by
violence. It may well happen that the classes in power
here or there" — that means in one country or another —
"will refuse to yield the control of the govemment to
the working class even after a legitimate political vic-
tory. In that case a violent conflict will necessarily
result, as it did under somewhat sunilar circumstances
in 1861 ; but such spectacular and sanguinary outbreaks
which sometimes accompany radical economic and polit-
ical changes are purely incidental. They do not make
the Social transformation. Thus in England the revo-
lution which transferred the actual control of the country
from the nobility to the capitalists was accomplished
by gradual and peaceful stages, without violence or
blood-shed. In France the same process culminated in
the ferocious fights of the great revolution of 1789; but
who will say that the transition in England was less
thorough and radical than in France? As a matter of
fact, street fights do not make a social revolution any
more than fire-crackers make the Fourth of July."

Now then, gentlemen, I think our position on the sub-
ject could not be made clearer than it has been made.

Another point was tacked onto this proposition,
namely, that we advocate mass action and the general
strike, and I shall say a very few words oa that sub-

40 SOCIALISM ON TRIAL

ject. The phrase "mass action" occurs quite frequently
in our phraseology. What we mean by it, gentlemen, is
the opposite of what you impute to us. We distinguish
between mass action and individual action. Mass ac-
tion is organized action of the people. Political action
is mass action. Organized strikes are mass action.
Individual attempts, individual assassinatiom^, individual
acts of sabotage are not mass action, and we deprecate
Hiem. The mass action we have in view is the legal
organized action of large masses of the community.

And as to general strikes let me state our position: As a
matter of history, the Socialist Party of the United
States, together with the greater number of Socialist
organizations in the world, has always consistently re-
jected the idea of a general strike for political purposes;
and our argument has been that if we have a number
of workers in a parliamentary country, determined to
the point of striking for a political reform, it is strong
enough and numerous enough to cast its votes for such
reform and the strike becomes unnecessary. If the
working class is ready to go to the limit in such demand,
it is ripe for them, and if it is ripe, we do not need the
general strike. If it is not ripe, there will be no effective
general strike.

The first and only endorsement of the general strike
method by the Socialist party in the United States is
contained in the proclamation in connection with the
U-boat warfare, which has been read here several times.
At that time under special pressure the Socialist party
declared its opposition to the war not yet declared to
be so strong as to sanction even a general strike for its
prevention. Now, gentlemen, we maintain that a reso-
lution of this kind, whatever view you may have of its
political wisdom, was perfectly legal, that we had a right
to adopt such a resolution — and I shall say more regard-
less of the attitude of the Socialist party on general
strikes for pNolitical purposes — I will say that the
workers of this country have such right, and that it is
well that they should at least hold it in reserve as a
possible instrument in some cases, in exceptional emer-

SOCIALISM ON TRIAL 41

glides. When Mr. Lee was here on the witness stand
he was questioned very closely, very adroitly by Mr.
Conboy — "Under what circumstances would you admit
the necessity or propriety of a general strike?'' Mr. Lee
gave some instances. I will say that the general fitrike
is very often used, has been used abroad for the purposes
of enforcing parliamentry action or political action, and
I can well imagine such concrete instances now. Let
me give you this hypothetical instance. A labor party is
now being formed at least in some parts of the country.
Suppose tiie workingmen of any state get together and
say, "We want to form a party of bur own; we are not
satisfied with the way the representatives of the old
parties are legislating on labor matters. We want our
own representatives to come into legislative bodies and
to voice our demands, our aspirations, our interests. We
want them to speak for us by our mandate,'' and suppose
an election is held and being confronted with all sorts
of election frauds, they still manage to elect a few
representatives, and those representatives come to the
legislative body and their working constituency is wait-
ing and watching, hoping that at last their own direct
representatives will speak for them in the halls of the
Legislature, and suppose a big capitalist in the same
Legislature thereupon gets up and tells them, "Look
here, gentlemen, I don't approve of your program, of
your principles, of yoiur platform. Get out of my Legis-
lature.'' I say this would be eminently a case where the
workers would be justified in declaring a general strike
until such time as their constitutional rights are accorded
to themu

I should not be surprised if there ever does arise a
condition of this kind on a large scale that that will be
what will happen. We do not apologize for that view.
We have a n^t to safeguard the political rights of our
constituents, and of the people, by every legal means
without exception, and the general strike for such pur-
pose is one of such legal methods. It has been recog-
nized in every civilized modern country.

42 SOCIALISM ON TRIAL

I hope personally that the occasion may never arise
where it shall be necessary to be resorted to in this
country, but if it should, the workers have a full and
perfect right to use it for the protection of their
interest.

Politics

The next point made against us is somewhat analogous
to this. It is the point, that the Socialist party is a
political party only in appearance, but that as a matter
of fact it does not believe in politics; that its politics are
only a blind and camouflage. This charge is contained
in the Chairman's statement, that the nomination and
election serve only to disguise and cover up our true
intent and purpose to overthrow the government peace-
ably or forcibly; also in the very eloquent statement of
Mr. Littleton that we are ''masquerading as a political
party": and finally, in a few statements quoted from our
platforms and declarations, such, for instance, as that
the reform measures advocated by us are merely pre-
liminary to the realizatioin of our whole program, or that
our politics is only a means to the end.

Now, gentlemen, it requires a great legal acumen to
construe upon the basis of these statements a theory that
we really are not a political party. Is there a political
party, anywhere in the world, a true political party in its
prime and vigor that does not consider politics as a mere
means to the end? Every political party is supposed to
have a platform. Its end is the realization of such
platform. The means are politics, office, control of gov-
ernment. It is only when a political party degenerates
into an office and patronage-holding concern that politics
becomes an end in itself. When the Republican party
was organized first it had a great mission to perform, no
doubt, and politics was the means to the performance
of that mission, to the attainment of that end; and we
Socialists tell you. Of course, we are not in politics for
the purpose of giving Claessens, Waldman, Solomon,

SOCIALISM ON TRIAL 43

deWiti and Orr offices at the remunerative salaries of
$1500 a year. We are not in politics for spoils — de-
cidedly not. To us politics is only the means to the
end; and the end is the introduction of the Socialist
system of society which I have outlined before.

I should go a little fiu*ther, gentlemen, I should say
this: that the charge is frivolous. Th e mere_f act that
these five men, members of the Socialist Party, elected
on the Socialis i ticket , come here seeking office, is abso-
lute and inc ontrove rtible proof of the fact that the
Socialist Party is a p olitical party. Groups and move-
ments that do not believe in politics.^ ^ instrument of
social improvement, do not engage-^ politics. You
never find an anarchist group nominating for public
office or voting for public office, or sending representa-
tives to legislatures or other political bodies. The Social-
ist Party, which adopts a political platform, nominates
candidates, votes for them, sends them here, certainly
is a political party.

I was a little amused when we had Mr. Waldman on
the stand here and he described the methods of the
Socialist delegation in this Assembly: how they came
together and first took up their political platform in
order to ascertain the pledges or promises upon which
they had been elected, and then said, "It now becomes
our duty in pursuit of oiur pre-election promises to the
electorate to attempt to enact legislation along these
lines," and then assigned different tasks to each one, and
each of them spent days, and sometimes weeks, in study-
ing the subjects; then introduced bills and followed them
up and tried to get them out of the committee, and on
the floor of this House. I was asking myself in the face
of these uncontroverted facts, is it really the charge
that they are not enough in politics that worries our
opponents, or is it perhaps the opposite? Are they
perhaps too much in earnest about their politics for
the health and comfort of their opponents?

