|  
             At President McKinley’s Bier 
                  That masterly “anatomy of crime,” 
              Dante’s “Inferno,” and withal as sublime as it is a profound treatise 
              on morality, places not the malefactors of ostensibly equal crimes 
              in the same circles of hell. Not all the thieves, for instance, 
              nor all the homicides are lumped together. Where theft is aided 
              by “breach of trust,” the evil-doer is relegated to a deeper groove; 
              and so where homicide has treachery or hypocrisy for its handmaid, 
              the crime is marked of deeper dye, and its perpetrator consigned 
              to direr tortures. 
                   The assassination of rulers is nothing 
              new. It is no special product of the present system. Throughout 
              the ages it has made its appearance, under all forms of society. 
              This notwithstanding, the deed of Czolgosz, following so close upon 
              that of Santos, the assassin of President Carnot, and accompanied 
              with such close resemblance therewith, takes it from the general 
              head of rulercide, and gives notice to society that it has to deal 
              with a Dantescan variety of intensified crime. 
                   Whether personal resentment, private 
              interest, or personal malice hitherto steeled the arm of the assassins 
              of rulers, their deed ever bore the mark of virile boldness. The 
              deed of the Czolgoszes and Santoses lacks this mark; in its stead 
              it carries the brand of hypocrisy and treachery. And it is natural; 
              and herein lies the ominousness of the manifestation. 
                   Former assassinations of rulers were 
              the acts of ORGANIZED forces; the Santos-Czolgosz species is AUTONOMOUS. 
              Organization, however dastardly its purpose, has physical strength 
              in its make-up, is conscious thereof, and demeans itself accordingly: 
              Treachery, therefore, is a mark it need not and does not assume. 
              Otherwise with individualistic autonomy. The single man, whatever 
              his field of operation, is weak as a reed, all the more when his 
              purpose calls for physical effort. Hence what his acts lack in the 
              backing of physical fibre, is substituted with perfidy. Santos clears 
              his way to his victim with a bouquet, in which a dagger lies concealed; 
              Czolgosz throws the guards off their watch with the d[e]meanor of 
              a cripple, his hand that holds the murderous pistol being bandaged 
              with a handkerchief. In the one case as in the other deep-dyed treachery, 
              double-facedness, is the distinguishing feature;—and that is the 
              hellish depth, that, by an inevitable chain of causes and effects, 
              is reached from the premises of individualistic autonomy, or be 
              it the “Manchester School,” or be it the intellectual mother of 
              Capitalist Society. 
                   Not a stricken family merely, mourning 
              the loss of a beloved member; not even millions of partisans merely, 
              mourning the loss of their triumphant standard-bearer; no, not these 
              merely, but the human heart and intellect, standing at President 
              McKinley’s bier, is steeped in gloom at the contemplation of the 
              Santos-Czolgosz flowers of the Upas tree of Individualistic Autonomy. 
             |