Evening journal., 1901-09-30
rnEEnnnt OF ApEEnH


Following the assassination Of the
President came an outbwrst OF indig
nation against anarchy which has gonel
10 the extreme Of taking the danger
Gus ground Of restricting the right of
free speech. There are some things be-
yond legislation, and, reluctant as we
are to admit It, there could not in all
probability have been any reasonableI
legislation that would have prevented
the assassination of three Of our presi
dents Unfortunately. ever since the
race beean there have been deeener
ates, or human wolves that have
sought the lives of their brothers. and
as the motives Of men cannot bel
known save by their deeds crime. even
cf the most heinous sort, cannot be alb
solutely prevented
We may attach TO crime the most Sc
were penalties. with the hope Of de-
terring their commission, but when
human beings are 50 perverted and
are willing no take the consequences,
there is nothing TO be done. Freedom
Of speech is very general term. and
signifies a principle, rather than a
right absolutely defined II means that
honest citizens shall not be prohibited
from criticising the policies OF govern
ment or the conduct of public officials.
There are numerous methods already
recognized Of preventing uteIances OF
an incendiary nature. and even the
proper enforcement OF these causes
discontent and violence among the vi
cious. II would seem. then. that to
restrict the right Of good citizens in
the utterance Of legitimate criticism
would only have the effect Of further
spreading discomfort
Whatever harm has come from un-
unbrldled tongues. might In some in
stances have been prevented by the
simple enforcement Of police regula-
tions. There is no difficulty In discov-
ering, under the Constitution, ample
provisions for preventing that freedom
Of speech which attacks government as
such. and threatens violence. The fact
is. that we have been too careless
thinking that inhammatory remarks
were tbeidlevaporingso Of some irrespon
sible crank. ard that no harm woulC
result. Now we see that only the frs
part Of our hypothesis was correct
True, the loud mouthed declaimer O
anarchy is net dangerous because o
any act directly against society, bu
there are always impressionable fool
who are ready TO be the instrument
Of carrying such doctrines into execu
tion. II the lives OF officials were II
danger from such people as Most an
Goldman, only, there would be no nee
Of apprehension; hut such is not tn
case. Nothing is farther from thei
thoughts than to subject themselves {
the penalties of the law; it is thel
roor dupes who stand ready to carr
their insane rawlings into execution.
And. yet. there is no occasion for T,
stricting freedom Of speech. In mo.
inEtances the meetings Of anarchis
are held in private. and those presei
are sworn to secrecy; therefore
would be dihicult 70 prevent ther
There IS no power TO keep a man fro
communicating his thoughts t. a
other, and when that other chooses
keep silent, no power on earth can al
cover it, But there are certain CORE
tive means which may be found und
the Constitution. and the restriction
immigration is looked upon as one
the most important of these. This.
gether with the enforcement Of pol
regulations. and the force Of pub
sentiment are all that We have 10 II
upon.