Anarchy on the Boulevards
The following paragraphs are selected
from a prominent Chicago daily, showing that sympathy with Anarchy
and it[s] teachers is not confined to the saloons and the slums,
as is commonly supposed:
On the subject of anarchy it
is worth while [sic] to inquire: How many of the good people
of the United States have aided, encouraged, associated with,
entertained and exploited the person known as Prince Kropotkin?
This particular anarchist, or
nihilist, was expelled from Russia and later found refuge in
France, where, for his connection with a conspiracy involving
a dynamite bomb, he was sentenced to prison. Since his liberation
he has conducted a dilettante propaganda of anarchism in the
parlors and drawing-rooms of such people of wealth and respectability
in various enlightened nations as cared to entertain him.
This prince has been in Chicago.
How many people who denounced anarchy and the works of anarchy
made much of him? How many deluded themselves and others with
the idea that there was some new and reasonable philosophy in
his teachings? How many closed eyes and ears and consciousness
to the fact that his doctrines were the same as those of Spies
and Engel and Fisher? How many were beguiled and befooled because
he called himself a prince?
Prince Kropotkin, who was made
so much of in this city by various respectable people, has the
same record in Russia and France that any other destructive
anarchist has. He is not tolerated there. Why should he have
been tolerated here? Unless the people who entertained him are
themselves in sympathy with his ideas, there can be no reason
unless it be that he is a prince.
Emma Goldman, John Most and Leon
Czolgosz are no more pronounced in their anarchistic creed than
is Prince Kropotkin. The people who are proposing to hang everybody
who has had conversation or correspondence with these creatures
should have a care, for by the same logic they will be compelled
to hang a lot of very fine people who have made much of Kropotkin—as
bad an egg, anarchistically speaking, as there is in the entire
Prince Peter Alexievitch Kropotkin,
who has been much talked of since the attempted assassination
of President McKinley because of the claim that it was his teachings
that influenced Leon Czolgosz, the would-be assassin, was an
honored guest in this city for several days during the month
of April. During his stay he met hundreds of men of wealth and
learning and gained entrance into several homes of society,
besides meeting its representatives at several functions which
were arranged in his honor.
At the palatial home of Potter
Palmer in the Lake Shore drive the Russian exile was the guest
at a private dinner given by Mrs. Palmer, and later on he was
the guest of Mrs. Emmons Blaine. Among the men of letters and
of business who gave the prince a hearty welcome to the city
and who listened intently to the words he had to say in private
as well as in public were Dr. W. R. Harper of the University
of Chicago, Professor O. L. Triggs, L. E. Laflin, Newton A.
Partridge, Dr. Henry Wade Rogers, L. E. Sullivan, E. P. Rosenthal
and Clarence S. Darrow.
That some at least of
the people named in these paragraphs, knew what they were doing
is morally certain. That they fully endorsed the philosophy of Anarchism
is not probable but that they were broad-minded enough to hear all
sides, and that they could find good in all should shame the men
who now go wild with rage against all Anarchists because of the
act of one unknown man whose deed shows that he is not an Anarchist.
Guiteau was a Chris-  tian;
logically such. He believed that “without the shedding of blood
there is no remission of sins.” To save the nation from its sins
he shed the blood of Garfield. Why was there not a crusade against