OCR Interpretation

New-York tribune. (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, December 28, 1919, Image 73

Image and text provided by Library of Congress, Washington, DC

Persistent link: http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83030214/1919-12-28/ed-1/seq-73/

What is OCR?

Thumbnail for 11

The Soviet Ark Departs Amid Rousing Cheers
Deportations of Anarchists Are
Approved and More Are
Called For
,/X"W T E GO, but we return,*'
\^/ announced Emm?
? T Goldman and Alex?
ander Berkman, as
they boarded the transport Buford,
to sail, with their 247 companions,
to that land which they have
?pointed out as a model to this coun?
try. The country is frankly over?
joyed to see them go, and is not con?
cerned over their return. "They
will not return," says "The Washing
tori, Evening Star," "they have had.
their day, much too long a day, in
America. They should have been
deported years ago. It is inconceiv?
able that such creatures will ever be
tolerated in this country again. We
are 'on to' their kind, and condi?
tions are such that the gates must be
shut against them."
Along with the rejoicings that
Speed the parting guests the hope is
-jenerally expressed that the Buford
will prove to be the first of a new
transatlantic service, which will not
cease until there has been a substan?
tial diminution in the number of
these alien agitators. We have been
too slow already, in the opinion of
"The Providence Journal," too much
time has been wasted in rounding up
fro "Reds" and listening to their
"reasons" for continued permission
to stay here and attack our insti?
The Faster the Better
"The 'Reds' are entitled to no con
"??deration whatever; the faster thej
?re jailed and sent out of the country
the better it will be for the Americar
people; the disposal of the first lo'
-fives a precedent worth following. Th?
number at large is very great, end th?
government should continue with vigoi
the work thus well begun."
"The ghost of old-time resent
ment against anti-sedition laws nc
loi ger should serve as a bogey t<
frighten the nation against neces
sary legislation for self-protection,'
advises "The Philadelphia Eveninj
Bulletin." "There is a difference be
tween preaching fres speech and !
revolution. The present anarchist
propaganda is just as dangerous as
the German propaganda of Bern
storff and his associates and should
be treated with equal severity."
Entire Country Praises
This frame of mind, as shown in
! the House of Representatives by its
! unanimous passing of the deporta
j tion bill, meets with praise from al
! most the entire country. "The Prov?
idence Journal" (Rep.), "The Phil
; adelphia Inquirer" (Rep.), "The
! Pittsburgh Gazette-Times" (Rep.)
?and "The New York Times"
(Dem.) agree that the situation
| needed severer laws to include all
! varieties of alien revolutionists
... not only, warns "The Times,"
those guilty of the overt act but
"the propagandist in the press, the
helper with the purse as well as the
, maker of the bomb." "The Pitts*
' burgh Gazette-Times," however
does not consider that this begin
ning of actual deportation will ex?
plain the previous "inexcusable de
lay," and asks for light on the sus
plcion that the government has beer
harboring people of radical sympa
thies. "The time is opportune foi
the President to uncover what th<
Department of Labor would ke_ej
, secret." "The Philadelphia In
quirer" would have the Bolshevis
"Ambassador," Martens, head thi
next passenger list.
"The New York World," whicl
| has been warning against too strin
gent sedition laws, approves of thi
i one, but advises a liberal construe
tion. After all, the law should favo
true liberalism:
"It is rash to predict how the ne?
law will eerve. The rule it seeks t
apply should be rather favorable tha
otherwise to that broad liberalism i
progress which most Americans desirt
No proposal of governmental chang
is bo radical that it cannot be sougr
by constitutional methods. The cour
ter menace of Tory reaction will l
; less potent if the enemies of the pe?
pie*? republio at? deprived of their
power to inspira terror end Invite
The deportees, of course, have
protested vigorously against the
government's harshness, but their
coniplaints have called forth no sym?
pathy except from radical papers.
"The New York Times" explains
i their reluctance to leave thus:
"In what other 'bourgeois' common?
wealth can they live so well, meet with so
much official tolerance or long suffering,
make so much noise and money? Thev