I can not take seriously the charge that their politics is
a sort of camouflage. If an Assemblyman of the Social-
ist Party came here not to introduce a bill but a bomb;

44 SOCIALISM ON TRIAL

if an Assemblyman of the Socialist Party came here not
to debate, but to shoot;* if he came here to commit acts
of violence instead of legislating; if there had been any
such record on their part I could conceive of the justice
of such a charge ; but the very record of these men proves
that they and their party take their tasks seriously, and
again, I shall read you, very briefly, a quotation from
the same booklet to define our position on politics. It is
this:

'^In the Socialist conception, politics is only a means to
the end. Temporary and loccd political power is valu-
able mainly as affording an opportunity for economic
reform and the final national political victory of the
workers will be of vital importance only as a necessary
preliminary to the introduction of a system of collective
and cooperative industries. A general political victory
of the workers would be barren of results if the workers
w^e not at the same time prepared to take over the
management of the industries. The Socialists, therefore,
seek to train the workers in economic no less than in
political self-government. It is for this reason that the
movement everywhere seeks alliance with economic or-
ganization of labor, the trade unions and the cooperative
societies."

In all kmdness towards our opposing political parties,
the Republican and Democratic, I want to say that in
the Socialist program and in the Socialist activities,
politics holds a much higher and nobler place than in
the conceptions and tactics of the old parties. Just
because we consider politics as a means to an end, just
because we consider politics as an instrument of social
betterment, just because we consider politics an educa-
tional fimction and not merely an office hunting or spoil
dividing process, not merely a pedestal for personal ele-
vation, I say, we, the Socialists, are genuinely and prop-
erly a political party and more so than the other parties.

And then again in order to vary the subject somewhat,

'^An allusion to a member of the Judiciary Committee, who
declared on the floor of the Assembly that the Socialist Assem-
blymen, if guilty, should be shot.

SOCIALISM ON TRIAL 45

comes the next charge, namely, that the Socialist party
is too much of a political party. You say in the former
charge our politics is a camouflage, that we are not
a political party at all, and in the next charge you say
tiiat the Socialist party is too much of a political party,
that it dictates the policies and actions of its members
elected to public office. The consistency of the two
charges is not very obvious to me, but they both are here
and we shall discuss the second now — that the Socialist,
party unduly controls public officials elected on its ticket.
That is bas^ upon several pieces of evidence before you.
One is tiie pledge which every Socialist in becoming a
member of the party, takes, namely, to be guided by
the Constitution and platform of that party in all his
political actions. The second is contained in the State
Constitution of the Socialist Party, and is to the effect
that a member of the party may be expelled or sus-
pended if he does not comply with the directions given
to him by the dues-paying membership of the party.
The third is the provision in the same State constitution
that every candidate of the Socialist party for public
office should sign an advance resignation.

I must confess I cannot clearly see the force of these
objections or the contentions based upon them. The
promise to be governed in political policies by direction
of a political party is not an improper promise, not pro-
hibited by law, statute or constitution anywhere.

There is a very distinct prohibition against making
promises of any things of value in consideration of secur-
ing the vote of the voters. That is all. There is no
other prohibition. And it seems to me we have drifted
into a very peculiar line of reasoning in this connection.
In the firet place, as it appears from the record, the
Socialist party representatives are probably the most
unhampered representatives of any party. The
fact of the matter is, first, that advance resignations are
not as a rule required of candidates of the Socialist
party. Only two instances have been mentioned, one,
that of Mayor Lunn, who admitted that it applied only
to his ftrst term and not to his second term, or the

46 SOCIALISM ON TRIAL

third time when he ran, I believe, on the Socialist ticket;
and then Mr. Collins referred to some occasion in some
town in Ohio, of which nobody knows and which could
not be verified. But the imiform testimony of our
National Secretary, our Secretary in New York, the
elected officials themselves, all given solemnly imder
oath, is that in no instance within years and years has
the practice been followed.

Now, gentlemen, we have introduced that evidence be-
cause we wanted the fact established; but it is not im-
portant. Suppose such resignations had been signed by
candidates for office on the Socialist Party ticket. As
it happened, they would have had no value because, of
coiu^e, everyone can withdraw his own resignation be-
fore it has been acted upon. You all know that. But
even if it had a binding force, it would have meant only
one thing, and that is that a candidate elected on a-
Socialist party ticket agrees to carry out the platform
and pledged promises of the Socialist Party or quit the
Socialist Party, be fired out of it, if he does not comply
with it.

I want to call your attention, Mr. Chairman and
gentlemen, to one phase of it: all through the pro-
ceedings there have been eloquent speeches about the
"oath" that the Socialist party members take to their
organization and to their Internationale as against the
constitutional oath. There is not any oath being taken,
nor has there ever been any oath taken by any member
of the Socialist party in any way. They merely sub-
scribe, in their application, to the ordinary, natural —
even implied — obligation to live up to the Constitution
and prmciples of the party while they are members of
the party. If they do not, they are thrown out. What
concern is that of yours? Every party, every organiza-
tion, has a right to say they will tolerate a member as
long as he complies with their constitution, and it has
nothing to do with you, whether they are fired out of
the party or not. But the fact of the matter is that
this voluntary obligation cannot be weighed against the
only oath the defendents have taken, the constitutional

SOCIALISM ON TRIAL 47

oath of office, when they came to the door of this
Assembly.

There has been very little direction by the Socialist
party, it appears, during the entire period of existence of
Socialist members in the Assembly. There was only one
occasion, the question of voting upon the constitutional
amendment on prohibition. It appears there was a
conference held between the Assemblymen and party
representatives, and an agreement was reached that they
should advocate submitting the question to referendum.
The Assemblymen themselves determined on that course
before the decision was reached and that is the only
instance of interfering with their activities. Mr. Lunn,
who was not a friendly witness, testified to the fact that
never in his experience, and even in his quarrels, has the
Socialist party attempted to interfere with his adminis-
trative acts for corrupt or improper motives, or motives
of material gain. In all cases it was a question of main-
taining party principles; of living up to party promises
and party pledges, which the Socialist party has a right
to do.

You know, gentlemen, there is a story about the
Roman augurs. The Roman augurs used to tell fortunes
from the entrails of animals, and the people believed
in them; but there was the historic and proverbial wink
which they used to give each other when meeting. They
knew each other. And when you gentlemen of the Re-
publican and Democratic parties charge us — the Social-
ists — with permitting too much party interference in
the performance of our public duty, we feel like wink-
ing at you off the record, because where do we come in
with you on party interference? Everjrthing charged
against us applies truly to the Republican and Demo-
cratic parties.

Do you remember we had recently informal conven-
tions of both parties, and each of them recommended
certain persons for office delegates to the national con-
vention. It was a recommendation. That was all. But
you can imagine that it will go with the party and with
the voters just the same.

48 SOCIALISM ON TRIAL

I have heard before of such expressions as ''the party
leader," or, vulgarly, "the party boss," who represents the
party and stands between ihe party and the elected pub-
lic ofGicials. Perhaps such a thing does not exist. Per-
haps it is only a myth; but when you term of office
expires, gentlemen, and you want a renomination, try to
find out whether you wiU go to the electorate as a whole
to get that renomination or perhaps pay, first, a little
friendly call on the political party leader, or party boss.

In this very House, as in every other House, you
recognize the ^stence of political parties and their
right to control the actions of their representatives.
What is yoiur majority leader? — what is your minority
leader? — other than instruments of the respective
parties to influence and control the conduct of their
representatives, and inasmuch as such control is not for
corrupt purposes, but for proper political pmposes, for
the piupose of securing party unity in action, it is per-
fectly legitimate and we recognize it.

What are your caucuses, caucuses of the Republican
Party, caucuses of the Democratic Party, announced
from the floor here? What else but another instru-
mentality for bringing about uniformity of action among
the members of the respective parties on the floor of this
House or any other legislative body. Why, gentlemen,
this proceeding itself — this proceeding in which we
are charged with unduly controlling our representatives
in the Assembly — is an eloquent testimonial of the
control by the old parties of their members.

