The Washington times., 1901-09-29
Circulation Statement.
The Suppression of Anarchists.

There is at this time a consensus of
opinion which amounts to an almost
universal belief that drastic measures
should be taken for the suppression of
anarchists Never before has the con-
science of civilization been so profound
ly moved upon this subject or the judg-
ment OF men been SO painfully impress
sed with the unparalleled viciousness
of the doctrines which come within the
general definition of the term an
archy." The ideas of the average man
find expression in a general demand
that effective laws be enacted, with lit
tie or no reference to details. The more
careful and conservative thinkers ap-
proach the subject in a spirit of what ap-
pears to be overcautiousness, and some
of them find innumerable difficulties in
the way of providing suitable legisla-
tive remedies. As Is nearly always the
case, the true solution will doubtless
be found between the extremes.
No greater evil could befall the Amer
ican Republic than the enactment of
laws which would unjustly and i'm
properly restrict the freedom of speech
When the fitness or unfitness of men in
public life, the malfeasance, misfeas-
ance, or non-feasance of officials, and
the wisdom and unwisdom of any line
of governmental policy cannot be fully
and freely discussed, the outlook for
the future of the Republic will be dark
indeed. But it is perfectly clear that
there is wide distinction between the
discussion ofpublic men and public poll
cies upon the one hand. and the preach
ing of doctrine. the fundamental idea
of which is that there should be no pub
lie men. no public policies, no civiliza-
ton, and not even common decency in
the relations of people with each other;
in short, that society should be de-
stroyed, and human beings live after
the fashion of wild animals The veri-
est tyro in making should be able
to frame a statute that will clearly dis
tinguish between freedom of speech
and an onslaught upon everything that
society holds sacred.
1t is just as easy 10 differentiate be-
tween freedom of speech and the un-
bridled license of anarchy as it is to
make thousands of other distinctions
which the laws already in force clearly
recognize. The main point is as to the
remedy. How shall anarchists be treat
ed? Shall they be deported? Shall
there be extradition laws to cover
them? Shall the various nations act
conjointly or each one by itself? Shall
anarchists be punished capitally, or
shall the penalties be graded accord
ing to the specific acts? These are all
matters demanding careful considera-
ton.
The idea of deportation seems not to
be a practical one. Anarchism being a
crime against all Governments, If each
should adopt a policy of deportation
there would be no place to which the
members of the sect could be sent, I'M
less by international agreement some
unoccupied territory should be set apart
for the purpose, and sort of colony be
established there This latter is also
open TO serious objection, because Gov
ernments themselves differ essentially
in character. and might have very di-
yergent ideas as to what should be con-
sidered anarchism.
For the same reason extradition does
not seem to be proper, except in cases
wherein the anarchism has eliminated
in murder or some other crime of ac-
tu:aI violence. If this point has not been
reached. it would seem that any coun-
try from which an anarchist had fed
should be only too glad to be rid of
him. and not wish to bring him back
by extradition process. The objections
to deportation apply in all their length
and breadth to joint international ac-
ton. Each country should determine
for itself what constitutes anarchy, and
punish the crime according to the idea
prevailing in such country as to the
character of the offence.
And this brings US logically to what
the punishment should be. Some have
suggested that every openly avowed
anarchist should receive the extreme
penalty of death. This seems to be
too severe and out of harmony with the
advanced civilization which we are
seeking TO protect In anarchism, as in
all other offences known to the law,
there are different degrees Of culpabili-
ty. Some anarchists are more aggres-
sive, more vicious. and more dangerous
than others. Some are leaders, and
some are followers. The promptings
of humanity are all in favor of max
ing distinctions in the degrees of guilt.
Upon the whole, IL seems wiser, better,
and more humane that the punishment
should not be capital in cases where no
act of violence has been committed with
which the Individual can be connected.
Imprisonment for a longer or shorter
term within maximum and minimum
Iimits seems 20 be the proper penalty
soi that grade of anarchism which has
not yet reached the stage of actual vio-
lehce resulting in the destruction of hu-
man life. Such law would be more
likely to be enforced than would one
OF greater severity. and it would open
up opportunities for the reform of
those who have simply been misled by
false teachings-whose instincts are not
inherently bad.
We now come TO the legal question
of whether the measures Of suppression
should be taken by the Federal Gov
eminent or by those of the several
States. The latter proposition may be
disposed OF with the simple suggestion
that there can be no objection to each
State taking separate action, although
It would be eminently wise for their
laws to show as much uniformity as
possible. But experience has demon
strated that IL is not always easy to
secure action looking to a common end
at the hands Of forty-five separate
State Legislatures. and If single one