Can We Deal with Anarchy Under the Law as It
Is
H anarchy
can be effectively dealt with under the law as it now stands has
been shown in two New York cases, in both of which John Most, the
anarchistic leader and editor of the anarchist newspaper, Die
Freiheit, was defendant. In the first case (People v.
Most, 128 N. Y. 108), Most was indicted under the New York statute
against unlawful assemblies (Penal Code, § 451) for his incendiary
utterances in a meeting called to sympathize with the Chicago anarchists.
In this assemblage the police officers of Chicago, the state courts,
the judges of Illinois and of the United States Supreme Court, were
bitterly denounced as tyrants, and threats were made against them
by Most. The statute required that “three or more” must threaten
some unlawful act to constitute an unlawful assembly. But it was
held sufficient to prove that the persons present warmly cheered
Most’s threatening utterances, impliedly approving and adopting
them. The other case was the recent conviction of Most for the murderous
utterances in an article in his newspaper declaring that the destruction
of a life, “hostile or a hindrance,” was a meritorious act. The
indictment was under a section of the Penal Code (§ 675) which declares
that a person is guilty of a misdemeanor who “wilfully [sic] and
wrongfully commits any act . . . which seriously destroys or endangers
the public peace or health.” Justice Hinsdale, before whom the trial
took place, held that one who advocated murder came within this
statute. In delivering judgment, he said: “A person may advocate
any change of our government by lawful and peaceful means, or may
criticise the conduct of its affairs and get as many people to agree
with him as he can, so long as he does not advocate the commission
of crime as the means through which he is to attain his end.” Again,
it seems that when one, by [142][143]
inflammatory writings or speeches, induces some one to accomplish
an illegal result, the speaker himself is guilty of such result.
Spies v. People, 122 Ill. 1. The effectiveness of such doctrines
of our present laws should be well considered before a change is
made in the fundamental principles of our institutions.
|