Here, we read in the record, the Assembly came to-
gether the first time. A resolution of imusual importance
is suddenly sprung upon the members. They are not pre-
pared for it. We have heard the public testimony of As-
semblyman after Assemblyman, that they knew nothing
about it, that they were absolutely unprepared for it,
that they could not in conscience vote for it. But the
resolution is introduced by the majority leader. Every
Republican votes for it. The minority leader is called
upon to vote. He votes for it. Every Democrat, with
two exceptions, follows. The next day they wake up

SOCIALISM ON TRIAL 49

and say, ''What have we done?" Is it anything more
than a demonstration of the power of political parties
and their control of the action of the representatives on
the floor of this Assembly? We don't say that by way
of indictment or charge^ but we say that to remind you
gentlemen that the political control by a party of its
elected officials, is not a peculiar institution of the
Socialist Party.

And now, since we are all politicians, I will say a
few words to ease our conscience. I will say this:
The objection to political parties interfering with
the conduct of their elected officials is not one based on
law or morals, but on old, outworn prejudices. There
was a time when political parties were anathema in this
coimtry, and in every other country. You will all re-
member Washington's Farewell Address, and his warn-
ing against political cliques and political parties.

At a time when the country consisted of a few million
inhabitants, when the general social conditions were
largely equal, there was no occasion, no need for polit-
ical parties.

The constitution does not provide for and does not
recognize, the existence of political parties. But as times
went on, as the population grew, as class distinctions
sprang up, as economic interests were diversified and all
other interests likewise, political parties became an abso-
lute necessity, a supplement to our constitutional struc-
ture without which the Republic could not survive. And
it was only within the last forty years, or thereabouts,
that the law began to recognize and to legalize existing
political parties, to accord them certain ri^ts, and to
subject them to general supervision. Political parties
to-day are the bulwark oldmiocracy and the control by
political parties of their elected officials is the most
democratic, the most honest feature in our political life.

Why? Because the voter today cannot rely upon the
individual merits of any candidate. You take a city like
New York where a million and a half voters choose tiie
mayor. How many men know him personally? Citi-
zens are called upon in every national election to vote

60 SOCIALISM ON TRIAL

for twenty or thirty different candidates. How many
know any of them? How many of the ordinary folks
know even to-day their representatives in the State
Senate, in Congress, and so on? Very, very few, it has
been fomid on a number of occasions. The individual
candidate is unreliable. He may change bis views, his
policies; he may be influenced in some obnoxious direc-
tion ; he may fall sick ; he may be affected mentally, but
the party is a permanent factor appearing before the
electorate year after year. Like a corporation, it has
perpetual existence. The party as such by adopting a
platform expresses the views of a certain group of the
electorate. The party not only expresses its views by
adopting its platform but makes de&iite pledges, definite
promises to the electorate. The voter knows, or ought to
know, that the Republican party stands for this policy;
the Democratic party for that; the Socialist for the
other. The voters say in effect: "We will vote in office
the party that represents our views and interests, and
we charge the party with responsibility to make good its
election pledges and promises as expressed in their plat-
form, and if it does not it will have to meet us next time,
and we will get square on it, and if one of its representa-
tives does not, and the party does not discipline him
but tolerates him, we will know how to deal with the
party next time.

The party is the political framework of our modem
institutions. The elected representatives are nothing
but agents of these parties, spokesmen for them. Who
cares whether Mr. So and So, or Mr. So and So sits in a
seat in this Assembly? How many of you Assemblymen
or members of any other legislative body are known to
have been chosen for their personal political merits?
Very, very few.

Aid we say we recognize the fact fully and frankly,
and we recognize it as a proper fact. The Socialist party
above all other parties insists upon the right and the
duty of the party as such, the party as a party, to see to
it that its representativs live up to the pledges, to the
promises, to the representations which we make in
elections.

SOCIALISM ON TRIAL 61

And if any one of our representatives, chosen on our
platform, receiving the votes of the electorate, on the
faith of Uiat platf onn should turn untrue to these pledges
and promises because, forsooth, he has changed his
mind, or his individual conscience does not agree with
the party position, we tell to him to get out of the Social-
ist party, and to go where his position places him. The
Socialist party, as such, stands for definite principles.
The Socialist party appeals to the electorate on a defi-
nite platform. The Socialist party guarantees, by impli-
cation, the performance, the honest performance, of its
platfonn promises.

We shall see to it that our representatives live up to
the principles of political honesty, or if they do not,
they are to be separated from our party as quickly as
possible.

War

I think the most telling point, at any rate the one that
was emphasized more than any other, is the charge that
the Socialist party is unpatriotic and disloyal. This
charge is based upon various utterances contained in the
St. Louis resolution which, I have no doubt, my fri^ids
on the other side will read and read to you again in
their summing up. It is also charged that ''the Socialist
party urged its members to refrain from taking part in
the war and that it affirmatively urged them to refuse
to engage even in the production of munitions of war and
other necessaries used in the prosecution of the war."
And then there are our expressions "the snare and de-
lusion of so-called defensive warfare," and the "false
doctrine of national patriotism." The one » serious
charge in it — the charge that we urged party
members to refuse to engage in the production of muni-
tions of war and other necessaries used in the
prosecution of war has never been sustained by any
testimony. It was challenged by Mr. Stedman in his
opening. He said if it can be proved we will admit that
a serious charge has been established against us. We

62 SOCIALISM ON TRIAL

maintain that there has been no proof of any kind on
that point. What has been proved, gentlemen, and
what undoubtedly has been the fact, is this: That the
Socialist Party has consist^itly, emphatically and at
all times opposed the war; that it has been opposed to
the entrance of the United States into the war, and that
when the United States entered the war it has been in
favor of a speedy cessation of hostilities. It remained
opposed to the war as such.

We claim, I think we proved, that with all that, we at
all times recognized that the war was on; that war had
been declared; that it bad been legally declared, and that
we complied with all the concrete enactments of war legis-
lation in every respect. We did not surrender our opinion
— our sincere belief that the war was wrong, monstrously
wrong, and that every day of its continuance entailed
unnecessary misery and privations upon our people. We
voiced those sentiments. We voiced them because we
maintained, and maintain, Mr. Chairman, that there
isn't an act of the Legislature, that there isn't an act of
the highest tjrpe of legislative measures, such even as a
constitutional enactment or amendment, which intends
to silence the tongues and stifle the thought of the people,
to which the people must bow, not merely in the sense
of practical submission, but in the sense of intellectual
and moral submission against their honest convictions.
We say that it was never intended that this doctrine
should ever be tolerated in this country. It was never
intended that upon the declaration of war or the happen-
ing of any other great national emergency, that all
thoughts of the people in this great Republic should cease,
all democratic institutions should come to an end, and
the destiny of more than 110,000,000 persons should be
placed m the hands of one individual, no matter how
exalted. This is not democracy. It is the worst form of
autocracy.

We proceeded upon the assumption that it is not only
the right, but the duty of every citizen at all times, and
in connection with all measures, to use his best judgment,
and if he honestly, conscientiously thought that a meas-

SOCIALISM ON TRIAL 63

ure enacted was against the interest of bis country, of
his fellowmen, that it was his right and his duty to do
all in his power to have it righted, to have it repealed, to
have it undone. We had ample authority in the prec-
edents of this country for the theory, that the greater
the crisis the greater the duty to speak, the greater the
danger of expressing opposition, the higher the call of
duty to brave that danger. It is only the arrant political
coward who supinely submits to what he in good
faith considers a crime. I again want to make it per-
fectly clear that this does not conflict at all with the
other as well established proposition that in a land of
laws, the minority must always submit to the concrete
enactment of the majority without necessarily approving
of it; without ceasing to advocate its repeal.

