The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1894-07-12

In forming Judgment Of Debs' respou-
sibiity for tie arson. murder and general
lawiessness which have digrac@d the
United states within the past two weeks,
one should be guided. not by bis nicely
phrased prDtestsgions OF peseezble insen-
iioas. bns By his general connection with
lawlessness and his actions toward the
lzvless.
week ago Chicago vas in = condition
bordering upon anarchy. The food sup
ply Of she city had been foEcibiy cut on,
and the necessities Of life had risen to
price hitherto unheard OF. Property to
the value Of millions Of dollars had been
destroyed By the torch Of the ineendisry.
PeacesbIs werkingmen had been muir
deFed a. their posts OF duty. Nobody
could ssy that his life or his property was
assured against Iavlsss attack
Debs deprecated this state OF affairs.
He haslened to assure the American peo-
pie that be and his friends had nothin g 10
do with bringing IL about, and that il was
the work OF irresponsible hoodlums and
anarchists. He stated further that be
fully realized that the members Of the
American Railway Union suffered more
severely than anybody else because Of
lawlessness, aud that they would gladly
assist in sHppressing it.
This was the right kind Of talk. One
might naturally infer from il that when
President Cleveland ordered troops TO
Chicago to suppress the lawlessness which
was doing the cause Of labor such injury
Debs would be loud in his praise of the act
aud delighted to know that the strike
could now go on in a peaceable way
without interference from hoodlums and
anarchists.
Was this the case7 Strange 10 say. il
was not On the contrary. Dehs lifted his
voice IN angry protest against the pres
ence Of troops. His sympathies went out
at once TO the hoodlums and anarchists
who had been doing such harm TO the
cause of labor. He regarded interference
with their work OF arson and pillage as a
gross outrage, and joined with his fellow
peacemaker. Sovereign, in a solemn pro-
test TO the president of the United States
against his remarkable determination to
enforce the Law and protect life and prop
erty.
1t was just here that Debs showed his
hand. If he opposed and deprecated law
lessness, why should he object to meas
ures taken to maintain orderf If he
meant to keep within the law. Why should
he by into a rage at the sight of an officer
of the lawf II lawlessness injured the
cause Of the strikers, why should he OPP
pose every step taken to prevent ITS con-
tinuancef
There is only one answer 10 these ques-
tons. IL is that Debs had been lying
when he declared himself to be opposed to
lawlessness and anxious for its suppress
sion. He had been trying to deceive the
American people. He knew perfectly well
that his unjustifable strike could succeed
only through terrorism and violence, and,
while he was not willing 10 do any rioting
himself. he did not desire any interference
with those who were.
A citixen must be either for the law or
against 1t. If he is for il, he must of ne
cessity be against those who are against it.
Dehs professed to be for 1t, yet with those
who are against it. Such an attitude is an
impossibility. In undertaking to assume
it. Debs made manifest at once and to all
the utter insincerity OF his professions of
devotion to the law.