New-York tribune., 1921-05-01

Te S0e Goftux OF Inc 1riDune.
Sir: Mr. Ralph NJ. Easley seixes
rpea my appeal for executive clemency
II the ease Of Eugene v. Debs az the
sxruss and occasion for q tirade
against the mon and women who In
Russia are waging war against Boil
yhevsst tyranny.
Oar maladroit critic speaks Of ssthe
splendid, vigorous blows that Mr..
Spargo has been raining down upon
Bolshevists for the last year" do not
know why "the last year" is thus sim
gled out, my warfare against Boishe-
vism and the Bolsheviki having been
continuous and unremitting since july.
1917. But that is q mere detail.
Mr.. Easley contrives to distort and
misrepresent an article which con-
tributed to The Independent on March
1s, 1921. He Says "Mr. Spargo is anti
Bolshevist to the core, but, like, most
right-wing Socialists, he is a Menshev-
ist. The difference between Bolshevism
and Menshevism is that Bolshevism
conhseates all private property TODAY.
while the Menskevists will confiscate it
Tomorrow"
Having thus grotesquely misrepre-
sented the essential difference between
the Mensheviki and the Bolsheviki. Mr..
Easley represents me as saying in the
article above referred to that I do not
want the Socialists to take over capi-
talism to-day because capitalism is in
bad fix; that / want the Socialists
'sto wait until capitalism is again on
its feet, and then they will take over
something worth WHILE"
He represents me as asking. "Who
would want to take over broken-down
automobile, when by simply waiting
until it is repaired by the owner it
could be taken over just as easily ?n
OF the million men and women who
voted for Mr.. Debs, he asks, "Do they
not believe in wholesale burglary of all
private property when it is ready ?"
And then asks, Doesn't Mr.. Spargo ad-
vocate that in his Independent article ?"
Now there is not sentence in the
Independent article which could be so
construed. Mr.. Easley knows quite
we'll that during many years, while /
was active in the Socialist party, as
'ywell as since my withdrawal from it.,
have consistently opposed the theory
that socialism can come by way cf con-
fscation. The article to which he re-
fers was written in opposition to the
theory that socialism could be achieved
through confscation.
Summing up my argument, I con-
clude as follows: "The present writer
believes that socialism will come as
the logical development Of the capi-
talist system. It will come piecemeal,
By evolution and not by revolution. .
Quite obviously there could be no
general confiscation Of private prop
erty without revolution, and the whole
import of my article is, therefore, in
direct opposition to the views which
Mr.. Easley attributes to me-
Mr.. Easley asks: "Does Mr.. Spargo
believe that the reason we went to
war was because we knew there was
no possibility OF defeat; or. putting it
In another form, that if we had any
doubts on that point we would have
stayed at home, and. as q consequences
the official language Of this country
to-day would be German?"
Neither in my contributions to your
columns concerning the imprisonment
OF Mr.. Debs nor elsewhere, at any
time, have given anybody the slight
est Justification for suspecting or be-
lleving that I hold any such opinion.
Having raised the question, Mr.. Eas-
ley observes sarcastically that if hold