are carried from our shores, kicking
and screaming, so to speak. In a prol??
tarian state they cannot hope to cat
of the fat and drink of the sweet, nor
will their vanity long bo made happy
by the sound of the trumpets of no?
Rather than complain, reminds
"The New York Evening Sun," they
should be thankful thut America,
being good-natured and disinclined
to severity, has adopted so mild a
method as deportation ... in
contrast to Russia, where 350 have
jfceen executed for complicity in a.i
?anti-Bolshevik plot. "The Hartford
? Courant" notices how weil off they
'all seemed, especially Emma Gold?
man, with her "rich furs and fine
raiment," and she was not the only
"anarchist-capitalist" who sailed on
the Buford.
\A Prosperous Bunch
"It was a prosperous bunch that the
Buford took away. All of them, or at
i ?
: least the great majority of them, came
j to America poor and unsuccessful.
Here they evidently prospered, either
as professional agitators or as bene
! fletarle? of the countrv's industrial
1 prosperity. While they were prosper
! ing and exchanging their cheap and
' tattered garnients for well made and
well fitting clothes and were laying up
money in banks tbey were denouncing
the land in which they had found the
? means to improve so materially their
condition and were striving to upset
! the system that provided tham with
I protection and opportunity."
"The Providence Journal" is not
: at all concerned over the prospect
that all this property *will be confis?
cated on arrival in Soviet Russia.
To think that, as Russia is so dan?
gerous a place, we should let them
stay here and continue their revolu?
tionary work! What happens to
them after their landing is none of
our concern. They are "despondent
voyagers for Utopia," thinks "The'
! New York Sun," although, if we are
: to believe their praises of Russia as
la land of perfection they should be
overjoyed at the prospect of going
i there. "The Washington Evening
'. Star" speculates on what may hap
jpen when they get here. They are
mainly orators and soapbox agita
tors, of which Russia has had quite
enough. The Soviet government
needs constructive ability, not
words, just now. The new arrivals
will sink into obscurity; they cannot
pose as martyrs in a land already
: full of them.
One of the few dissenting notes
in the joy felt at their departure is
I found in "The New York Evening
World," which fears that a drastic
policy against agitators will result
in swinging popular sympathy to
their side, a= shown by Berger 's in?
creased vote in Milwaukee. Repres?
sion by itself can never overcome
unrest; evil conditions causing it
must be remedied.
The Garbage Fleet
, ?Prom Th* Providence Journal
Radical Protests
Bitter Attacks of Extremists Call Procedure a Vio?
lation of Rights of Free Speech Worthy of Czar
AGAINST the unanimous (
general opinion of the ?
country supporting the de
portations is an equally ?
unanimous condemnation uttered
by the radical organs of the I. W.
W., of socialism and of the intelli- :
gentsia. Typical of the passion and I
wrath expressed by the more ex?
treme papers is the following edi
torial from "The New York Call":
"In the name of 'law and order,' 249
'Reds' and 'radicals' of varying social,
political and economic beliefs have
been lawlessly deported by administra?
tive process to Russia. V.'e are confi- '?
dent that many of the deportees are
happy to get away from the terrorism,
the assaults and the imprisonments to
which they have been subjected and
that they will meet with tolerance at
home. But these deportations, of
which these 249 aro the first, set a
precedent which will make for a per?
manent policy.
Cowardly Editors
"Tho upstarts who are guilty of
these lawless proceedings and the re?
actionary journala that approve of
them pny homage to the Constitution
and the lawful processes it is sup
in sed to guarantee to men and women
charged with public offenses. They
use the Constitution as a footmat and
then tear a passion to tatters because
of the contempt of 'radicals' for their
concept of 'law and order.' If there
are any anarchists in this country
using that word in its worst sense ?
they are to be found among these
functionaries of the Administration
and the cowardly editors who knife
rights in the back while burning In?
cense at the shrine of 'democracy.'"
More moderate in tone and conced
' ing that even men of liberal opinion
! "find it hard to he patient with a
man who insists that the state must
be abolished," is "The New Republic,"
, which none the less feels it to be its