Now, I say we had abimdant authority in this country
to hold this position. In fact, this was the American
position. The proposition advanced against us now is
a novel, un-American proposition. And, to support this
I shall read a few quotations from what my friend,
Mr. Roe, has submitted here in support of this contention.
In connection with the War of 1812, Mr. Daniel Patten,
representative of Virginia, said in 1813: ^'It is said that
war having been declared, all considerations as to its
policy or justice are out of the question, and it is re-
quired of us as an imperious duty, to unite on the meas-
ures which may be proposed by them (that is, the
Government), for its prosecution, and we are promised
a speedy, honorable and successful issue. Do gentlemen
require of us to act against our convictions? Do they
ask that we should follow with reluctant step in the
career which we believe will end in ruin? Or do they
suppose that while on the simplest subject an honest
diversity of sentiment exists, in these complicated and
all-important ones, our minds are cast in the same mold?
Uniformity of action is only desirable when there is
uniformity of sentiment, and that we must suppose will
only exist where the mind is enchained by the fear which
despotic power inspires. But it has been said that obe-
dience to the will of the majority is the first principle of

54 SOCIALISM ON TRIAL

representative government, and enjoins what gentlemen
require. Obedience to all constitutional acts is a high
and commanding duty on the part of the minority of the
people, and all factious opposition is highly criminal; but
this does not prevent any one in this house, or in the
nation to use every elBfort to arrest the progress of evil,
or to eJBfect a bill or measures in relation to the public
interests. And how can this be done, unless there is a
full liberty to think and to speak and to act as our con-
victions shall dictate? If this be denied then there is
an end to free government. A majority can never be
corrected. They are irresponsible and despotic. They
may prepare the yoke when they please and we must sub-
mit in silence."

And with reference to the Mexican war let me just
read a quotation from Sumner. While the war was
in progress he said: "The Mexican war is an enormity
bom of slavery, base in object, atrocious in beginning,
immoral in all its influences, vainly prodigal of treasure
and life. It is a war of infamy which must blot the
pages of our history." That was said during the exist-
ence and continuation of the war, and how does that
compare with our mild statement that this was a capi-
talist war, having its origin in conmiercial rivalry and
leading only to the gain of profiteers?

The proposition was stated still more clearly by Mr.
Charles H. Hudson, of Massachusetts, who said: "Has
it come to this, Mr. Chairman, that a President can
arrogate to himself the warmaking power, can trample
the Constitution imder foot, and wantonly involve the
nation in war, and the people must submit to this
atrocity and justify him in his course or be branded as
traitors to their country? Why, sir, if this doctrine pre-
vails, the more corrupt the administration is, if it has
the power or the daring to involve this nation in a
war without cause, the greater is its impimity, for the
moment it has succeeded in committing that outrage
every mouth must be closed and everyone must bow
in submission. A doctrine more corrupt was never
advanced: a sentiment more dastardly was never advo-

SOCIALISM ON TRIAL 55

cated in a deliberative assembly. Gentlemen who pro-
fess to be peculiar friends of popular rights may advance
doctrines of this character and they may be in perfect
accordance with their views and feelings and in conform-
ity with their democracy; but I have too much of the
spirit which characterized our fathers to submit to dic-
tation from any source whatsoever, whether it be for-
eign monarch or an American President.

"I believe, Mr. Chairman, that the first principal
declaration in the message of the President — that the
war exists by the act of Mexico and that we have taken
all honorable means to prevent it — to be an untruth."

I could read any number of similar statements. I shall
refrain. I call attention to only one thing, and that is
that the accepted American policy up to this war was as
stated, namely, the right to criticise the war, to oppose
the war, exists after the declaration of war; if it did not
exist, this nation could be turned into an autocracy
by means of declaring war; if it did not exist,
there would be no way of bringing a war to an end by
popular will. It was only when this war came upon us
that the doctrine changed, and I will tell you why: you
see, as was the case in all previous wars, we had orig-
inally two parties on the subject, an anti-war party and
a pro-war party. The Democratic party was the peace
party; the Republican party was generally considered
the war party. You remember, I suppose, that our
President was re-elected on the slogan "He has Kept us
Out of War." You remember the speech of Honorable
Martin Glynn at the Democratic National Convention
on the subject. Now, imagine for a moment that Mr.
Wilson had not been re-elected and Mr. Hughes was
elected. What would have been the logical develop-
ments? Just this: That the Republican party would
have drawn us into the war, as they proclaimed their
intention very definitely; and the Democratic party
would have remained an opposition party, a peace party.
The Democratic party then, as a matter of policy and
consistency, would have taken the position taken by these
earlier American opponents of war when war was on.

56 SOCIALISM ON TRIAL

But it 80 happened that it was the Democratic adminis-
tration that held gone into the war and it became a war
party from a peace party. What could the Republican
party do except to go it one better and to become an
ultra war party; and so instead of having a contest
between peace and war, we had a contest between war
and more war, and this entirely abnormal un-American
psychology of war terror and war hysteria took posses-
sion of us.

NoWy then, the only party that still remained a peace
party in American politics, was the Socialist party.

Knowing these precedents, construing the general spirit
of American public rights, as we' have stated them, we
viewed our entry into the war imhampered by the fear of
manufactured public sentiment. We thought it a great
calamity. We knew that at the time we were about to
enter the war, about six million human beings had been
slaughtered on the battlefields, a greater number than
had ever been killed in any war or the wars of any
century, I believe, in the past. We knew that all Europe
was in chaos, going to ruin and destruction, and we
argued: "What will the entry of the United States in
this war mean? It will add to the conflagration; it will
subject thousands, hundreds of thousands, and if it con-
tinues long enough, millions of our boys to slaughter;
make millions of American widows and orphans ; destroy
this nation industrially; destroy it morally; breed hatred
in our ranks as it has bred hatred in Europe, and not
accomplish anything good, nothing certainly commensu-
rate with the sacrifice required. We did not believe that
democracy would be assured as the result of this war."

We thought on the contrary that as a result of this war,
certain classes of war lords, profiteers and reactionaries
would set up a reign of terror in almost every country.
We did not believe that human civilization would be ad-
vanced by this war. We could see nothing in it but a
colossal carnage brought on by the commercial rivalries
of the capitalists of Europe. We could see in it nothing
but a cataclysm of human civilization. We could see
in it nothing but the greatest blot upon human intelli-

SOCIALISM ON TRIAL 67

gence and we said, ''Here are we, the United States, about
four thousand miles away from the seat of this insane
carnage, a powerful people, powerful in wealth, power-
ful in influence, a people that has set out to create a new
civilization on this hemisphere, a people that has turned
away from the intrigue, from the machinations of the
old world. Here is our opportunity; let's stay out of
this insane carnage. Let us preserve all our resources,
all our strength, in order to render it plentifully to the
distracted nations of Europe when th^ carnage is over
and the process of reconstruction and reconciliation and
rebuilding sets in."

And when we heard what we considered this insane,
stimulated cry for participation in this slaughter, we
said, the men who do that, the men who are pushing this
Republic into this European carnage, with which it has
no direct vital concern, may mean well, may be per-
sonally honest, but they are committing or are about to
commit, the gravest crime every committed in the annals
of history against this nation and also against the world.

And we said ''holding these views as we do, it is our
sacred duty as citizens of this country, our sacred duty
to our fellowmen, to protest against the war, to oppose
it with every fibre of our existence, come what may,
in the shape of opposition, persecution or suffering," and
we say to you, gentlemen, if any of you had held those
convictions, and if you were true to yourselves, true to
your coimtry, you couldn't have acted otherwise. We
did not. And now that the war is over and the entire
world is quivering under the tortures inflicted upon it,
now that the war is over and ten millions or more human
beings have been directly slaughtered and many more
millions killed by the ravages of epidemics, now that all
Europe is in mourning, now that the greater part of Eu-
rope is starving, succumbing, bringing up a new genera-
tion of anaemic, under-nourished weaklings, now that we
helplessly behold the ruins of our civilization and are \m-
able to rebuild the world ; now, we Socialists say we have
absolutely no reason to repent our stand. If we had,
we would be men enou^ to say so. but in view of what

58 SOCIALISM ON TRIAL

has happened, we say, on the. contrary, if ever there was
an3rthmg about which we feel we were right, in which we
feel we performed a great imperative moral duty, it was
this opposition to the hideous, inhuman slaughter called
war, and if occasion should present itself again, imder
similar circumstances, we will take exactly the same
position.

