New-York tribune., 1920-01-10
A Letter From John Spargo
Moderate Socialist Denies That He
Deserted Free Speech During War
By. John Spargo

have just read your recent review
Of my Psychology of Bolshevism,"
thanks to the fact that it was re-
printed in the local evening newspa-
per. Since 80 much of the "review"
has to do, not with my book, but with
what you assume to have been my mo-
cives in writing it and what you allege
TO have been my conduct, you will per-
haps pardon me if try to remove some
obvious Misunderstanding.
You say: Gle grows less logical
when he tries to explain why he as
sailed the suppression of free speech
IN Russia but refrained from criticiz-
ing what he regarded as suppression in
this country" 1t would be very inter
esting to near from you just where
In the book under discussion explain
Why l "assailed the suppression of
Tree speech in Russia" or even ac-
knowledge having done So l believe
am fairly familiar with the contents
of the little book. and, to the best of
my knowledge and belief, there is not
line Or sentence of such explanation
or acknowledgment.
You quote certain words of mine.
descriptive of the position in which
thousands of liberals and radicals"
found themselves, with the predatory
remark that you "assume" that am
explaining my own position. OF that
position you say: "That, of course, is
an entirely logical, although debatable,
position" Naturally. Any position
upon which there was not perfect
unanimity would be debatable. l took
one side OF very bitter controversy.
do ~ A.
savagery of many of the sentences i'm
posed by our courts and the repression
po!icy IN general, you say: it
seems fair to assume that he made a
public protest against these alleged in
justices at the time when he says they
were being committed. But as a mat
Ter OF tact Mr.. Spargo made no such
protests until much later date"
May | not" to quote great Ameri-
can stylist, say to you, Mr.. Broun
that "as matter OF fact" you are en-
tlrely mistaken? From the beginninp
of the war to date, have, upon everv
occasion which seemed to me prope1
and useful, made public protest against
these evils. You say that it would
formed highly patriotic duty by sav.
ing this and that in the war / will
support and this 1 will disown.'" II
does not seem to me that the question
IS quite as simple that In a prea,
war you are either supporting or you
are not supporting the national cause
ret, In the main, think | agree with
you. Al least, it seemed to me to be
poesio'e 10 give whole-souled supper;
s.:a ~ tne war wnlie dIsavowing, and even
@ct''eiy opposing, certain dangerous
ana reactionary policies connected with
she war and its conduct. This to the
pest OF my light and opportunity. did
Sou are entirely mistaken in suggest.
ing that | have only recently made
my protest public
since this is q matter Of some i'm
poftance to me--in that attach con.
siderable Importance to having nv
fidelity to a few Fundamental prin'
ciples known--you will, perhaps, per.
NIT mo to call attention to a few fact,
which can be easily verified:
1. Quite early in the war--in tho
late summer Of l917-when the Peo.
Pies Council was being driven from
pillar to post and denied the right 10
bold its meetings, publicly protested
ana denounced our domestic prussian
Ism. In September OF that year q
grsphed to Governor Burnquist of
Minnesota. protesting against the out.
Tageous suppression of free speech,
but later repeated my protest in his
presence at Minneapolis In a public sd-
dress. Further, Joined In asking
PRESIDENT Wilson 30 use his influence
10 stop such repression.
2. When 'The New York Call" was
barred from the mailing privileges held
~ other papers, not only made my
protest publicly In many addresses
but also directly 10 Mr.. Bnrln.on ana
% President Wilson. have repeatedly
dens tails In connsetion with ether
= II public addresses givsn In many