New-York tribune., 1920-01-22
Are All Socialists Criminal An,
archists?


1. That the Assembly did not ex-
pei the Socialist members, merely
suspending them pending fair and
impartial investigation.
.. That Mr.. Hughes has advanced
the untenable proposition that the
Assembly can concern itself only
With the personal guilt of the sus-
pended Assemblymen, and hence
may not inquire into the fact of
whether or not they are members Of
a revolutionary or anarchistic or
ganization.
3. That there is no distinction to
be drawn between revolutionary and
evolutionary Socialists pertinent to
the controversy.
4. That the present Socialist Or
ganization in this country is not
political party in any true sense, but
is rather all immoral, anti-American
cult.
The first point relates mainly to
water that has gone over the dam
The suspension is a fait occompN.
The Assembly. with or without rea-
son, may suspend at will. This
ancient parliamentary privilege it
has seen tit to exercise, aud if Speak
er Sweets methods we're objection
able in the first instance, the Assem-
bly, has since made them its own. So
discussion of the issue of whether
there was abuse Of a power pos
sessed by Mr.. Sweet may be de-
'ferred.
The second proposition, it seems to
! us, is inaccurate. We do not under
stand that Mr.. Hughes has argued
that personal guilt, the establish
ment Of which he insists on, may not
be shown by affiliations. He is too
good lawyer to deny the relevancy
of evidence bearing on participation
in conspiracy. If there is an lie
gal conspiracy and it is prcved a
man is privy to it he is "persorally"
guilty.
AS to proposition No. 3, it is fact
that clear distinction between revo-
lutionary and evolutionary socialists
exists and has long been recognized.
The primitive Christians were COM
niunists, yet not advocates of forci-
bic revolution. The first polity Of
the Pilgrim Fathers was communal,
but they based it on free consent and
abandoned it by democratic action.
Throughout history socialists have
seldom been advocates Of force.
Marx was constitutional, or par
liamentary, socialist.
Indeed, not until a few years ago
when syndicalism arose in France
did the force doctrine secure much
support among socialists. Furious
wordy battles have gone on in social
ist conventions over the recogl.l tion
OF direct action. The orthodox doc,
trine, to which the suspended Assem-
> blymen are rated as adhering, op-
poses direct action. The Left Wing
ers and communists tried to capture
the Socialist organization last Au
gust. The regular Socialist machine
> threw them out, and if the Left
Wingers and communists are to be
believed the regulars were more
;, arbitrary than Mr.. Sweet has been
- The plank expressing sympathy witt
Soviet Russia, of which so much nov
is said, may be regarded as sop t(
6 the Socialist radicals, who were de
serting in large numbers.
AS to whether (Point No. ~ The
Socialist organization is politica
party or not, this was otficall,
=. passed on when the party was giver
q place on the official ballot. 1t wa
s also negatively passed on in thi
= state when there was no prosecuting
= action against the Socialist organi
, zation, although it was plainly Grim
~ inal under the statute defining Grim
y inal anarchy if in any true sense i
i, urged revolution by force. AS to th'
% quotations from Lenine made by Mr.
J. Marlowe it will be observed tha
: Lenine was defending and justifyinl
\ action which he seemed to conced'
g was not altogether approved. Th'
l. chief opposition to Lenine in Russis
q has come from Socialists. Kerensk!
? was Socialist. Nearly every prom
e nent Socialist in Russia is a non
e Bolshevik. Thousands Of Socialist:
s have been murdered and tortured be
y cause Of their allegiance to demo
e cratic principles.
e The whole issue at Albany is as X
c whether any man who is a candidate
- on the Socialist ticket is per Sc ;
: criminal anarchist, and whether any
G lnan voting for him Is also crim
G nal anarchist To answer eyes" tt
! this crucial question seems extreme
apI hovcpI raavnr Tho A,,oI,et nj 81