It was, gentlemen, with this attitude in mind
that we formulated our proclamations; formulated our
programs. We have been asked on this stand by elo-
quent counsel on the other side, time and time again,
"You say you submitted to the law?" "Yes, yes,
we do." "Did you do anything more than the law
compelled you to do?" No, we did not. How could
we? We regarded the war as an inhuman institu-
tion. We submitted to the concrete will of the
majority as good citizens of a democratic republic,
but to go out in any way of our own free will to
contribute to what we consider nothing but a senseless
insane slau^ter of our fellow men, how could we con-
sistently do it? How would you, or you, or any of you
act in the face of a law which you would consider abso-
lutely obnoxious. You would comply with it. You
wouldn't do more than that. You couldn't if you re-
mained true to yourselves.

Then a peculiar construction has been placed upon
our platform, principally the statement of our opposition
to war at all times. "Unalterable opposition to the war,
just declared," it was. We said to you, gentlemen, "that
doesn't mean that we will break the law. No. We com-
ply with it. We are drafted. We go. We are taxed.
We pay. But we do not and we cannot approve of this
war in our frame of mind." It seemed to be impossible
for the gentlemen to understand this position.

Now, let me read to you something from very recent
history, oh, in fact, about a week old. A certain political
party adopted this statement or proclamation:

"We are unalterably opposed to prohibition by Federal
amendment. We believe it to be an unreasonable inter-
ference with the rights of the States as guaranteed by

SOCIALISM ON TRIAL 69

the Constitution. We feel that the recent enactment was
the imposition of the ideas of an active minority against
the wishes of the great majority of the American people.
We therefore declare for its speedy repeal and to the
end that the personal liberty of the people of our State
may be thoroughly safeguarded, untU such time as this
repeal may be brought about, we declare the right of our
State in the exercise of its sovereign power to so construe
the concurrent clause of the 18th Amendment as to be
in accord with the liberal and reasonable view of oiu*
people."

Now, there was a constitutional enactment, a con-
stitutional amendment, a higher type of law, than a mere
act of Congress. The declaration of war was an act of
Congress. The 18th amendment was an act of the sov-
ereign people.

What did the Democratic Party say? "We are im-
alterably opposed to prohibition by Federal amend-
ment." We said, "We are unalterably opposed to the
war just declared." Did we say anything different
except that the Democratic Party felt more strongly on
drink, and we felt more strongly on war? Otherwise, is
it not the same philosophy? "We believe it to be an un-
reasonable interference with the rights of the states as
guaranteed by the constitution. We feel it was the im-
position of the ideas of an active minorit^r against the
wishes of the great majority of the American people."
That is just what we said. We said the Congress of
the United States had been stampeded into the war by
the active minority of war agitators, and we are haled
before your Bar to answer for it. You declared for a
speedy repeal, we declared for a speedy peace, but we
never went so far as to say that while the law remains
law, we here will make our own law in defiance of the
United States Constitution^ and have our drink anyhow.

Now, then, I ask you if it was perfectly legal and

I>roper for the Democratic Party to oppose the supreme
aw a^ter its enactment, why not for the Socialist
Party? We will assume the Democratic Party was per-
fectly honest about this resolution, we ask you to assume

60 SOCIALISM ON TRIAL

the same about us, all the more, that not a charge has
been made that any Socialist, the Party as such, or its
members, have been improperly influenced in any way
towards the position which they took. There is not a
semblance or suspicion of a charge that our resolutions,
proclamations and stand are anjrthing but the pure,
honest expression of our conscience. Bear that in mind
when you come to pass upon that point.

In this connection also, we are charged with having
adopted a resolution for the repudiation of war debts.
You remember the history of it. It was adopted in
the platform before any Liberty Bonds were in existence.
It was suppressed by the National Executive Committee
because Liberty Bonds had been issued at the time of
its ratification by the party members. I will merely
say this, gentlemen: The Socialist party, even in Russia,
in nationalizing private property, has taken care to com-
pensate the small investors. I think the small people, the
employees who bought with their savings, a fifty dollar
bond, a hundred dollar bond or two hundred dollars'
worth of bonds, should be safeguarded. So that we shall
not be misunderstood, I shall say that if there is no law
to the contrary, the best, the sanest thing that the world
can do to-day is to repudiate all war debts, and to begin
life anew with a clean slate. These war debts today
mount into staggering figures, requiring annual interest
of many billions. ITie "small employees" hold a very
small part of it. The vast bulk is in the hands of the
very rich. Now, what does that mean, gentlemen? For-
get the terms, "bonds," "interest" and all other legal
terms. Take the whole institution into consideration and
it means this: that we have, on account of the war,
created a certain class or certain classes all over the
world which hold a mortgage upon their fellow men ; that
every year the workers and the people of every country
must produce billions to pay interest on these bonds ; that
when we are gone, when our children are bom and grown
up, they will have to work in order to pay the interest on
those bonds to the children of those who now hold them.
We have created a new class. We have created a new

SOCIALISM ON TRIAL 61

form of bondage by these tremendous imprecedented
loans, and as a measure of self -protection, I say mankind
represented by all nations involved in this war would,
in my opinion, and I believe in the opinion of a great
many non-Socialists, do well to repudiate them all,
except small holdings, and start out afresh.

It has nothing to do with the Socialist party's posi-
tion, which, for reasons of the time, had suppressed and
did not circulate this particular plank; but I do not
want it to be understood that at any time we wished
to renounce the position taken by us. The position taken
by us in the cravention, on the repudiation of war debts
was a proper and sound one. It would have saved our
generation and the generations to come and it would have
discouraged war profiteers and munition manufacturers
from urging wars ever hereafter. But it is not there.
It is not in our platform.

I have two short points, Mr. Chairman, —

The Chairman. — Well, you can use your judgment.

Mr. Hillquit. — Then let us recess for five or ten
minutes.

The Chairman. — We will take a recess for 15 minutes
Mr. Hillquit.

(Whereupon, at 5:20 p.m., a recess was taken for 15
minutes.)

AFTER RECESS, 5:35 p.m.

Internationalism

The Chairman. — Proceed.

Mb. Hillqtjit. — I have two more points, Mr. Chair-
man, and then I shall conclude.

One of them is the charge that the Socialist party owes
allegiance to a foreign power known as the Internationale.

62 SOCIALISM ON TRIAL

That has been embellished and decorated somewhat by
my eloquent friend, Mr. Littleton, who, among other
things, charged that they (the Assemblymen) "gave their
allegiance wholly and solely to an alien, invisible em-
pire, known as the Internationale," and also that it is
that alien state to which, before the five members had
entered into this Chamber, they had pledged their sup-
port, honor and allegiance/' going even so far as to say
that it was through the instrxmientality of this Inter-
nationale that the Socialist Party of the United States
received orders from Lenine and Trotzky and carried
them out in this country. This was somewhat supple-
mented by coursers brief, which charged the Socialist
party with being an anti-national party.

In the progress of the evidence the invisible empire —
that mysterious body to which the Socialists owed alle-
giance — has become more and more invisible imtil at
this time, looking through the evidence, you cannot see it
with a magnifying-glass.

