New Britain herald., 1918-05-24


| known all Reasonable Actions and
Doings which may come to his
| knowledge and to do his Duty as a
good and faithful Subject to the State
'Evan Davis on Recognizance in
f1oo."
! BY an act of March 80, 1881, pro-
| VISION was made to punish more eff
! fectually adherents to the King. 1T
| enacted that anyone who preached,
| taught, spoke, wrote, or printed that
| the King of Great Britain had do
| HllHlon In New York or who seduced
! the allegiance of anyone in the State
| was guilty of a felony without benefit
OF clergy though the court could
! commute the sentence from death to
| service for three years in the Navy of
the United States.
| 1t was sufficient that a, man MIGHT
| make trouble. He could be impris-
! oned without any evidence that he
| had committed overt acts other than
by word of mouth
| John Kelly, Philip Herrewig and
| others this day brought in and deliv-
| cred to the Board the following per-
sons to wit, Emmerigh P1ass, Michael
| Plass, John Dorm and John GEORGE
| Emmerigh as Persons disaffected to
| the Cause Of America and whose 60
! ing at large might be dangerous to
the State, together with the Arms of
| Emmerlgh Plass Michael Plass and
John DORM
Roundup of Suspects.
thousands of suspects were called
up by the boards for detecting and
defeating conspiracies, according to
| the records compiled by Paltsits,
State historian of New York. Many
l these
charged because the evidence did not
| show disloyalty. In case of any doubt
| the accused was made to give bond
and often to report to the commits
stoners at set intervals, as boys now
do to the juvenile courts
A great many others were confined
for a time and then released. We
| read under date of May II, TITS:
Joseph Concklin of Newton was
CELEBRATED on entering into Recogni-
| zance for good Behaviour & Monthly
Appearance.
Joseph Conck1in on Recognizance
in 800.
william Barton his Bail in f1OO."
In view of the question that has
arisen during the present war about
reprisals in the matter of treatment
of prisoners, it is interesting to recall
that in Revolutionary days the rigor
of the treatment to adherents of King
George was based upon that which
was given to Wing prisoners by the
enemy.
Persons who refused to give infor-
nation about suspected traitors were
themselves arrested and flung into
prison. This applied to women as
we'll as men.
Ut o.
since the war began talked great
deal about freedom of speech. He
charges that we are abandoning the
standards set by our Revolutionary
forefathers when we curtail mans
right to voice publicly whatever he
wants to say. Since the United States
has always stood for free speech and
a free press, many good citizens have
been puzzled how to answer these as
sections
The facts are quite otherwise.
While the colonies were fighting for
independence Tories were not per-
mitted to preach whatever doctrine
they liked, to consort with enemies Of
the people, or in general to show a
spirit of disaffection.
Disturbing and harmful parties
were fined, deported, informed, i'm
hanged. Our Revolutionary forefath-
ers were very businesslike in their
method Of treating the disloyal. They
went after them as a terrier does at
ter a rat.
Real Freedom of Speech.
Never in this country has there
been freedom of speech in the sense
that a man could say what he wanted
to without being responsible for his
words. No freedom of that kind ever
has existed anywhere in the world.
A man could talk in Revolutionary
days, but if he said improper things
he had to suffer the consequences. So
it is in time of peace. All our laws
on SANDER and libel are based on this
principle. When an individual feels
he is injured wrongly he can sue. The
redress of, the State, in case it deter
mines that the talker is a public enc
my, lies through a criminal action.
The right of freedom of speech is
hedged about with restrictions.
But in war times the liberty Of the
individual has always been still fur
Their abridged. This is true because
he is one of the group which makes
up the Nation. To give aid and COM
fort to the enemy injuries every man
in the State. Therefore society takes
away from the individual the power
to abuse freedom of speech and ac-
ton. 1t suggests that he moderate
the expression of his views If he is
a persistent offender it imprisons
him. And if his offense runs to trea
son it may stand him with his back to
a wall before a firing squad. These
powers spring from very nature of the
social compact. They are born of the
right to self preservation.
The problem of loyalty was per-
haps more pressing one in the days
Of George Washington than it is even