« AnteriorContinuar »
workers' and soldiers' council in New York City.
This statement is in complete accord with the principles which have since been enunciated in the manifesto of the Third International.
It should be noted that the term 66 "" Communism as used in the Moscow manifesto have been adopted in place of the term "Socialism" for much the same reason that Karl Marx in his famous Communist Manifesto chose to use the word 66 Cɔmmunist" because the word "Socialist" had been adopted by many groups which were not true to his idea of international revolutionary Socialism. This fact was made clear by the opening paragraph of the Moscow manifesto as follows:
"We Communists, representatives of the revolutionary proletariat of the different countries of Europe, America and Asia, assembled in Soviet Moscow, feel and consider ourselves followers and fulfillers of the program proclaimed seventy-two years ago."
The program proclaimed seventy-two years ago is the Communist manifesto of Marx and Engels which since its issuance has been the authorized statement of the principles and program for the Socialist movement the world over.
The Socialist Party of America today is Communist in the sense that the term is employed in the Communist manifesto of Moscow.
The program outlined by the Moscow manifesto includes the overthrow of the governments of all democratic countries, the substitution therefor of a class government controlled by and for the benefit of the so-called proletariat or propertyless class. This involves the expropriation of private property, the seizure of mills, mines, banks and all instruments of production and distribution, the repudiation of corporate and government obligations. It is this program which has won the approval of and has been adopted by the Socialist Party of America, even to the repudiation of the present war debt of the United States, although for the purpose of expediency their National Executive Com
mittee has deleted this clause from the published platform of 1917 in order to avoid prosecution for violation of the Espionage
The purpose of representing these facts here is that, although Soviet Russia, in exchange for recognition may agree to abandon its international revolutionary propaganda and may make promises of good behavior, the Russian Communist Party which created and controls that regime has established at Moscow an instrument for the continuation of that international revolutionary propaganda under the direction and control of Lenin, Trotzky and the other signers of the manifesto to which we have referred.
We must realize that recognition of the Russian Soviet regime will necessitate the receiving here of a diplomatic representative clothed with all the immunities of his office, and the establishment of consular offices in many of our cities and industrial centers, and consular agents throughout the United States, each of whom will be a member of the Russian Communist Party, bound and committed to the principles and program enunciated in the Moscow manifesto; and that these diplomatic and consular officials will find in every center where they may be located large groups of members of the Socialist Party of America, and other radical groups with whom they are allied, ready to co-operate with them in an attempt to make effective the program to which they have pledged their allegiance.
In other words, the recognition of the Russian Soviet regime amounts to inviting the setting up of an organization within our boundaries, clothed in large measure with diplomatic immunities, which is committed fundamentally to the proposition of overthrowing our government and destroying our institutions.
The red flag of world revolution would become the flag of the friendly nation and might be used on all occasions by those elements of our population who showed a desire to emulate the Russian proletariat.
It is urged by many Liberals that if Soviet Russia is not recognized, at least trade relations should be established with the Russian co-operative societies, apparently on the assumption that they are independent organizations made up of the rural peasantry of Russia. These societies, however, have been taken over and nationalized along with all other industries, and trade with them would mean trade with Soviet Russia.
The committee feels that those charged, under our form of government, with the duty of determining our international policies, should not be stampeded into the recognition of Soviet Russia by the demands of revolutionaries, or by the sentimental pleadings of their liberal sympathizers; and we feel that the business and commercial interests of this country should recognize that the prospect of temporary gain through trade with Soviet Russia is more than offset by the inevitable labor difficulties which unquestionablty will follow in this country if the Soviet regime is permitted to set up in our industrial centers an organization cf diplomatic and consular representatives whose sole appeal is to the worker, urging him to organize for the purpose of seizing the power of government and, by continuous striking and demands for inordinate wage increases, to compel the surrender of business enterprises into their hands.
While the cartoon in the "Liberator" presents but two alternatives, there is a third alternative which your Committee believes should be adopted, namely, the refusal of recognition of Soviet Russia and the denial of trade relations with that regime.
The question of the recognition of Soviet Russia demands the earnest consideration of all citizens who desire the peace and prosperity of this country. The Committee feels that it is the duty of the legislature to take a definite stand in opposition to such recognition, and to call upon the officials of our government who are entrusted with the responsibility of our international relations to refuse the recognition of Soviet Russia and to prevent the resumption of trade relations therewith, so that our country may not be laid open to a period of industrial unrest brought about by the activities of Russian representatives and their allies here, which can result in nothing but embarrassment to our industries and endanger the foundation of our institutions.
Freedom of Speech
In its preliminary report to the legislature this Committee recommended that no repressive penal legislation be enacted, it being our opinion that the criminal anarchy statute of this State, which has been a law for some nineteen years is, if properly enforced, a good and sufficient statute.
That statute does not infringe upon the right of free speech, but seeks to punish only that license of speech which exists in the advocacy of the doctrine that organized government should be overthrown by force, violence or any unlawful means.
Four convictions have been had in the Supreme Court of this State under this provision of the Penal Law, the prosecutions having been instituted upon information furnished by this Committee to the prosecuting officer of New York County. In each instance the written words that were made the basis of the conviction urged the overthrow of organized government by force, violence and unlawful means, and these four convictions have been met with general public approval, in the apparent realization of the fact that in these cases the bounds of free speech had been transcended and a crime against the government committed.
During the late war there were numerous convictions under the Espionage Act, wherein the law of free speech was very clearly defined by the Supreme Court of the United States, and we will in this chapter in order to make clear the line of demarcation which exists between free speech as defined by the Constitution of the United States and that abuse of free speech, the use of which constitutes a crime against our statutes briefly review the law applicable thereto.
Article I, section 8 of the Constitution of the State of New York, in its first sentence, provides as follows:
"Every citizen may freely speak, write and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right; and no law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press.
The first Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
These constitutional provisions are, of course, sacred to the American people and they safeguard rights of the most transcendent importance; but when those provisions were written into our constitutions, the framers thereof had in mind the thought that self-preservation was a primal right of nations, as of men, and that the exercise of free speech was intended for the perpetuation of a free government and not for the destruction thereof. It is these constitutional provisions that, strangely, have been invoked by those persons in the community who have attempted to pervert them and who have attempted to use these provisions as a cloak for the preaching of the doctrine that organized government should be overthrown by force and violence.
The Court of Appeals of this State, in construing the above quoted provision of our State Constitution, and defining the meaning of free speech (Judge Van writing the opinion, in the case of People v. Most, 171 N. Y. 423, at p. 431). used the following language:
"While the right to publish is thus sanctioned and secured, the abuse of that right is excepted from the protection of the Constitution, and authority to provide for and punish such abuse is left to the legislature. The punishment of those who publish articles which tend to corrupt morals, induce crime or destroy organized society, is essential to the security of freedom and the stability of the state. While all the agencies of government, executive, legislative and judicial, cannot abridge the freedom of the press, the Legislature may control and the courts may punish the licentiousness of the press. The liberty of the press,' as Chancellor Kent declared in a celebrated case, consists in the right to publish, with impunity, truth, with good motives, and for justifiable ends, whether it respects governments, magistracy or individuals.' (Peo. v. Croswell, 3 Johns. Cas. .336, 393.) Mr. Justice Story defined the phrase to mean, that every man shall have a right to speak, write or print his opinions upon any subject whatsoever,