| Publication information | 
| Source: St. John Daily Sun Source type: newspaper Document type: editorial Document title: “The Assassination” Author(s): anonymous City of publication: St. John, Canada Date of publication: 7 September 1901 Volume number: 24 Issue number: 215 Pagination: 4 | 
| Citation | 
| “The Assassination.” St. John Daily Sun 7 Sept. 1901 v24n215: p. 4. | 
| Transcription | 
| full text | 
| Keywords | 
| McKinley assassination (international response); assassinations (comparison); William McKinley; anarchism (international response); McKinley presidency; freedom of speech (restrictions on). | 
| Named persons | 
| Elizabeth; Humbert I; William McKinley. | 
| Document | 
  The Assassination
     For the third time since the war 
  of the rebellion a president of the United States has been struck down by the 
  hand of an assassin. Of the seven presidents elected to that office since the 
  beginning of 1864, three have so fallen. Within some six years the butchery 
  of a President of France, an Empress of Austria, the King of Italy, and this 
  last tragedy have taken place. The European murders were in all cases the work 
  of professed anarchists, and the wretch who sought the life of President McKinley 
  seems to be a member of the same school of assassins.
       At the time of writing there is some reason to 
  hope that the attempt to take the life of the President of the United States 
  has failed. But the nature of the wound is such as to make the result uncertain 
  for some days at the best, while the worst may be reported at any moment. The 
  life of an eminent and worthy man, who has filled with credit to himself and 
  his country the highest position in the gift of the nation, hangs in the balance.
       President McKinley has been the Governor of his 
  state, the leader of his party in congress both in power and in opposition, 
  and the author of the most important tariff measures in the history of the country. 
  He has been twice elected president[,] and in that position has had the control 
  of the greatest national enterprises which the nation has attempted since the 
  civil war. Whatever objection may be taken to the policy for which he stood, 
  it is everywhere admitted that he has courageously, manfully and honorably worked 
  out his share of it. Moreover, he is a man of a chivalrous nature and kindly 
  disposition, who has made more friends and fewer enemies than most public men 
  in his country. But these things count for nothing with the type of criminal 
  who lies in wait to murder the rulers of the land. When the kindly Empress Elizabeth 
  was slain at Geneva, some of the horde who applauded the act said that there 
  was more need to kill good queens than bad ones, as they made royalty popular. 
  The same doctrine was propounded after the murder of King Humbert of Italy, 
  one of the best of sovereigns.
       This crime would at any time awaken feelings of 
  horror and execration throughout the British Empire. But at this particular 
  period in the history of the kindred nations the expression of sympathy with 
  the afflicted republic will be most generous, hearty, universal and sincere. 
  In truth the British people who were forformerly [sic] disposed to consider 
  the Cleveland school of democrats their friends, rather than the authors of 
  the McKinley bill, and the imperial class of republicans, have learned many 
  things of late. It was not from the Harrison and McKinley governments, but from 
  the two Cleveland cabinets that nearly all the offences against international 
  good manners, good faith and good law were perpetrated against Great Britain 
  and Canada. From President McKinley and his administration it has not always 
  been possible for Canada to obtain what we thought was just, but at least the 
  United States position has been maintained with dignity and courtesy and with 
  a decent regard for the amenities of national intercourse. If Great Britain 
  found the United States repudiating or refusing to confirm a treaty signed by 
  her own secretary of state, the fault was not with the President, but of the 
  senate which rejected his advice. Therefore there are personal reasons, besides 
  the common impulse of humanity, why this murderous act should shock and anger 
  the people of the Empire.
       If this crime prove to be the work of one of the 
  anarchists who have found shelter in the United States, it will lead to some 
  searching of hearts. The man who killed the King of Italy is said to have gone 
  to that country from a New Jersey city, charged to commit this act. We have 
  all read in various New York papers reports of speeches made in Paterson and 
  elsewhere commending this regicide. What wonder that among the men who have 
  heard the murderer praised as a hero, and honored as a martyr, some one or more 
  should be found to imitate him? Here is where the responsibility of the nation 
  comes in. So long as the victims were European sovereigns these encouragers 
  and instigators of assassination were allowed to go on with their propaganda. 
  The orators are not the murderers. As a rule they are too careful of their own 
  skins to adopt that role. But they are a source of crime, and perhaps it will 
  now be found necessary to limit the privilege of free speech in America as has 
  been done in some parts of Europe.