Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

"CONSPIRACY AGAINST SOCIETY."

589

stroying, "thrones and dominions, principalities and powers," and inaugurating the new era of universal democracy and establishing the grander Union-the Confederation of Republican Nations--the United States of the World.

ESSAY VIII.—“CONSPIRACY AGAINST SOCIETY.”

(From My Private Journal.)

I. A Word of Protest.

Friday, Nov. 11, 1887.

Can Illinois in 1887 afford to repeat the folly of Virginia, in 1859, and Governor Oglesby the mistake of Governor Wise? As sure as it be done may not history repeat itself? As John Brown became the saint and martyr of the cause of chattel slave emancipation, may not the men sacrificed on the gibbets today in Chicago for "Conspiracy against Society”—(and that merely opinion or belief) be finally enshrined in the hearts of mankind as saints and martyrs of the cause of wageslave emancipation?

II.

A New Name For "Sedition."

Saturday, Nov. 12.

Is "Conspiracy against society" a new crime? No; it is a new name for an old, obsolete one. Our British ancestors would have called it "sedition," or "treason." Why is a new name given it now? Because, under our laws, there is no such crime as "sedition." The word is not found in the statute books of any state; and the Constitution of the United States, and that of each of the states, say: "Treason shall consist only in levying war, or in adhering to the enemy, giving him aid and comfort." "No person," says the sacred instrument, the national constitution, "shall be convicted of treason, unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court." This was plainly intended to prevent men from being subject to punishment, in this free country, under the American flag, for the obsolete crime of "sedition," or, as now defined, "Conspiracy against society." Sedition laws were passed by the Federalists during the administration of the elder Adams, it is true. But those laws were so contrary to the genius of our institutions so abhorrent to the popular idea of liberty in that day-as to utterly kill and destroy forever the party that passed them, and turn the government over to the Anti-Federalists-the followers of Thomas Jefferson. Has Federalism again raised its serpent head? Sedition laws have not been passed, it is true; but the corrupt courts have reached that dignity (or degradation rather), rendering the passage of "sedition laws," or any other laws, unnecessary. They have, at the bidding of monopoly, trampled under their dirty feet the Constitution of the United States and that of each and every state of the Union, and they have now become absolute dictators-the supreme arbiters of our liberties and our lives-destroying the safeguards of our government.

III. The Press Befogged.

The Iowa State Register, in this morning's issue, voices the sentiment of the newspaper fraternity generally in an editorial article entitled "The Crime of Conspiracy." That great and influential western journal says: "The courts have rendered service to society and have strengthened their own position, in the attitude they have taken with regard to the crime of conspiracy. Fifty years ago such a thing as the execution of four men for conspiracy against society would

have been unheard of, for the reason that crimes of that character were then uncommon. But with the growth of the age and the perils and dangers that come with increasing population and the dissemination of dangerous doctrines of the new socialistic and anarchistic creeds, the courts are compelled to adjust themselves to the changed condition of things. They take a step forward in protecting the rights of mankind, when they define conspiracy to commit murder, or to make war upon society, as criminal an offense as the commission of the act itself."

The author of the above paragraph is my personal friend, "faithful and just to me;" and though I would willingly sacrifice my right hand, or even my life itself if need be, in his personal defense, yet I will kindly criticise his opinions, expressed publicly in print in his great journal, with the same freedom of utterance and devotion to truth and liberty, and love for him personally, as I would wish him to make use of in reviewing my humble utterances. In doing so I would not violate the obligations of sacred friendship; but only discharge an imperative duty to my country, to humanity, and to the God of justice and righteousness.

"Fifty years ago the execution," (he correctly says,) "of four men for conspiracy against society would have been unheard of." Yes, indeed, such a thing was unheard of in our country for more than a century until the eleventh day of Nov., 1887. "The dissemination of dangerous doctrines of those new socialistic and anarchistic creeds." my friend says, "have compelled the courts to adjust themselves to the changed condition of things." I thought always that courts had no alternative; but were bound by oath to follow a prescribed path, to interpret the laws according to their true meaning and in conformity with the Constitution of the United States. I thought, too, that we had got at least two hundred years past the time of being alarmed at. and punishing men for, the "dissemination of dangerous doctrines." since Roger Williams proclaimed in 1631: "The civil magistrate should punish guilt, but never control opinion;" since he proclaimed the "equality of opinions before the law." The more erroneous the opinions of our misguided Anarchist brethern, the more easy it will be (in the lanuage of the articles of government of the Puritan Commonwealth of England, 1649) "to win them by sound doctrine and the example of a good conversation."

