, Ariz., Sept.
To the Editor of the Courier:
Dear sir—As a libelous, malicious
attack has been made on the socialists and socialism by the Jour[n]al-Miner,
commonly known as t[h]e Journal-Murphy, of the 10th inst., I req[u]est
the liberty to reply to his (editor Journal-Murphy) senile article
through the columns of the Courier, which I believe you, as an American
and believing in American institutions, will not refuse me. The
life of the president having been attacked by a madman; in other
wor[d]s, an anarchist, this addle-brained editor vents his spleen
npon [sic] the socialists, and would, if possible, place them in
the category of criminal assassi[n]s. The history of socialism and
socialists has proven to the contrary; they have always followed
the rational way of appealing to the individual and collective understanding
of the human race. They believe that an [e]nlightened and civilized
person will not commit overt acts, neither will they condone the
crime of criminals. As the United States has a constitutional government
there is no necessity of appealing to physical force, neither individually
nor collectively, for redress of political grievances, and the party
or individual that advises physical force is un-American, no matter
whether he is a native born or a naturalized foreigner. The soci[a]list
labor party of this country, of which I am a member, strictly adheres
to the constitutional line of action. But the Russian-American editor
of the Journal-Murphy would take away our constitutional rights.
I [s]hould judge his muddled brain has got greatly Russianized.
Why, his [a]rticle is really amusing to me, for this would-be editor
would change the whole phase of American institutions with one swoop
of his pen, for [h]e says he would have legislation passed making
it treasonable for any association of men to get together for any
purpose to attach themselves to any other organization except for
industrial purposes. Thus he would, with one swoop of his pen, swipe
the political machinery from the country. I don’t think he will
get many Americans to consent to his Russian syst[e]m of government.
In referring to my speech on Saturday
evening, in his senility he calls me a blasphemer. I suppose he
considers [a] laboring man has no right to criticize the government.
If there is anything we, as a duty, should honor the revolutionary
fathers for, this has the precedence, the right to criticize and
the right to freedom of speech; this is not of foreign import[a]tion
and is stric[t]l[y] socialistic, yet the J.-M. editor is opposed
to socialism because it is [f]oreign. Yet it is neither foreign
nor America[n], but a discovery by the people of the worl[d] of
an eco[n]omic condition in society, crying out to the people of
the world, “socialize, socialize, socialize.” Eve[n] the J.-M. editor
ca[n] not close his eyes to it or shut it out from his insignificant
bra[i]n; [n]o, it is not the pin-headed, addle-brained anarchist
that the plutocrats of the world fear, but the ever growing economic
conditions that cry out against individ[u]al monopoly of the means
of production and distribution, detrimental to the interests of
a large majority of the people.
Socialism is like unto the s[a]ying
of Thomas Paine: “The world is my country, to do good is my religion.”
It is useless to comment on the last paragraph of his article; it
savors too much of anarchy. While h[e] condemns the attempted assassinatio[n]
of the president, he encourages i[t] against the laboring class
who would dare assert their rights.
J. A. L [ ] .