The position of the Socialist party on the subject is
very simple: the Socialist party is not an anti-national
party. Socialists recognize the existence of nations and
their right to exist as nations, and also the great cul-
tiu'al contributions of nations as nations to the civiliza-
tion of the world; in fact, the Socialist party, more than
any other party, has always stood for the right of nations
to maintain their independence. I think there is not
a movement in the world today which is as warm and
consistent a friend of the Irish movement for national
independence as ours. It has been for Polish indepen-
dence before the statesmen of Europe and America ever
were made aware of the existence of such a problem; and
the same thing applies to the aspirations of all nations
to independent national existence, such as Egypt, or
India and other countries similarly situated. But
the fact that we recognize the national existence and
national rights does not limit oiu* interest to one nation
in each case. We recognize that today a nation is no
longer a rounded-out, separate entity. It has become,
whether we are aware of it or not, a member of the

SOCIALISM ON TRIAL 63

international community. Socialism is international, it
is true. It is international in the sense, first, that its
platform, its program, its ideals and aspirations are
substantially the same in every country. It is inter-
national inasmuch as it cooperates with similar move-
ments in every other country in joint discussion of many
problems, at congresses; occasionally in material support
of the Socialist movement in a country that is engaged in
a particuIaHy important fight. It is international,
finally, in the sense that we have a vision of an inter-
national federation of free socialist nations, which even-
tually will come to exist and guarantee the well-being,
the national security, the national existence and the peace
of all nations.

But, gentlemen, that is not a peculiarity of the Social-
ist movement. If Socialism is international, so is capital-
ism, so is banking, so is commerce, so is industry, so is
science, so is art, so is all modem life.

We exist to-day as a part of the International Frater-
nity of men everywhere, and even governmental func-
tions are becoming more and more internationalized.

I shall not go into details at this time. It would lead
us too far afield, but if I may call your attention to two
works, which I would recommend you to read, Prof.
Sayre's on "Experiments in International Administra-
tion," and "International Government" by Mr. Woolf,
with a Committee of the Fabian Society of London.
You will find, perhaps, somewhat to your surprise,
that there are at least a dozen international gov-
ernmental institutions, in which the governments
of all civilized countries participate. There are
between 200 and 300 social, political and educational
movements organized on an international basis, meeting
in international congresses just as the Socialist party,
discussing their problems, just in the same way, passing
resolutions, just in the same way.

The Socialist party is aflSliated with the International,
or rather, to be more accurate, was affiliated with the
Socialist International while it fully existed. It has ex-
pressed at this time its intention to join a new Inter-

64 SOCIALISM ON TRIAL

national — the Moscow International — and the evi-
dence is before you as to what that means. It means the
foundation of a modem international organization of
Socialism, but with no greater powers than the old Inter-
national possessed. The Socialist Party of the United
States never submitted itself in its practical work in this
country to the dictates of the International.

If you want to have a clear conception of what this
International means and how far you may go in pre-
scribing to a political party or any group of citizens their
right to meet with similar groups in other countries, to
deliberate with them and to come to a conmion under-
standing, there are but two instances which I want to
mention to you. One is the organized labor movement
in the United States, the conservative movement led by
the American Federation of Labor and Samuel Gompers.
It may not be known to you that the American Federa-
tion of Labor is affiliated with an International Labor
Bureau, which is in every respect equal to our Inter-
national Congresses in function, coming together peri-
odically, having an International Executive Conmiittee,
an International Secretary, International publications,
and discussing methods of conmion concern to the labor
movement of the world. And if you say to us that
because we meet internationally with Socialists of other
countries we may be made to follow a policy in this
country dictated by foreign interests, how much more
directly would that apply to the labor movement which
considers such points as hours of labor, wages, immigra-
tion, safeguards in factories and other concrete proposi-
tions? How much more can you say that in their con-
crete industrial actions, declarations of strikes, industrial
demands, they may be guided by competing rival foreign
powers, and don^t forget that even the late enemy powers
are also represented in that Bureau.

And there is another thing. If you speak of the dicta-
tion of foreign powers over citizens of this country, if you
speak of internationalism in tones of reproof and abhor-
rence, let me remind you that it is not only the industrial
labor movement that is international, but also religion

SOCIALISM ON TRIAL 65

and also the church, and that a very notable example
of it is the Catholic Church, which is the one definite
international organization, actually claiming authority
— spiritual authority, at any rate — over its members in
all coimtries of the world, and actually having a supreme
PontiflE to direct the spiritual policy all over the world.
I can think of nothing more impressive to show the
danger of this line of attack than a little paragraph in
a letter written by my good friend and sturdy opponent,
a thorough non-Socialist, but a good citizen, the
Reverend John A. Ryan, when he said:

"Possibly my personal desire to see your cause tri-
umph" — meaning this cause before you — "is not
altogether unselfish. For I see quite clearly that
if the five Socialist representatives are expelled from
the New York Assembly on the ground that they
belong to and avow loyalty to an organization which
the autocratic majority regards as inimical to the
best interests of the State, a bigoted majority in a
state, say, like Georgia, may use the action as a pre-
cedent to keep out of that body regularly elected
members who belong to the Catholic Church, for
there have been majorities in the Legislature of more
than one southern state that have looked upon the
Catholic Church exactly as Speaker Sweet looks
upon the Socialist party."

There are certain bounds; there are certain limits,
which even in the heat of partisan controversy should
be respected and this is one of them. Beware of this
charge of internationalism and foreign domination. It
may lead to a point at which it will recoil against those
who are making these charges against us. Remember
also that at a time when our administration is straining
every nerve to bring about what it is pleased to call a
League of Nations, an international organization of which
the entire country is to become part, it is somewhat too
late to charge it up against us as a crime that we are
international, in the sense of recognizing the interna-

66 SOCIALISM ON TRIAL

tional solidarity of men alongside of the existence and
the jights of national governments.

RiLSsia

The final point made against us is that the Socialist
party approves of the Soviet Government of Russia and
seeks to introduce a similar regime in the United States.

That charge contains two flaws. We do not "approve"
of the Soviet Government of Russia. We are not called
upon to approve or disapprove of it. We do not seek
to introduce a Soviet system of government in the United
States. We recognize the right of every people in every
country to choose their own form of government as a
moral ri^t. We recognize besides the fact that the gov-
ernment of every country must correspond to the eco-
nomic, political and historic conditions of that particular
country; that a form of, government that may suit one
country may not suit the other country; and we say,
just because we recognize this verity we hold that the
Soviet form of government seems to be good for Russia,
and that the Parliamentary form of government seems
good for the United States.

We do not attempt to force a form of government
upon the United States which is not suitable to the
genius of its people. We do not approve of any attempt
to force a form of government upon Russia, which is
not suitable to the genius of its people. We sjrmpathize
with the Russian Conmiunists in maintaining their Soviet
government. Why? Because it is a Soviet government?
Oh, no. Because it is a government of their own choos-
ing; because it is a government of the workers and peas-
ants, of the people. We do not believe in the political
nursery tale that it is a form of government forced upon
the people of Russia by Lenine and Trotzky, or any other
handful of "agitators." We believe it is a form of gov-
ernment which has evolved from conditions in Russia,
and which the Russian people have adopted instinctively
and have adhered to. We believe that if in the many
months of its existence no counter-revolutionary powers

SOCIALISM ON TRIAL 67

within, no military powers from without, have been able
to disrupt it, there must be reason for its existence. We
do not believe for one moment that a government
which is entirely arbitrary, which is fictitious, wh;ch
is forced upon a people, will endure under the condi-
tions under which the Russian Soviet government has
endured; and we say, therefore, that we believe it is the
government which the Russian people have chosen for
themselves and under which they are likely to work out
their eventual salvation. And because we believe in it
and we express our sympathy with it, we are opposed
to any external attack upon it.

