BoletiÌn mercantil de Puerto Rico. (San Juan, P.R.) 18??-1918, 1902-03-31
secure more rigid legislation sgaiEst tba

to secure more rigid legislation against tha
a7sassins Of p!esidents bitter senator C
congressman is certain to appear as Wig
orous opponent of the measure. In 1894 .
bill was drawn under the direction of leading
Republicans and Democrats and was pres.
ented to the Senate by David B. Hill of
New York. 1t had the approval.sof Sec.
retaries Carlisle and Olney of Mr. Cleveland's
cabinet. 1t passed the Senate, but when
it had reached the point Of progress in the
House at which single objection was fatsl !,
that objection was made by John De Witt
Warner of New York, and the bill was
killed. Had it been made law, said
Senator Burrows Of Michigan, writtrg
sbeut it last fall in the "North American
Review "Emma Goldman would have
been deported to her birthplace, Russia
long before she had an opportunity to con.
vince the Mckinley assassin that the murder
Of president is divine duty"
What was the ground Of OoEgrcssmsH
Warmers objectioui That the bill did not
define anarchy. He took the position boldly
that the authors of the bill were 30 incom-
pstent for the work in hand that they had
botobed it, and in his opinion it was "a bad
bill, ~ and "more likely to make anarchists
L
panic" declared the gifted John De Witt
Warner, s'can scare me into putting into
the hands of an administrative oficer the
detection and punishment of crime which
is not even defined in the measure wAioa
proposes to punish it by deportation" Until
Mr. Warner brought his mind TO bear upon
the bill all the most emine-t lawyers oi
both parties in both hou7's and in the
cabinet of President Cleveland supposed il
to be q proper and adequate measure.
Now Senator Bacon of Georgia appears
az the opponent Of Sena or Hoar's bill.
Like Mr. Warner, he is in favor OF puuishing
anarchists, but not in this way: He does
not object to the bill in principle but in
form. He cannot sleep o'nights lest il
interfere with the sacred right of free speech
Think of it, he says, if this bill be made Law
Its provisions are so broad as 70 make 4
possible to convict any editor who should
publish articles which might be declared
upiustly to advise assassination! SIT would
punish the innocent, not the guilty, and
would suppress free speectw That is to
say, II an editor we're compelled through
fear of the law to restrain himself from
publishing anything that seemed to be au
lncitement-to the murder of q president hia
freedom of speech " would be suppressed!
OF course, Senator Bacon knows that he
is talking nonsense. He knows that he ID
doing what Mr. Warner knew be was doing
lin 1S94-seeking to defeat all legislation
on the subject. Would any harm come to
us as free people if our newspapers and
agitators were forbidden by law to say
ANYTHING that could be construed as an
Indictment to assassinationf II all editors
a1d sgitstors who were inclined to say that
sort of thing were restrained by fear Of the
law from saying it, would our condition 90 q
people suffer in consequence Gould anytbr
ing be more pTeposterous- than to classify
the rant of Emma Goldman and John Most
and newspaper editors who initiate their
mouthings as ssfrsedom Of the presao can
only be preserved BY giving blaekguards
and professional anarchists full swing in the
editorial columns is one that no Man Of
intelligence can make with straight face.
It may be that Senator Hoars bill will
not stop the business Of esssssinsting pres.
idents no law against crime has succeeded
in suppressing crime but the world goes
on legislating against crime just the same.
! It will certainly do no harm to put obstacles
in the way of professional incitement to
assassination by closing the mouths Of open
advocates OF it and increasing the penalties
of attempting or accomplishing it. That 10
all there is in Senator Hoar's bill, and any.
body who opposes it is really opposing any
Interference whatever with the sort Of free.
dom Of speech which melted Ozolgosz to his
crime.