Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1886-07-03
SHALL ANARCHISTS BE MUzzLED %

In the current number of the Forum
Professor II. c. Adams asks, Shall we
muzzle the Anarchistsp He concludes
that the time has arrived when we can no
longer afford to treat with amused iudiffer-
ence the threats of those who propose to
establish "a new heaven upon this old
earth by means of indiscriminate murder"
He admits that the doctrine of Mr.. Mill
and contemporaneous political economists
is sound, that by the suppression of opin-
ions we may suppress truths and improve
ments, and that constant discussion is the
only means of preserving the freshness of
the truth in the minds of men, and the
vitality of It's influence upon their conduct
and motives, and finally that individuality
is one Of the most valuable elements of
well-being. But is the denial of the right
to use language calculated to lead to the
destruction of individuality, and to upset
the orderly administration of society, re-
sistance of truth? Does it tend to prevent
the preservation of the freshness of the
truth in the minds of men? He concludes,
and wisely, that the warfare of terrorism
can only be defended by the moral code of
liberty where there is no provision for
peaceful revolution. That is to say, in the
United States we provide for changing the
form of government, and for laying new
foundations for it, through the ballot as a
medium of expression of the will of the
people. Free discussion, however desir-
able, cannot therefore in this country be
construed into license on the part of the
press, or the individual on the rostrum, to
endanger the tranquility of the public
! But are there no notifications or excep-
tons to these conclusions2 He responds
4 in the affirmative, and to this extent ::
"The policy Of repression strictly enforced
would tend to strengthen the hands of the
Anarchists, and the probable remote effect
of such policy might be the curtailment
of agitation lying wholly within the legit-
innate bounds of liberty" We are not
prepared to accept this conclusion. To do
so would be to admit the incapacity of the
people to define the limitations that GER
tainly do bound individual liberty of ac-
ton and expression. We do SO at the pres
ent in laws prohibiting libellous utter
anees, and in measures that prevent ex-
pressions tending to provoke a breach of
the peace. Why may we not, therefore,
distinctly define the limits of expression
that tends to undermine the foundations
of the Government itself? To say, as does
this essayist, that there should be laws to
deal with the Anarchists as ordinary Grim
inals, is the equivalent of declaring their
methods are unlawful, and if so, why not
prevent the crimes they would commit by
prohibitory statutes, as we'll as in other
cases of ordinary criminals? To say, off
you utter words provoking breach of the
peace, they shall subject you to punish
ment," is as much Infringement of personal
! liberty, as 10 authorize the interposition of
an official to prevent the continued utter
ance of such words ON the rostrum. We
fail to see where there is material line of
distinction between the propositions But,
says Professor Adams, police Intervention
will make Anarchist offenses political
crimes, and to do so is dangerous. But
why should not political crime be pre-
vented We do so in the case of
those who prepare to fit out
rebellious expeditions We do not await
the full ripening of rebellion before taking
measures for suppression. In this, then,
we recognize a political offense, and no i'll
has followed this recognition. 1t is truth
that crime consists of the essentials, Pro-
fessor Adams recites the intent, the plan
and the execution. But he is forced to
admit that if one is taken in an overt act,
and it develops that it was the result OF
a conspiracy on his part and the part OF
Others, the conspirators can be treated BY
4 the law as accessories before the fact"
Police surveillance is of course detestable
it is at all times in Europe an annoyance
to the stranger; but we apprehend that
the law-abiding citizen or subject of any
country where it is deemed necessary. is
never incommoded by it. By it is not
argued that We should establish police
surveillance here. By muzzling the An
archist is meant the prevention of public
teaching by any that would naturally lead
to rebellion against the order of society.
Just the moment the Anarchist opens his
mouth to advise dynamite methods, that
moment he commits an ofense that ought
to be recognized by the law, and thai
should warrant his arrest then and there