But "now the courts take a step forward," my friend says, (backward five hundred years, I say) "in protecting the rights of mankind," he says, (in upholding the tyranny of monopolists, I say); "have rendered service to society," he says, (have destroyed our liberty, I say); "have strengthened their position," he says, (have committed harikari, I say): "Conspiracy to commit specific murder has always been considered by the courts (after the commission of the deed) as criminal as the act itself;" and to hang men, (after the act of murder had been committed,) as particeps criminis for conspiracy, was more common fifty years ago than now, because capital punishment was then more common. But a direct connection had always to be proven, till now, between the conspiracy and the act of murder. This could not possibly be done in the case of the Chicago Anarchists before it was known who threw the bomb, before it was known whether it was thrown by an "Anarchist," or by a so-called "detective," or by a crazy person, like her who shot O'Donovan Rossa in New York, which is not known, "even unto this day."

IV. Let Us Reason Together.

You may believe it right to kill men in war; but every man killed in war you would not like to believe yourself the murderer of, because of your opinions, as the Illinois judges have defined you legally to be.

"CONSPIRACY AGAINST SOCIETY."

591

Some ultra patriot, like General Joseph Warren, or Patrick Henry of old, may believe it right to kill armed men, when they charge in platoons for the purpose of breaking up peaceable meetings of the people, as is done in Ireland, and as was done in Chicago May 4, 1886. And I will pause right here to remark that if it ever could be right to slay armed men (but I believe it is never right to willfully or avoidably take human life) it would be right under such circumstances. As a reasonable being I am logically compelled to admit that if it is right to "shoot him on the spot" who "hauls down the American flag" (vide order of Gen. Dix, 1861,) it is right, yea, if possible, even more than right to "shoot him on the spot," with dynamite bombs or any other deadly weapons, who would destroy the freedom of assembly and the freedom of speech in this or any other country, by force of arms. I speak now as an American voicing American ideas and sentiments; but, let the reader understand distinctly, not to endorse in the slightest degree any violent sentiments, either of Gen. Dix, or of the Anarchists, as my own personal views or feelings on the subject. I only appeal now for fair play for oppressed workingmen— to Americans whose ancestors declared and believed as a religious tenet that "Rebelion to tyrants is obedience to God;" and who chose as the motto of the coat of arms, of the native state of Washington, Jefferson and Patrick Henry, the terrible sentiment-"Sic semper tyrannis"-which, as illustrated on the seal of Virginia, means "Death always to tyrants."

While the ultra patriot, for holding these venerable beliefs of his honored forefathers, would not, it is true, be liable to extradition and execution in Great Britain for murder, though policemen were killed in a diabolical attempt to break up a Land League meeting by force of arms at Kilkenny, Ireland (for the reason that even "castle" judges would not so decide); yet if policemen be killed in a diabolical attempt by force of arms to break up a peaceable meeting of workingmen in Chicago, Illinois, he is liable to be hung here for so believing, because Illinois judges have thus falsely interpreted American law to

mean.

I declare as logical, and I appeal for confirmation of the truth and fairness of the argument, to the candor of all students of American history and American law, that the policemen who charged upon the Haymarket meeting with arms in their tyrannous hands for the avowed purpose of breaking up the assembly, committed a greater crime against the laws of this country, and the spirit of our free institutions, according to the consecrated beliefs of our venerated forefathers, than did the man, (or woman, as the case may be), who threw the bomb-if not thrown by a "detective;" for, (leaving out of the question the idea that the person was crazy who threw it, or that it was thrown by a detective at the command of monopoly to bring odium on the workers and end a great strike, as many believe it was) it was evidently thrown in defense of constitutional rights, menaced by armed men, in defense of free speech and free assembly, and in obedience to the time-honored maxims of our Puritan ancestors, and of the Virginia buckskins, whom we are proud to call our forefathers;" and hence it was as justifiable as the battles of Lexington and Bunker Hill; yea, and exactly parallel to them, and may in the end prove to be as important in its consequences to the future freedom of America, bringing us back to a consideration of first principles, and devotion to inalienable rights, that we had about lost sight of in our blasphemous worship of Mammon and our shameful subjection to his high priests.

I declare, also, and I appeal to the reason and candor of all thinking and conscientious men for their unqualified approval of the statement, as in accordance with truth and right, that when men arm, form in

battle array and march with loaded guns in their hands upon a crowd of people, peaceably, and hence lawfully assembled, it would seem that they have come as soldiers expecting battle, for most men will fight for their just rights. If battle they meet, what have they to complain of? Have they not got what they came for? "He that taketh the sword shall perish by it," the Bible says, and I am not permitted to dispute the sacred text. Furthermore, I have no desire to dispute it, and I will not dispute it to bolster up accursed tyranny; hence I am not prepared to say that they have not reaped the just reward of their rashness-"dying as the fool dieth" if policemen be killed in an armed endeavor to destroy popular liberty-in a diabolical effort to break up, by force of arms, free assemblies of the people whether they be Anarchists or Republicans,* Germans or Americans, listening peaceably to public speeches, as the constitution and the laws of our country allow. Besides, who will mourn for them? American patriot can be expected to do so except in pity for the wives and little children of the slain, as our fathers must have mourned for the unfortunate British regulars killed at Lexington and Bunker Hill; nor are they worthy of even as much pity and regard as the slaughtered British red-coats were; for a policeman can resign his office at will, and he is not, therefore, compelled to serve against his conscientious scruples; while a private soldier in the army of England cannot help himself, but must obey the orders of his superiors.

