scene.

He refused to admit the testimony of such men as O. B. Frothingham, Elizur Wright, and Oliver Johnson to prove that the book was not obThe court held that the good object of the writer of the book was not a matter to be taken into consideration. The jury were to consider "whether the tendency of the matter was to deprave or corrupt the morals of those whose minds are open to such influences and into whose hands publications of this sort may fall."

On this principle a jury of Infidels might find every Christian publisher in the land a fit subject for the law's vengeance, and a Christian jury might cause to be fined and imprisoned every Infidel publisher, or a jury of Prohibitionists every advertiser of intoxicating liquors, or a jury of vegetarians every publisher who dared to advertise the virtues. of meat, and so on through an endless category. Catholic might punish Protestant and vice versa, it being not a matter of right but of might in all these cases. Whether or not the tendency of a book is to "deprave and corrupt the morals" is a matter of mere opinion susceptible of no proof whatever. Every reformatory document has a tendency to "corrupt the morals," if we are to take the opinion of those who are opposed to reform, and they are generally in the majority. The abominable ruling of Judge Benedict in Bennett's case would muzzle the press of the Democratic party throughout the United States during Republican ascendancy, and vice versa. Not an abolition paper could have been tolerated under it. Every Greenback journal might be silenced. Liberty of speech and press is a miserable farce if law sanctions the punishment of a man for sending through the mails, not matter that has corrupted anybody's morals, but matter that in the opinion of a probable set of bigots and ignoramuses, may possibly tend at some future time to corrupt the morals of some imaginary human being!

This outrage upon Bennett and liberty is perhaps the opening of a Y. M. C. A. plot to root out "heresy" and establish the pet Christian God and his lackeys in power over a people heretofore superior to either or both. At any rate, every friend of freedom ought to make Bennett's case his own at once and aid him by voice and pen, ballot and pocketbook, in maintaining in this struggle that great pioneer of truth, conqueror for justice, and guardian of liberty, which all bigots and tyrants and "heaven-ordained" public beggars and pilferers, with good reason fear and detest-the right of free speech.

Bennett has taken an appeal, but if not successful we shall soon hear of him in his honorable old age as an occupant of a felon's cell-not there for any deed of dishonesty, or for lawfully cheating his creditors, or for oppressing the poor, or for injuring his fellow-man in any way, but for simply sending through the mails a book which, in the opinion of less than a dozen incompetent men, may have a tendency to corrupt the morals of some person or persons, the existence of whom is neither known nor

specified. If this is the beginning, what may we expect in the end from the Comstock "morality" mill, and the Y. M. C. A. who grind it?— Winstead (Conn.) Press, March 27, 1879.

I am very pleased to hear of the establishment of the Free Speech League and I trust it will have wide influence and do much good. It is sad to hear that in the United States, of all countries, such a League should have any function to perform. Some of the examples you narrate are scarcely credible. I have, for instance, read the first edition of Warren's "Almost Fourteen." and it is so admirable in tone, so delicate and reticent, almost to a fault, that one scarcely knows what to think of the mental state of the people who could adjudge it to be 66 obscene.'

It seems to me that there can be no doubt whatever regarding the soundness of your view of "obscenity" as residing exclusively, not in the thing contemplated, but in the mind of the contemplating person. The case has lately been reported of a young schoolmaster, who always felt tempted to commit a criminal assault by the sight of a boy in knickerbockers; that for him was an "obscene" sight-must we therefore conclude that all boys in knickerbockers shall be forcibly suppressed as obscene." ?—Dr. Havelock Ellis, in a private letter.

66

SECTION VII.

LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE AND SPEECH FOR ANARCHISTS

We trust that no attempt will be made to suppress Anarchist literature. No doubt it does some harm, but still greater harm would be done by closing the safety valve. A man who is not allowed to kill kings and ministers with ink is more, not less, likely to try to murder them with dynamite.-The Spectator.

I treat with scorn the puny and pitiful assertion that grievances are not to be complained of, that our redress is not to be agitated; for in such cases, remonstrance cannot be too strong, agitation cannot be too violent, to show to the world with what injustice our fair claims are met and under what tyranny the people suffer.-Daniel O'Connell.

A mercenary informer [member of spy societies] knows no distinction. Under such a system [as tolerates thus association] the obnoxious people are slaves, not only to the government, but they live at the mercy of every individual; they are at once the slaves of the whole community and of every part of it; and the worst and most unmerciful men are those on whose goodness they must depend.—Author not known to editor.

If any person, void of modesty and shame, shall think our name is to be abused by insolent reproach, and be wantonly a turbulent disparager of the times, we will not have him subjected to punishment, nor sustain any hardship or severity, because if it hath proceeded from levity it is to be contemned; if from insanity, most worthy of compassion; if from injury, it is to be pardoned.-Decree of Emperor Theodosius.

Of all the miserable, unprofitable, inglorious wars in the world is the war against words. Let men say just what they like. Let them propose to cut every throat and burn every house-if so they like it. We have nothing to do with a man's words or a man's thoughts, except to put against them better words or better thoughts, and so to win in the great moral and intellectual duel that is always going on, and on which all progress depends.-Hon. Auberon Herbert, Westminster Gazette, Nov. 22, 1893.

