New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1889-01-05
FREE SPEECH ~ CHICAGO.

An interesting question has arisen in Chl-
cago regarding the right of Anarchists TO hoid
meetings The police have broken up meet
ings of supposed Anarchists, where the IAN
puace used did not, in the opinion OF some,
iustify such action, and have prevented meet
incs. The position taken by the police, as we
understand it, is that these gatherings teach
hostility to the Constitution and laws both OF
the United States and of Illinois, and cannot
he tolerated. The Arbeiter Bund, an Anarchist
organization, appealed to the courts for an in
iunction to prevent the police from interfering
with their meetings. This was ludicrous IN
consistency, of course. The Anarchists DO moi
believe in governments and in no one OF the
features Of government do they disbelIeve
more strongly and with a greater bitterness or
personal prejudice than in courts. TO ask the
courts representing the Government, TO pro-
tect them in rabid attacks upon all govern
ments and courts. is indeed an amusing self
contradiction. But that does not alter the TACT
that the Anarchists have the hight TO make
such n demand.
The Master in Chancery, Mr.. WlndeS, TO
whom the petition was referred has made a re-
port recommending on technical grounds that
the petition be denied, but not conceang HIS
opinion that the police are. to certain eNeEo
at least. in the wrong. His refusal recon-
mend an Injunction is based merely upon the
fact that there is no precedent for an inIunc-
ton to prevent "A crime, except against prop
erty. He declares that the fact that some oil
the members of the society, at least, are An
archists, and have at some time advocated muir
der. arson and crime, does not make their So
ciety unlawful unless some unlawful act Is
done at it's meetings. He argues that 1t would
be hostile and dangerous to the genius Oh our
institutions to invest police officer having
no judicial responsibilities with judicial powers.
There being nothing to show that the methods
proposed by the society to attain its endS are
unlawful. they must be assumed to be lawful
An unlawful or tumultuOus assembly can be
dispersed, but he finds no discretionary power
in the police or the Sheriff TO prevent the lawful
assembage of any class of persons. MI
WindeS SAYS the compliments may insist upon
their right to assemble, and if the Mayor OF
Chief of Police interfere, an action VIII he
against him.
We believe this will he found to be the true
view not only Of the law, but OF public policy
though the Chicago newspapers do not seem
DISPOSED TO accent it, The nght of peaceablc
assembly and of free speech is jealousy guard
ed in this country, and rightly so. This feeling
was so strong in this city that there was some
little opposition to the prosecution of Most, al
though he had actually instigated murder. This
touched the other extreme The right of peace
able and lawful assembly should be sacred but
when an Anarchist speaker has uttered the
first word of Indictment to crime, for which he
can be legally punished, let him be railroaded
to the pententiary for the longest term the
law allows. And is not this the most practical
policy? Mrs Parsons was allowed to have her
meeting here, and it was such wretched fail
ure that she went away utterly downcaSt. The
Chicago authorities made her martyr by re
fusing to permit her to speak. Which was
the better method?