Evening star., 1927-08-28
Echoes of Sacco-Vanzetti Case
Continued from First Page.)

Continued from First Page.l
unlawful and violent destruction of
property a crime under the United
States general statutes.
* *
This declaration of what was con-
sidered to be inadequate means of
dealing with anarchists and other the.
orists who sought the overthrow of
the Government by force was greeted.
as might be expected. by veritable
avalanche of proposals. There were
some 20 bills introduced in Congress
designed to put a curb on the propa'
cation Of doctrines OF violence. Some
of them were extreme. Some would
have furnished ground for punish
ment of any protagonists of any kind
of change in Government. One of
them would have made il a crime to
display or exhibit at any meeting,
gathering or parade, or in any other
public place, any flag, emblem, ban
ner, picture, motto or device which
tends to incite or indicates purpose
to overthrow. change or defeat
the Constitution of the United States"
A few years before a band of women
carrying a banner labeled Votes for
crime under this bill. Most of the
proposed measures, however, limited
their scope to agitations in support Of
violence against the Government At
torney General Palmer had a model
bill written at the Department of Jus.
tice and introduced in both houses of
Congress. and he appeared before a
house committee strongly urging it's
adoption.
His bill defined sedition by stating
that whoever. with intent to levy
war against the United States, or
to cause the change, overthrow or
destruction. of the Government or
of any of the laws or authority
thereof. or to cause the overthrow
or destruction of all forms of law
or of organized government or to
oppose, prevent, hinder or delay eX-
ecution of any law of the United
States or free performance by tho
United States Government or any
of its agents commits, or at
tempts, or threatens to commit any
act of force against any person or
property, or any act of hate, ter
rorism, revenge or injury against the
person or property of any officer,
agent or employe of the United
States Government, shall be guilty
of sedition."
The bill also contained provisions
against the dissemination of written
matter advocating sedition, and made
it crime to be affiliated with or
belong to any organization which ad-
vecated sedition.
Grave doubts were raised against
the conStitutionality of Mr.. Palmer'S
bill and the point was made that if
enacted 1t would not deter an an
archist. One critic who appeared
against it before the committee sug-
gested that 1t was somewhat similar
to anti-sedition laws in royalist Rus
sia, except that the proposed Palmer
bill did not exempt, as the Russian
measure did. persons under the in
f1uence of liquor or those who were
feeble minded.
At the same time a reaction set
in against the wholesale deportation
and arrests of alien radicals, it being
charged that the Department of JUS
tice had adopted the theory. whats
the Constitution between friendS?"
in protecting the citizens against a
real or imaginary menace. An in
stance of this reaction was afforded
when a committee of prominent law
yers, headed by Roscoe Pound, dean
of the Harvard Law School, drew up
a set of indictments against the De-
partment of Justice, charging it with
having fiouted the protection guar
anteed under the Constitution. A
Senate investigation followed, which
got nowhere.
The States, however, were as much
excited as Congress. While none of
the 20 anti-sedition bills proposed for
Congress was passed, California, In
diana, Michigan, Pennsylvania. Wash
ington and West Virginia adopted
measures of their own, and Attorney
General Palmer stressed the fact that
radicals or anarchists were better
reached by these State provisions than
by any Federal action that could be
taken. The same situation exists to.
day.
Some of the State laws define an
archy and make its advocacy felony.
Others define criminal ssyndicalism and
others make 1t q felony to incite to
violent overthrow of the Government
by writing, speaking, etc, while still
others define sedition and make those
guilty of the practice of sedition guilty
of a felony.
One of the interesting conclusions
reached by the legislators regarding
sedition is indicated in a preamble to
the anti-seditiQn law of Indiana. After
reciting the value Of free speech in
q republic, the Indiana measure de-
cided, however, Whereas, recent oc.
currences in Russia and elsewhere
warn us that the toleration Of such
unbridled license of speech and of such
practices involves great danger to
civilization and organized society and
threatens a possible lapse to barba-
ria anism" it decided to adopt an anti
sedition bill.
During the last term Of the United
States Supreme Court three cases
were decided involving the anti-sedi-
ton laws Of Kansas and California.
Where the cases involved the consti-
tutionality of a States right to ex-
ercise it's police power to infringe the
right of free speech, assembly or OF
association, the right of the States in
the matter was upheld. In the Califor-
MIA case the court mentioned, for in
stance, THAT the freedom of speech
which is secured by the Constitution
does not confer an absolute right to
speak without responsibility, whatever
one may choose, or an unrestricted
and unbridled license giving immunity
for every possible use Of language and
preventing the punishment of those
who abuse this freedom; and that a
State in the exercise of its police
power may punish those who abuse
this freedom by utterances inimicable
to the public welfare. tending to in
cite to crime, disturb the public peace,
or endanger the foundations Of or
ganized government and threaten its
overthrow by unlawful means. Is not
open to question"
But it was made very clear that
while a State may exercise its police
power by limiting the freedom OF
speech in the face of a danger, which
calls for protective measures, and
that the LEGISLATURE NAV decide that