I am not a citizen of America, England, or Germany. I am a citizen of that country in which a man is permitted to advocate any religion, or no religion-Catholicism or Atheism; where a man is permitted to preach in favor of absolute government or no government-Autocracy or Anarchy; where a man may express himself in favor of any marriage

system, or no marriage system-Monogomy or Variety. I am a citizen of that country where ideas are not branded as crimes; where thought is not chained behind prison bars; where freedom is a fact, not a fiction; where Social Ostracism is not the fate of those who really think. Where is this Country, and what is its name? O, this Country is far, far away, and its name is The Future!-Victor Robinsoll.

Every new truth which has ever been propounded has, for a time, caused mischief; it has produced discomfort, and often unhappiness. sometimes by disturbing social or religious arrangements, and sometimes merely by the disruption of old and cherished associations of thoughts. It is only after a certain interval, and when the frame-work of affairs has adjusted itself to the new truth, that its good effects preponderate; and the preponderance continues to increase, until, at length, the truth causes nothing but good. But, at the outset, there is always harm. And if the truth is very great as well as very new, the harm is serious. Men are made uneasy; they flinch; they cannot bear the sudden light; a general restlessness supervenes; the face of society is disturbed, or perhaps convulsed; old interests and old beliefs have been destroyed before new ones have been created. These symptoms are the precursors of revolution; they have preceded all the great changes through which the world has passed.-Buckle, "History of Civilization."

A proposition to forbid and punish the teaching or the propagation of the doctrine of Anarchism, i. e., the doctrine or belief that all established government is wrongful and pernicious and should be destroyed, is inconsistent with the freedom of speech and press, unless carefully confined to cases of solicitation of crime, which will be discussed presently. As the freedom of religion would have no meaning without the liberty of attacking all religion, so the freedom of political discussion is merely a phrase if it must stop short of questioning the fundamental ideas of politics, law, and government. Otherwise every government is justified in drawing the line of free discussion at those principles or institutions which it deems essential to its perpetuation—a view to which the Russian government would subscribe. It is of the essence of political liberty that it may create disaffection or other inconvenience to the existing government, otherwise there would be no merit in tolerating it. This toleration, however, like all toleration, is based not upon generosity but on sound policy; on the consideration, namely, that ideas are not suppressed by suppressing their free and public discussion, and that such discussion alone can render them harmless and remove the cause for illegality by giving hope of their realization by lawful means.-Prof. Ernst Freund of the University of Chicago, in "Police Power," page 475.

The Anarchist will not cease to be a danger (one of many, many dangers)—until we set up healthy ideals in the market-place, in Wall Street, and at Washington. We need not preach love for neighborthat is, perhaps, asking too much; but we ought to insist, at least, upon a wholesome regard for his rights. It has been suggested that we now love him too much like the traditional lover-we love the very ground he treads upon which is a good enough reason for taking it from under his feet. We should respect his liberties, and, as we need love him only as ourselves, we should respect our own liberties too. It is hard to preserve liberty in a land where the money-bag is supreme and where it can count upon the mailed hand of war to carry out its behests. And yet freedom was our first love and in our younger and healthier days the love of it coursed in our veins. All liberty involves a risk, but then it is often a risk worth taking. And all repression involves risks too, and these risks are so much less noble and alluring! Freedom presupposes strength and courage, but we are becoming cowardly in our old age, and are afraid to allow men to land upon our shores who dare to "disbelieve" in our institutions or to criticise them.

It is, perhaps, unlikely that we should soon return to our old-time devotion to freedom. So be it. But, in that case, let us stop talking about it. Let us clear ourselves of cant and cease to be hypocrites. Let us take down the beautiful statue of "Liberty Enlightening the World," that brazen lie, which now casts its beams upon Ellis Island and its prison, and let us put up in its place an ogre of iron, grasping a gnarled and knotted club, and casting its baneful shadow upon the immigrant,—an image no longer of Liberty Enlightening, but of Despotism Darkening, the World.-Ex-Judge Ernest Crosby in North American Review, 1904.

If the American theory of social organization is sound; that is, if reason is to be the determining factor in ordering our associative life, then they are most unwise who favor, even if only by apology after the fact, the "removal" of chosen chiefs of state; and they are equally unwise who endeavor by force to suppress expressions of discontent, even if this discontent sometimes foolishly voices itself as sympathy for or approval of unfortunate unbalanced assassins. The surest way to weaken the influence and power of a tyrannous official is to let in the light upon his actions. To kill him is to rally his party and the overwhelming majority of all other parties to avenge his death. The surest way to prevent incendiary utterances is to let folks talk. On the one side, do not throw in too much fuel, raising the steam above the dangerpoint; and on the other side, do not sit on the safety-valve.

The so-called "yellow" press of this and other cities has done vast harm by its sensationalism, its appeal to class feeling, to passion, to in