Waterbury evening Democrat., 1908-09-21
Of Is somewhat IIlusIonary end phan-

'of is somewhat iIIusIonary and plan, tomlike. Y '. But what the printing committee would reject as invaluable could be published by covering the cost of publication and that despite the committee. Even the freedom of the committee is then endangered and much of Bebel's rubbish" would find It's way into print and things might be worse than they now are, for even in the commercial age reputable publishers will not print everything even when the cost of production is forthcoming. More over, since In the ssocialistic scheme, the printing presses would be communal property. By what arr bitrary right would the committee reject one production and accept an- other? The equality of right that socialism prates of might soon lead to complication that would inaugu- rate the reign of bedlam.
 At the present time not all social fists are in entire harmony. During the present week Herr Bebel in the German parliament found himself at loggerheads with Herr Timm and Herr Frank. The revolutionists and revisionists or reformists are ire quently diametrically opposed to each other. In case each party de- sired to publish the news under the supervision of socialistic commit tee, the said committee might fino itself In sad plight. If the com mittee were made up of one party or the, other 1t is safe to say that the party not represented would receive but scant notice. And the same could be said if the majority were of one party or the other If they even evenly divided 1t is to be feared that publication on definite subject would cease. Even Mir Wells tells us that "the freedom of writing may be impaired If the state becomes the universal publisher and distributor of books and newspa- 'pers." Socialists like Dr Menger, rail against the evils of the press at present but no one seems to decide how free press could exist in a bureaucratic state such as socialism could bring about.
 Again,if Christianity Is not to be abolished--and the Waterbury com- mittee has asserted that such is not the design of soeialism-the law of God again comes into play with re- gard to the press, for the press af- ter all is nothing but public speech, and Is subject to the same restric- tions to which speech In general Is subject. The restrictions are not always observed but the tolerated licentiousness of part of the press does not do away with the inherent right of God; even the press has no liberty to publish what Is contrary to the laws of God. Here social istic printing committee would find difficulties heaped up mountain high. If 1t suppressed the works of Byron, Eugene Sue and George Sand whose prurient pages have certainly work ed havoc in the youth of either sex, the literati might be offended; if it. admitted Paine's Age of Reason" or Volney's Ruins orthodox Christians would be up in arms whilst agnositcs and atheists would applaud. And in the socialistic state both would have equal rights and the arbitrariness of the commit tee or its complaisancy to both par ties would soon stir up high inks. The question is as I have hinted above, complicated one, and whilst socialism declaims forcibly against a capitalistic press and prom ises us one of the untold blessings of socialism. free press, the bless ing CD remains still untold, for so- cialism throws but little light oL how that free press is to exist when the great era of socialism shall have been established. A little more light! exclaimed the dying Goethe. A little more light, socialists, on the free press question.