The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1936-03-04

I
only at a time when it will be con-
sidered possible or necessary by the
revoluticnists in each specific coun-
try.
ITO attempt to export revolution
is nonsense. Without desire within
country, there will be no revold-
ton. The Russian people desired
revolution and brought it about.
Now we are engaged in building a
society without classes. But to pre-
sumo that we want to bring about
revolution in other countries by in
reference with their national life
is unwarranted"
Discuss Litvinoff's Letter
At this point in the conversation
I turned to Litvinoff's letter of Nov.
16 1888, to President Roosevelt,
containing the famous Paragraph
reading: Not to permit the
formation or residence on its terri
tory of any organization OF group
and to prevent the activity on its
territory or any organization or
group, or of representatives or off,
Gals of any organization or group
which has as an aim the overthrow
or the preparation for the over
throw of, or bringing about
by force, of a change in, the polit-
ical or social order of the whole or
any part of the United States, its
territories or possessions"
"Why, Mr.. Stain, did Litvino9
sign this letter if compliance with
the terms of Paragraph 4 is incOm-
patible with the interest of the
Soviet Union or beyond its con-
troll"
Execution of Paragraph 4 is
within our control" declared Stain.
1--WE have carried out its provisions
and will continue to dc so. Accord
ing to our constitution, political
emigres have the right of asylum in
our territory, the same as in the
United States.
Interpretation Broader
when Litvinoff signed the letter
| you mention, it was on the aSsump-
ton that the obligation is mutual
Does it, in American opinion con-
f1ict with the -Litvinoff
agreement if there are White Rus
sian emigreS in America, sometimes
representing terroristic groups,
propagandizing on American soil for
capitalism against the Soviets and
receiving moral and material as
siStance from Americans?
"AS far as we are concerned, we
never would tolerate a single ter
rorist on our territory, regardless of
against whom his crimes are con-
templated. Apparently the American
Interpretation of the right of asylum
is broader than ours.
I'VE do not mind. The argument
can be advanced that we sympathize
with foreign political emigres So
Journing in our territory, but are
there not Americans who sympathize
with White Russian emigres propa-
gandizing for capitalism against
the Soviets?
Recognizes Reasonable Limit
eff so, what is most important is
that we both don't assist or finance
such activities and that official
agents of both countries abstain
from interfering with home affairs
of other countries.
However, if we go too far in
claims and counter claims on this
subject and ask for the deportation
of all White Russian emigres from
the United States, then We might
undermine the right of asylum ex-
listing in both countries. A reason
able limit to our claims and counter
claims must be recognized by each.
"Litvinoff signed the letter to
Roosevelt not as a private citizen
but as representative of the state,
as did Roosevelt in his letter. This
is an agreement between two states
and its vital consideration concerns
the activities of agents of those two
states. The agreement, which is an
understanding between two govern
ments, can be interpreted only
within this framework"
gu. S. Communism Legal"
Did not Browder anG Darcy,
American Communists appearing
before the seventh Congress of the
Communist International in Mos
cow last summer, appeal for the
overthrow by force Of the American
government"
II don't recall what Browder and
Darcy said. Maybe they said some
thing of that nature, but the Soviet
people did not found the American
Communist Party.
THE American Communist Party.
was created by Americans. It's ex-
istence in the United States is le-
gal. The American Communist
Party is represented by ballot even
in national elections.
What Browder and Darcy may
have said once in MOSCOW probably
will be said hundred times in
stronger terms on American soil. 1t
would be unfair to hold the Soviet
government responsible for the &C
tivitieS of American Communists. !"
But in this instance, is it not a
fact that their activities occurred
on Soviet soil contrary to the terms
of Paragraph A."
You mention the activity of
American Communists on Soviet
soil. But what does activity of the
Communist Party mean? Organiza-
ton meetings, sometimes strikes,
demonstrations, etc. They couldn't
possibly organize them on Soviet
soil. We have no American work.
ers in the U. S. S. r."
IT take it that the gist of your
thought, then, is that interpreta-
ton can be made which would safe
Mi;yz IAziIISI