The Goldfield news and weekly tribune. [volume] (Goldfield, Nev.) 1911-1947, 1918-11-16
THE CASE OF VICTOR BERGER

veek with two indictments for sedition hanging over him, is
likely to attract the attention of the country when the next
congress meets, especially if these indictments shall not nave
been finally passed upon by the courts. The Tribune is not
advised as to the language of the indictments, but assumes ut
charges are similar to those under which Eugene Debs was
recently convicted, and that they are based largely upon the
latest socialist platform, for which Debs and Berger stood as
sponsors. The federal court at Cleveland held that the IAN
guage of this platform was seditious and Debs was convicted
and sentenced and now awaits the action OF the circuit court
on his appeal.
Berger has served at least two terms in congress, repre-
sentng a district in Milwaukee populated largely by those OF
foreign birth or descent. Berger was born in Austria, edu-
Gated there and is said to be of German blood, as the domlnat-
ing element of Austria is. According to his biography appear
ing in the Congressional Directory his family came to Amer
lea after financial reverses in Austria. For many years he
was the editor of a German-language newspaper in Mlwau-
kee and was secretary for America of the international Social
list Bureau at Brussels. He has long been under suspicion in
connection with Germany's espionage and propaganda system
that has sought to weaken where it could not control. And If
Germany had her agents holding seats in the British parlla-
ment why not in the American congress? In any event ne has
played the kaiser's game as industriously and consistently as
Lenine and Trotzky, even if he hasn't achieved as much.
4 X
Berger was the first socialist elected to the congress of
the United States. In the election last week he received
about $4,000 votes out of a total of approximately $4,000, there
being three candidates.
Now, assuming that Berger made his campaign on a plat
form that the courts have already declared to be sediious,
there is a well defined issue before congress, or will be when
he claims a seat in the legislative department of a government
he would have surrendered to his former sovereign and that
SOVereign'S allies, the emperor OF Germany, the king OF Bull
gara and the sultan of Turkey. Are these $4,000 people Of
Milwaukee who voted for Berger on his platform entitled to a
share in a government they would have destroyed and would
destroy?
Fortunately there is a precedent for closing the doors
against Berger and sending him back to his people and telling
them if they want representation in congress to send some
body who is eligible.
Some years ago Utah sent to congress a polygamist nam
ed Roberts. The people of Utah, when they asked admission
as a state, had given to the other states by a clause in their
state constitution, and by other assurance. a pledge that they
would no longer practice or tolerate polygamous marriage.
This had been exacted of them in the preliminary enabling
act. A protest from the gentle or non Mormon population Of
Utah followed Roberts to Washington after his election and
the whole nation watched the subsequent proceedings. Hen
derson, of Iowa, was speaker and he appointed a special or
select committee to take testimony and establish the facts.
With one exception this committee was made up entirely of
lawyers, and that exception was Charles B. Lands, of Indi.
ana, a brother to the federal Judge in Chicago who imposed
the twenty-nine million dollar fine on the Standard Oil COM
pany about that time and who recently sentenced Haywood
and his hundred associate leaders of the ]. w. W.. to terms in
prison. But the committee included some of the leaders of
the American bar. Judge Day, of Ohio, soon afterward ap-
pointed to the federal bench, was chairman. Littlefield, of
Maine, probably the greatest lawyer in congress at that time,
was a member.
The committee was unanimous in the view that Roberts
should not be permitted to sit as a member of the house, but
here was another instance in which lawyers disagreed. There
was no question about the power of the house to expel a
member by a two-thirds vote, but a majority vote would ex-
clude. And would the house expel a member for an act cons
mitted before he became a member and well known at the
time of his election to those who elected him? Or would the
house, on the other hand, by excluding him assume to say to
the people of Utah whom they should or should not send?
And so it became, with the committee, a question of ex-
clusion or expulsion. Probably a preponderance of legal
opinion held to the theory of expulsion and opposed the
view that the house had a right to exclude. This was the
view of Lttlefield and a minority of the committee, and prob
ably a majority of the lawyers of the house.
But Judge Day and a majority of the committee held that
the house had the right to exclude and reported accordingly.
Littlefield and others submitted a minority report and the de-