Suppose, however, the same Russian workers and peas-
ants — the same Russian Socialists — had adopted a dif-
ferent form of government, say one that would have
sprung from the constituent Assembly, we should not
have supported it any the less; we shoiild have supported
it in exactly the same measure, for we support their gov-
ernment not because we endorse that particular form;
we support their government because it is theirs and be-
cause they want it and because we know they are the
ones, and the only ones, to determine upon the mode and
form of government under which they choose to live.

Wlien we say we sympathize with the Russian Social-
ists in the maintenance of their Soviet government, and
the Soviet government as a whole, we do not lose sight
of the fact that much of what has been done by that
government has been crude; that some of what it has
done has probably been wrong. It would have been a
marvel; it would have been an impossibility if they
should not have blimdered; if they should not have done
a wrong thing occasionally in the conditions confronting
them. But we say to ourselves: "Here is a people
which, only three years ago at the utmost, began to
emerge from a chaos created by mismanagement of gen-
erations, of centuries even. They are trying to find their
way under obstacles, such as never have existed in
their history before and never have confronted
any people in the past — the industrial and economic
breakdown in their own country, the political

68 SOCIALISM ON TRIAL

breakdown, the sbakeup of all the institutions, the
collapse of the war, the intervention of foreign
powers, the blockade, the limited means of transporta-
tion. Now, it has taken our revolution a great many
years before the country has settled down to a condition
of orderly national existence, and we only had at that
time three or four million people. They had a popula-
tion of 160,000,000. Let us give them some time. I^t us
give them an opportunity. Let us give them a chance
to arrange their own affairs. We Socialists believe that
if the absolutely unwarranted hostility and aggression
from the outside is removed, if trade is restored with
Russia, if normal communication is restored, if Russia
is given a chance to rebuild its shattered economy, Russia
will find herself and may become one of the most ad-
vanced and enlightened nations in the international
brotherhood. That is one of the reasons — one of the
main reasons — why we support Soviet Russia ; why we
are opposed to all interference with it; why we are
opposed to the blockade.

Now, gentlemen, the interesting part about it is that
while we have been discussing this proposition pro and
con, the governments of Europe seem to have begun to
see the thing in the proper light. You will have noticed
that the entire tone of the European governments toward
Russia has changed within the last few weeks. They
begin to see the futility of trying to impose a regime of
their own liking upon a foreign people. They begin to see
the futility of trying to install their own brand of civili-
zation by bayonets among the Russian people. They are
making peace with Russia; they are establishing rela-
tions with her, and, gentlemen of the Committee, if you
do not hurry up with your decision, you may find Soviet
Russia recognized by the United States before you file
your report.

We have never disguised, we do not disguise now, our
sympathy for Soviet Russia. It is legitimate on our
part. We may have our preference for any form of
government in any foreign country, or for any class of
people in any foreign country. We recognize that in

SOCIALISM ON TRIAL 60

Russia an attempt is being made to solve a
great jsocial problem; to work out a great social ex-
periment. We know the process is painful; we
know they falter and stumble occasionally; they fall
occasionally in their way, but we believe that given
liberty of motion they will arrive at their ideal. We
believe that when they do, they will become stabilized^
more practical and efficient, and they will have a contri-
bution to make to human civilization which will be of
prime importance. This is our belief , and that is why
we sympathize with them.

We do not advocate the same form of government here
for the reasons we have stated, but we hold that even
if we had advocated the Soviet form of government for
the United States by peaceful means, we would be fully
within our rights.

I believe it was you, Mr. Chairman, who once re-
marked in the course of the argument, that if the ma-
jority of the people of the United States declared for a
Soviet, you would have to live in it. I believe you would,
and I believe, as law-abiding citizens, we will all admit
that aside from the question of political consideration or
wisdom; on the sole test of legality or constitutionality,
we have the full right to advocate the Soviet form of
government for the United States, even though we do
not advocate it.

Democracy

And now that I am through with my argument, I will
say in conclusion, that after all is said and all is done, the
entire discussion — I mean my discussion and probably
the discussions to follow — are absolutely immaterial and
irrelevant as bearing upon the question before you.

What have we had here after all?^ A deli^tful, and
let us hope somewhat useful, academic* discussion on the
tenete, merite and demerits of Socialism. That was all.
We should have liked to convert you, all of you, if we
could, but if we cannot, it does not matter for the pur-
poses of these proceedings. You do not have to believe

70 SOCIALISM ON TRIAL

as we do. We do not have to believe as you do. This
is not a question as to whether or not you gentlemen
approve of the Socialist philosophy or the Socialist pro-
gram; whether you consider us wise or unwise, rational
or irrational. That is not the question. The question is,
if you do not consider us right, or wise, have you the
ri^t to say to the constituents of these five men, that
they have not the right to consider the Socialist program ^

right or wise? See the peculiar situation into which
this proceeding has led us. There you are, a lot of
Republicans and Democrats, sitting in judgment upon
the Socialist platform, the Socialist principles, Socialist
tactics. That is what it has amounted to. Go throu^
all the evidence. See all the examination by the other
side of the details of our party philosophy. Imagine
for a moment, gentlemen, that we, the Socialists, would
do the same. We would sit down on thirteen chairs —
I think we can get thirteen members of the party some-
where — and begin to consider the Democratic party, the
Republican party, their platform, their social philoso-
phies, their aims, their principles, their leaders; all that
every Republican or every Democrat ever said or did;
the manner in which he conducted himself in his family;
go through all the utterances of prominent Republicans
and Democrats in print, in public speeches, and so on,
and then pass solemn judgment among us. Do you think
you would have much of a chance? Probably not.

And if it were a question merely of the correctness or
incorrectness, the wisdom or unwisdom of our philosophy,
I should not expect much of a chance from you. You
gentlemen belong to different political persuasions. ^

Your views, your station in life, your surroimdings, your
education, your preconceptions — all of that predisposes
you against our views and we know it. But we say that
doesn't matter. What about itl This Assembly and
every representative body in this country is instituted for
the purpose of harboring the representatives of different
and conflicting social views, with the sole provision that
those who can command a majority for any measure
rule on that measure at that particular time. If you

SOCIALISM ON TRIAL 71

take it upon yourselves, largely or solely because you
disagree, and srtongly disagree with the Socialist party,
its program and policies, to bar these five representatives
of the party, then what you will have said in effect is
this: "We will tolerate none in this Assembly except
those whose views and platforms are approved by us" —
in other words, Republicans and Democrats. And you
will have said to the constituencies of these five men:
"You are altogether mistaken in your choice; you have
to go back and you have to elect Republicans or Demo-
crats, for otherwise we won't allow them to come into
our Assembly."

Now, gentlemen, when I say that, I am practically
hearkening back to my first argument, and that is that
the only questions before you are the constitutional
qualifications of these men — absolutely nothing else.
This very proceeding has shown the danger of trying to
introduce any other tests or qualifications. Of the scores
of charges against these men produced here before you,
urged against them by counsel for the Committee, how
will you determine which is and which is not the proper
test or qualification? If these numerous charges have
been introduced against these five men, why not a similar
number of charges against any other man or representa-
tive of any other group or any other party in the
Assembly in the future? Where is your compass in this
wild political navigation? Where is your stable, definite,
solid test, by which to uphold popular representation?
If there was anything to illustrate and prove conclusively
and concretely the danger of departing from constitu-
tional qualifications, the danger of inscribing into the
law new tests, new qualifications based upon your con-
cepts of what is right and what is wrong, it has been,
I say, this proceeding.

I expect, of course, that in the consideration of this
case and in arriving at your conclusions you will bear
that point in mind. I cannot see how you can possibly
refuse to seat these five men and at the same time comply
with that part of the Constitution which specifically pro-
hibits the imposition of any tests or qualifications for

72 SOCIALISM ON TRIAL

members of this House other than those contained in
the Constitution and recited in the oath of office. In
order to imseat these men you will have to reverse your-
selves in your unanimous decision in the Decker case,
in which you have taken that position very clearly.

