[untitled]

PRESCOTT, Ariz., Sept. 13.     

To the Editor of the Courier:
     Dear Sir—If you don’t consider it trespassing too much upon your generosity I should like to reply to the continued prattle of the editor of the Journal-Miner. It seems almost useless to waste time upon a man of such minute brain power that he cannot discern the difference between socialism and anarchy. The premise that anarchists start out with is individual liberty—therefore no law no government; to them individual liberty is greater than social protection. The premise that socialists start out with is that society interests require protection for mutual good—therefore society must have laws and government. But this would be moulder of public opinion says that the assassin who attempted the life of the president is an avowed socialist, and that, so far as some socialists are concerned, the Journal-Miner has them in the correct category. Right here the J.-M. editor admits that he misrepresented the facts of the case and tries to bolster up his malicious libel on socialists by trying to make out that anarchists are socialists. He, no doubt, would try to make the public believe there are white blackbirds if it didn’t know differently. Czolgosz said himself that he was an anarchist and committed the deed as an anarchist for the cause, and that he became an anarchist through hearing Emma Goldman’s lectures. But this crawfish editor tries to make the public believe that all anarchists are socialists while all socialists may not be anarchists. Their teachings are as opposite as the antipodes as day and night, and no well informed person would attempt to associate the two.
     Then, to bolster up his muddle-headed argument he adduces muddle-headed evidence. There is nothing in the evidence to prove that the witnesses knew, either, what socialism or anarchy is. The concluding evidence is that of Emma Goldman, which proves only that she is an anarchist—she plainly states that; the same with Czolgosz.
     The Journal-Miner says that the underlying principle of the anarchist is murder and that this is the means whereby they intend to bring about socialism; in other words they murder to bring about that to which they are opposed. It says that the socialists do not go that far, another admission that socialism and anarchism are different in principle and that socialists are rational people and believe in constitutional means of attaining their ideal. Again, he says no man ever became an anarchist without going through the modern school of socialism. This shows that the J.-M. don[’]t know anything of the history of modern socialism, for socialism has has [sic] and is supplanting anarchy in every country wherever it took root (History of Modern Socialism, by Lucian Saneal, 2-6 New Reade St., New York). But as the J.[-]M. has everything upside down or back foremost, I don’t wonder at this. If the J.-M. seeks to go to heaven he will find that he will land in an opposite direction. He says that modern socialism consists in fault finding. This he seems to consider a great evil. I suppose had he lived in Revolutionary days he would have been a Tory and been satisfied; but fault finders who were not satisfied found a remedy and successfully applied it, and the result is that this is the most progreesive [sic] nation on earth today.
     While the socialists find fault with existing conditions they see in it the seed of a new and better state of society. Again, he says that socialism is an unobtainable ideal beceuse [sic] of the evil desires of the human mind. This is what monarchists said about republicans when they agitated for republican institutions; but republics came all the same, and so will socialism, through the higher expression of human intelligence after it has grasped the economic conditions under which we are living and know how to benefit by the knowledge.

Yours truly,                    
J. A. LEACH.