The Labor enquirer., 1886-09-11
DENVER COLORADO SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER I'll, 1886.

ficted." Is death for the public express
sion of ones sentiment humane and
usual punishment
I The American people have two great
charters first, the Declaration of Inde-
pendence, adopted by the whole people
in 1776. and the constitution of the
United States, adopted in 1889, for, the
avowed purpose of carrying out the
principles laid down in the Declaration.
Therefore, to know what the constitut-
tion means let us see what the DeClara-
ton says.
1t says the people have right to alter
or abolish the government, also that "all
! experience hath shown that mankind
are more disposed to suffer while evils
are sutferable than.to right themselves
by abolishlng the forms to which they
are accustomed. But when long train
of abuses and usurpAtions pursuing in
variably the same object, evi noes de-
sign to reduce them under absolute des-
potism, it is their right, it is their duty,
to throw off such government" Now,
how can they do this if they cannot first
advocate the doing of it2 Did they ex-
pect we could throw off a government IN
any different manner than they en-
ployed? Did they not use armed force
and have first to advocate it? Is there
Judge in the land who does not know
we have right to advocate armed re-
sistance to the government? Why then
do they Consign men to death for doing
so? One of the reasons set forth III the
Declaration for armed rebellion is that
"the king has combined with others to
subject us to jurisdiction foreign to our
constitution" Are we not being I'M
posed upon IN exactly the same manner
Why then have we no right to offer
armed resistance and especially, why
have We 70 right to advocate it? If a
person has a right to advocate armed re-
sietance, then he cannot he held respon-
sible if some one, hearing his argument,
uses armed resistance. Bat it Is pro-
viiel that the person using armed re-
sistance can be punished, if his resist
ance is proven to be unlawful, so long as
the government has power to punish.
This is right. But if the advocate could
also be punished as accessory before the
fact then the right to advocate resistance
does not exist. But the right to advo
cate resistance does exist, and therefore
IN matters of treason or conspiracy
against the authorities, there Can be no
such thing as accessory before the fact
by use of speech or press. Yet Gary's
inqulsition condemns seven good men
to be hanged for the use Of public speech
and press. Twelve worthless dudes con-
signing eight public men to death with
out law and directly contrary to the
whole foundation Of the government, is
without parallel.
COnspiring to murder an individual Is
crime, but cOnspirlng to resist the au-
thOrities for the purpose of overthrow
ing the government, is not crime. A
person is liable for his overt or open acts
of resistance and not for his Conspiring
to resist, while IN murder he who con-
spires to or plans the murder is as guilty
as he who executes 1t, and both laws are
based on the sOunde8t of rea On5 tor the
protection of individual.
Our forefathers held all govern ment7
under suspicion, and to defend against
government entertainments, threw every
safeguard arounl the indivi lual giving
the government only protection enough
to sustain it in its usefulness They
made the constitutional provisions so
plain that no one need misunderstood
them, but human greed and the natural
love of wealth and power has 80 contin
ually oozed out through the fingers Of
our legislators and judges for the last
hundred wears, that they have nearly
befogged, harnessed and nullifed every
right granted to the individual in the
constitution. And among this array Of
malefactors against human rights Judge
Gary has the lead.
Allowing that the strongest charges of
the state are true, still those people
were only assembled advocating armed
resistance to the authorities Therefore
they were lawful assembly engaged in
lawful purpose, and as we know.
very timely and wise one. What did
the police do? They attempted as an
armed force to break up that meeting.
! This was unlawful both in breaking up
the meeting and in the manner of break
ing it up also in the manner Of notifying
th or any meeting to disperse. What
did the unknown do? He resisted that
unlawful raid of that armed mob with
armed force. That was lawful.
A band of political bummers and bar
room loafers such as police is made up
of are not sauCtifed and made holy bV
simply adorning themselves with brass
buttons. They are still as liable to
offend as before and are still a liable for
their criminalitv. That the police "can
do no wrong" is fiction that does not
exist in America They attacked that
meeting with force and arms" under
pretense that they came to peaceably
disnerse them. when in fact they came