And I will say to you in conclusion: "We are through,
gentlemen. Throughout all these weary days of testi-
mony, we have been trying to be helpful to the Commit-
tee; we have not withheld anything in our possession.
We have freely submitted to your Committee; we have
answered all questions; we have stated our creed; we
have given you all facilities to arrive at a proper con-
clusion. Let me be frank with you. If we had been
guided only by motives of political advantage, we
might have sabotaged this proceeding a little; we might
have goaded you into a decision against us, for from a
political point of view I cannot see anything that would
benefit the Socialist Party more than an adverse decision.
Remember, gentlemen, we are a rival political party.
Your political mistakes are our gains. Your political
ruin will be our political making, and we cannot con-
ceive of a more flagrant political mistake, of a more
crying political and moral wrong than the unseating of
these five men. But, gentlemen, we also recognize
the higher and more important principle involved in
this proceeding, the principle greater than any possible
immediate political advantage.

We recognize that in trying this issue you are making
political history. For the first time since the existence
of this Republic, aye, I will go a step farther and say
for the first time in the history of any coimtry of parlia-
mentary government, has a case of this kind come up, a
case involving the outlawry of an entire political party,
a case in which the majority parties would take it upon
themselves to bar a minority party because they disagree
with such minority. I recognize the conditions under
which this case has sprung up; the peculiar psychology
which has taken hold of the people in this country,
largely on account of the war; the psychology of reck-
lessness, of partisanship, of hate, of reaction and per-
secution.

SOCIALISM ON TRIAL 73

I can see clearly the procession of events which led up
to this proceeding; the slight infractions of law in the
prosecution of radicals, of dissenters, of so-called "dis-
loyalists." First it was a question of straining a little
detail in the law and getting a conviction where a con-
viction could not be had under ordinary circumstances.
Then it was the imposition of sentences which in ordi-
nary civilized time would be considered atrocious, for
purely nominal offenses. Then it was a little mob rule,
and condoning it complacently. Then it was the rounding
up of radicals. Then it was the deportations of radicals.
Then it became a mania, and every individual in this
country who had any political ambition or any political
cause to serve, saw in this great movement an occasion
to get in and cover himself with glory, and one by one
the popular heroes of the type of Ole Hanson, and others,
arose and the number of those who envied them their
laurels and sought to emulate them was legion.

And then finally, unexpectedly, like a blow, a sudden,
stunning blow came this action of the Speaker of the
House in connection with these five Socialists. It was
overstepping the limit somewhat. It has caused a re-
action, and to that extent it has done good.
But let me say to you, gentlemen, it is absolutely incon-
ceivable that in times of normal, rational conditions, any
such proceeding would have been undertaken, and it
never has been. Socialists have been Socialist^ of the
same kind as they are now, all the time, many and many
years. They have been elected to various offices and
they have been allowed to hold office. These very mem-
bers, or a majority of them, have been in this House,
last year and the year before, after their attitude on the
war had been made public and was generally known,
after these various manifestos dated from 1916 up had
been adopted, after these articles written in 1909 and
1908, had been published. Their seats were never ques-
tioned. Attempts were made on the part of one or
another individual to bring about their unseating. It
was frowned down and squelched by the very same
Speaker of the House. And I say it is only the morbid

74 SOCIALISM ON TRIAL

political psychology which prevailed in this country a
short time ago that made this proceeding possible.

Now, gentlemen, this will pass. We shall return to
normal conditions. We shall return to a normal state of
mind. We shall return to the condition of a democratic
republic, with toleration for all political opinions, so long
as they meet on the common ground of the ballot box
and constitutional government. C^nd I say if in the
meantime you unseat these Assemblymen, that stain
upon our democracy will never be washed off, never
be removed. That precedent once created will work
towards the undoing of the entire constitutional, repre-
sentative system so laboriously built up. J

It is from this larger point of view, from the point
of view of the effects of your decision upon the future
of the political institutions in this coimtry, that I ask
you to consider the evidence before you, fairly, on its
merits, without partisan bias, and if you do that I have
no doubt and no fear of the outcome of your delibera-
tions.

I

X

IMPORTANT PAMPHLETS

" WHESS IRON IS, THERE IS THE FATHERLAND!" By Clarence K. Strett. This note
(m the relation oC privilege and monopoly to war, is a revelation of the manner in which German and
French owners of iron-ore worked side l^ side, waxing fatter as their brothers were killed by shdls
whose materials were mined in a protected area. These facts came out in an investigation before a
comn^ttee of the Chamber of Depu^s. They are here set down, with a map and illustrations, Iq^ a .
volunteer in the American atmy, later attached to our Peace mission. 50 cents.

l^TRlbn^Mb- TROTH AND WAR G0ILT. By Geoixes Demartlal^ A distinguished Piench-
man, an officerOf the Le^on of Honor, has made a lemaxkaole studjr of pre-war diplomacy whicl^ has
been xecdved with the highest respect on the Continent. He inquires whether it is unpatriotic to
recognize Che faidts of one's own country and poinis to the present duty of the conquerors. 50 cents.

THE ENDOWMENT OF MOTHERHOOD. Edited 1^ Katharine Anthony. A distinguished
committee of English sociologists has made an investigation into this qire§tion iukI into the com-
panion pn>Uem of equal pay for equal work. Their research and conclusions are broad enou^ to
find close application to the American problem; where conditions in the two countries differ, they
have been bndged by Miss AnthoiQr who writes the introduction. 50 cents.

WOMEN AliD THE LABOUR PARTY. AH phases of women's activities under the new order
are covered here in ten essays by ten of the most prominent women in En^^and. Introduction
by Dr. Marion Phillips and foreword by Arthur Henderson. 50 cents. >

THE BTJLLITT MISSION TO RUSSIA* By WUUam C* Bullitt. This famous testimony^ before
a Senate Committee with its appended reports of lincoln SteSens. and Captain Pettit is in con-
stant demand. 50 cents.

THE ECONOMICS GF IRELAND. By George W. Russdl ("AE'*). IntrodacHon hj Fraftcls
Hackett* This pamphlet ori^^inally appeared as an article in TA0 Freeman, It hit the-' nail so
squarely on the head that it is now republished as a bodi^t in response tP munerous suggestions
froni the friends of fair play for Ireland. 2$ cents.

THE AIMS OF LABOUR* Bjr Arthur Henderson. Tins book teqmres Ho new comment. It
has estab&ished itself ss a classic in labcnr histoxy. 50 cents.

THE TAXATION OF MINES IN MONTANA. By Louis Levine- Particnlariy important
now that control by privilege and monopo^ » being bo carefuUy scrutinized, tz.00.

Four distinguished books by £. D. Morel

TRUTH AND THE WAR. It has been said of this book that it will not be merely a historical
document but that it will establish histoiy. Sz.a5.

AFRICA AND THE PEACE OF EUROPE. A detailed study c4 Africa as a storm center for
Eurc^ie. fx.aS*

TEN YEARS OF SECRET DO^LOMACY. An exposure of the dangers of secret diplomacy and
an appeal for a saner attitude towards other nations. $1.25.

RED RUBBER. A new and revised edition of the book which drew universal attention to the
rubber slave trade in the Congo. $1.25.

THE GREAT STEEL STRIKIE: and Its Lessons

By WILLIAM Z. FOSTER

The great steel strike was a victoiy in tliat It proved the possibility of organization among indns-
trial woricers. The story of the organization and of the strike is cf the first importance to those
who anticipate further restlessness on the part of the frustrated woricers. The significance of the
book extends far beyond the particular industiy of which it treats. Paper, Sz.00; cbth, S1.75.

B. W. HUEBSCH, Inc., Publisher, New York