The Washington times., 1922-12-12

llIS1Il Dr. K y n ls
WILLIAM HARD moral theology
in the Catholic University and the
most distinguished scholar Of the
Catholic Church in America on the
subject of economics in general and
on the subject of labor affairs In
particular. He is director of the
social action department. ofEthe Ma
tional Catholic Welfare Council. He
has given special attention to the
cases of the so-called political pris.
oners." His statement has high
degree of authority both because of
his standing as a scholar In the field
of morals and economies and because
Of his special intimate familiarity
with the cases discussed.
DIR. Ryan says:
.'The bulletin given to the press
by the American Defense Society
on December IL. is grossly mis-
leading. 1t asserts that the politi.
cal prisoners for whom amnesty
10 sought are detained in jail not
merely for violating free speech.
but also for various acts of physical
violence. 1t asserts. in fact, that
they are 'murderers and destruc.
tionists.' Z" - ~ 81 fr.
The American Defense Society
makes disingenuous effort to
support these assertions by quot
ing the substance Of the four
charges upon which these men
were tried. The first two charges
involve crimes of violence. The
third and fourth involve only writ
ten and spoken opposition to the
war.
THE dishonest tactics of the
American Defense Society consist of
failing TO state that the convictions
under the first two charges were
set aside by the United States Cir
cult Court, of Appeals in the seventh
and eighth judicial. districts. These
reversals affect the. great majority
Of the political prisoners. Had the
cases of the rest Of them been ap-
pealed in the same way. the higher
court would undoubtedly have re.
versed the finding of the lower
court in those cases also. ~ H
Therefore counts one and two.
which charge violence, are entirely
irrelevant in any discussion of the
continued Imprisonment OF these
men, aT a sf =.
"The sum of the matter is that
al the political prisoners are now
serving sentences under count four.
which involved merely oral or writ.
ten or printed expressions. None
of them Is legally detained in pris-
on for any offense Of destruction
or violence. /,
How horrible were their oral or
written or printed expressions?
Well. they could all be reduced to
assertions that the war was a
capitalistic war, that the working
classes were fools to engage in IT.,
and that the way to prevent war
10 through a general strike. For
these utterances the majority Of
the political prisoners were SEN
tenced to terms of from ten to
twenty years!
did any of these men really
commit the acts of poisoning and
burning and other forms of de-
struction which are charged against
them In the statement Of the Amer.
fcan Defense Society? / do not
know. What I do know is that
they were not legally convicted of
these crimes or their conviction In
the lower courts was reversed by
the upper courts.
THE mention OF these crimes,
therefore, in any statement against
the political prisoners is irrevelant
and unfair. 1t is-in efect--an at
tempt to deprive them Of the due
process OF law which the Consti.
tuition guarantees to all persons in
the United States. -.
"The contention Of the American
Defense Society Is that these
prisoners should be- kept in Jail
not because of offenses Of which
they have been convicted. but be-
cause of other offepses OF which
they have not been, convicted. This
IL an outright denial Of due pro.
cess Of law 1t. Is q greater m
jury to our institutions than all the
wild /, utterances Of all the i. w.
WIS, whether In" or out Of jail. I.
ut comes from men who think
they are super.patriots.. but II Is
fundamentally unpatriotic because
1t is contrary to one OF the flnda-
mental principles of the Constitu-
ton, II Is an appeal ito legal
violence or even to a kind Of legal
iynching. The political prisoners
may, be guilty of hifndred de-
testable acts. but eas long as they
have not been convicted Of them
they. should Z not be- kept IN, prison
on account qt them. Y.