| Publication information | 
|  
       Source: Truth Seeker Source type: magazine Document type: letter to the editor Document title: “Mrs. Austin Has Her Say” Author(s): Austin, Kate Date of publication: 12 October 1901 Volume number: 28 Issue number: 41 Pagination: 650-51  | 
  
| Citation | 
| Austin, Kate. “Mrs. Austin Has Her Say.” Truth Seeker 12 Oct. 1901 v28n41: pp. 650-51. | 
| Transcription | 
| full text | 
| Keywords | 
| McKinley assassination (personal response: criticism); Truth Seeker; anarchism (laws against); Leon Czolgosz; McKinley assassination (personal response: anarchists); society (criticism); McKinley assassination (public response: criticism); the press (criticism); Emma Goldman; John J. O’Rorke. | 
| Named persons | 
| Kate Austin; Leon Czolgosz; Emma Goldman; William McKinley; John J. O’Rorke. | 
| Notes | 
| 
       Click here to 
        view the Truth Seeker editorial referred to in the letter below. 
      Click here to view 
      the magazine’s editorial response to the letter below. Click here to view a reader’s response to the letter below.  | 
  
| Document | 
  Mrs. Austin Has Her Say
 .
       We are strangers, but I am not modest about addressing 
  a stranger when I have something to say. I am heartily disgusted with The Truth 
  Seeker editorial on the assassination of McKinley. It sounds cowardly and it 
  sounds hypocritical.
       If the “enactment of repressive laws” would be 
  “proper enough to protect our representatives,” how can anything that is thus 
  proper work “injustice to innocent people”? Wouldn’t it be more in line with 
  common sense to protest flatly against the enactment of repressive laws, 
  which cannot be right or proper under any circumstances?
       Besides, I cannot see as our representatives 
  deserve special laws for their protection any more than the hod-carrier or day 
  laborer, who on the whole is a far more useful member of society.
       I am sorry to see The Truth Seeker grow rabid 
  in its denunciation of Czolgosz. The line of reasoning adopted by the Editor, 
  namely, that Czolgosz cannot complain at the infliction of the death penalty, 
  because he resorted to “deadly weapons; that if he could reason he had the right 
  to use them, then he must admit others have the same right”—this line of reasoning, 
  I say, is probably the one Czolgosz followed. The ruling classes murder men, 
  year in and year out, legally of course. Their first resort in every difficulty 
  is deadly weapons.
       Czolgosz simply followed their example. [650][651] 
  He presumed it was his duty and a benefit to humanity to remove a certain man, 
  and he did it. The man had never harmed him directly, it is true; neither had 
  the culprit in the felon’s dock who received the death sentence from a murderous 
  judge ever harmed that judge directly, but the judge presumed he had a duty 
  to perform in removing that man, and he did it. I can see no difference in the 
  two acts; both are the wilful [sic] taking of human life, but if obliged to 
  choose between the two I should say Czolgosz’s motive was the nobler of the 
  two. His act meant self-destruction, and this proved his sincerity to a mistaken 
  idea of duty. On the other hand, no judge would sentence another man to death, 
  if the sentence meant his own doom. This proves that their idea of duty is a 
  hypocritical pretense. The assertion in the editorial that “the savage has assassinated 
  our liberties as well as our representative and there is but one deserved 
  fate for him, death!” has a good old-fashioned [?] to it, something like 
  “an eye for an eye,” etc. Perhaps if the ruling class would set a less bloodthirsty 
  example before men, there would not be these few occasions to weep and 
  wail over the untimely taking off of one of their number. That talk about “assassinating 
  our liberties” is bombast. No man can kill liberty. The spirit of liberty will 
  die only when the race is extinct.
       For three weeks the pulpit and press of this country 
  have so far surpassed Czolgosz in their exhibition of murderous frenzy that 
  the latter seems an angel of light in comparison. They have done their best 
  to incite the mob spirit in the ignorant fanatics, and this while innocent 
  men and women are under arrest, with no shadow of evidence against them. The 
  Press has so lied about and vilified an innocent woman that, if acquitted, 
  her life is in danger. Yet you infernal headlights of The Truth Seeker dare 
  not write an editorial in condemnation of this spirit, or say one word in defense 
  of our imprisoned comrades, whom you know to be innocent. I’d hate to 
  feel as small as you must, and I know you will not get angry at anything I say, 
  for you will feel you deserve it. One consolation: I learned in The Truth 
  Seeker news items who that miserable cur John J. O’Rorke is. His letter is circulating 
  far and wide in the press, and unspeakably defames Emma Goldman. The one who 
  made the comment, “that his statement so far as the Manhattan Liberal Club is 
  concerned is a lie,” might just as well have said the whole letter is a lie. 
  O’Rorke is a fine specimen of humanity; no use wasting breath condemning Czolgosz 
  while [?] as he disgrace the earth.
       Well, I’ve said my say, and I feel heartsick over 
  the cowardice and brutality of this age. Sincerely yours,
| Caplinger Mills, Mo. |  
       K A.     
     |