V. Popular Rights.

No

The reader may be surprised at such plain talk by me at this hour, when all freemen, seem dazed and the (enemy believes and exultantly proclaims) "cowed" by the hideous exhibition of a mediaeval horror so near the close of the nineteenth century, in the great and peaceful valley of the west. But I shall (should occasion prompt), speak even more plainly still, as is the bounden duty of an American patriot to give expresion to his true beliefs, when the liberties of his country are threatened, which now they are, as they have never before for a hundred years, been threatened.

If General Sickels, I contend, was justifiable (and the law sustained him) for shooting down, on the public streets of Washington the seducer of his wife, the American citizen is doubly justifiable for shooting down on the public streets of Chicago, or anywhere else, the minions of capitalistic tyranny, who assail, by force of arms. public deliberative meetings legally assembled, as the Haymarket meeting was assailed by an armed band to be broken up and dispersed, contrary to the constitution of the American republic, and contrary to the constitutions of the thirty-nine states of the Union, and contrary to all the laws and traditions held sacred by sixty millions of people. We cannot be too jealous of our liberties. The breaking up of "Anarchist" meetings by force of arms, is only a prelude to the breaking up of Democrat and Republican deliberative meetings in the same way, and especially of workingmen's meetings, when called to oppose the tyranny of capital, and to the utter extinction of popular liberty in the United States as a "military necessity."

VI. The Limits of Popular Forbearance.

It cannot be too plainly stated nor too deeply impressed on the mad minds of the Anglo-American capitalist, that though the people of

It was a death dealing anarchist that assassinated President McKinley. It was a stalwart Republican that assassinated President Garfield. It was a proGive the devil his duc shivery Democrat that assassinated President Lincoln.

"CONSPIRACY AGAINST SOCIETY."

593

this country never bite unless they are very heavily trod upon yet when too harshly ground under the iron heels of tyranny, there has ever been a limitation to their patient endurance of unendurable wrong; and it might as well be said right here as anywhere else, for it must be distinctly declared, and heard by the enemy and heeded, that unwonted interference with the freedom of speech and of assembly marks the outmost bounds of that limitation! No insurance associations, knowing the American character, will take risks on the lives of policemen that attempt by force of arms to break up public 'deliberative meetings in the United States of America, under the stars and stripes. Such meetings cannot be legally "proclaimed," on this side of the Atlantic ocean, by chiefs of police, mayors of cities, governors of states, or by the President of the United States himself, unless under martial law legally declared in the time of actual war. This the American people know. The rights of free speech and of free assembly will therefore be maintained at all hazards in time of peace; nor will the people be intimidated by any number of illegal executions of the friends of freedom for imaginary crimes, to acquiece tamely in the destruction of their constitutional rights and liberties. The breaking up of public meetings by armed bands of policemen is actual war against the people, as clearly and positively war as existed at the time when the patriotic Virginia orator exclaimed, “every gale that sweeps from the north brings to our ears the clash of resounding arms," and the officials who thus, by force of arms interfere with the rights of free assembly and free speech to destroy them, do, most clearly, commit the over act of treason.

The throwing of dynamite bombs into the armed ranks of policemen in the act of dispersing deliberate meetings peacefully conducted, would be as justifiable an act, I mean to say, as was the bloody resistance made by our fathers to British tyranny at Lexington, were there no hope of redress before the courts, or through the peaceful ballot and if entire armed bands and battalions of the bloodhounds of corporate tyranny should be annihilated, on such occasions, by an outraged populace, as a last resort and means of defense of the rights of free assembly and free speech, it were no worse than the wholesale killing by our fathers of the two hundred and seventy-three dutiful British soldiers on their retreat from Concord and Lexington to Boston.

The transparent meaning of the judicial murders at Chicago, is, that whoever today declares his faith in the doctrines of the Declaration of American Independence of 1776 is liable to be hung for "conspiracy against society;" because "whenever," says that immortal instrument, "any form of government becomes destructive of the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, it is the right of the people, it is their duty, to alter or abolish it and to institute new government, laying its foundation in the consent of the governed." How abolish it? By force of arms, if compelled to do so as a last resort, as our fathers were. Whoever advocates this idea is now liable to be hung, I repeat, for the new crime of "conspiracy against society," and that, too, while Jefferson Davis (to the everlasting honor of the magnanimous American nation) still lives.

VII. The Satraps of Greed,

Must it be said "we have no laws today-we have no republic?" What have we? Two hundred and fifty thousand well drilled national guards, and other thousands of well drilled mercenary "detectives" and policemen, standing with gatling guns, rifles, revolvers and halters in their bloody hands, ready to execute the decrees of ermined tyrants, misnamed "judges," acting as the satraps of corporate greed. These are hounded on by newspaper editors, who vainly imagine that they

« ZurückWeiter »