; duty to oppose such deportations.
Its argument is. in fact, as follows:
"Under acts of Congress as they are
-?? --'* -
now Interpreted and enforced by the
Bureau of Immigration, and sustained
la the lower Federal court?, '-?'fiy person
who Is not a citizen of the United
States, however long he may have been
a resident, however peaceable and law
abiding he may have been, may be
summoned before an Inspector of the
Bureau of Immigration and subjected
to an inquisition into his beliefs. ' He
may prove that he has never advocated,
and does not believe In, violence, dis?
obedience to law, or active opposition
to the government. He may be a non
resistant, a philosophic anarchist, a
follower of Tolptoy and Kropoikin, he
may never havo taker, a single active
step toward bringing about the state?
less millennium for which he yearns.
Not for what he has done, not even for
what he has publicly advocated, but
for his private opinions as extracted in
a governmental inquisition, he can be
banished from the United States.
"He is entitled to no trial by jury In ?
court o? justice. The usual safeguards
of due process of law are denied him.
Even the issue of his citizenship may
be conclusively passed upon by the
immigration inspector and his admin?
istrative superiors. The only juris?
diction the courts can exercise is
through the mechanism of a writ of
habeas corpus to ascertain that the
?immigration inspector gave the suspect
a hearing, and the opportunity (gen?
erally illusory because o? the suspect's
poverty) of representation by counsel,
. that he did not misinterpret the law.
j and there was some evidence upon
which he could act. ...
The Spirit of Fair Play
"Yet It is Impossible to believe that
. the average American, brought up to
believe that In this country if nowhere
' else opinions are free, accustomed t?
the spirit of fair play In Judicial pro?
cedure, and with an ingrained detesta?
tion of czarist administrative method?,
?' will in the long run tolerate such
governmental outrages. I? we do not
? repent and expiate the anarchist de?
portations and sedition prosecutions of
1919, as we repented and expiated the
prosecutions under the alien and sedi?
tion laws of 1798, our national worship
j of liberty and due process of law will
indeed have a hollow sound."
Packers Yield a Famous Victory Last Hopes of the Beaten "Wets"
ers is a famous victory
for Attorney General Pal?
mer, but will the public
benefV- in lower prices? Probably
not, according to the overwhelming
tote of editorial opinion. Even the
extreme Democratic partisans, like
"The New York Times," after prais
in* the feat, caution the public
not to be oversangulne of imm?di?
ate drops in prices. Practically all
Republican opinion, most independ?
ent papers and a majority of Demo?
cratic papers, are frankly cynical
of the whole proceeding. Says "The
Chicago News" (Ind. Rep.) :
"Tim? may prove that the whole
theory of the Sherman act is unsound, ?
?*? tha late Colonel Roosevelt con?
tended. Already there is practically j
*?? reason to doubt that the really
?f-Tectlve preventive of the abuso of j
?conomic power and of .otential I
?Monopoly is wise and fully ?equate j
??golation, with repres?ntate of the j
ttovernq-iont and the public he di
?ectorates of dominating co at ions.
"Faith in our anti-trust dation
?a? not yet been sufficiently shaken to
t-wit of large scale experiments under
*?*?? theory of controlled combinations, |
I except, of course, in the field of public
utilities. The packers' compromise
? may bo necessary under a democratic
?ystem, since the people's official repre
j sentatives cling to the policy of break?
ing up and otherwise preventing great
, combinations. In fact, this compro
? mise may play an important part in
the process of modifying the economic
views of the country and causing such
a change of policy that combinations
or powerful corporators will be
authorized and encouraged under sound
; government regulation."
Even more positive doubts are ex
t -ed by "The Philadelphia Eve
Bulletin" (Rep.), which fails to
>w similar unscramblings in the
? of the Tobacco Trust and the
Standard Oil Company benefited the
"The Federal Trade Commission up
nears to have won a famous victory, but
what good will come of it we cannot
tell. To be sure, breakfast foods mav
now come into competition with pork
products, canned fish and lobster can
make faces at tinned beef, and the egt,s
can laugh at the bacon. The bogey of
a food monopoly is laid low, but will
the price of corned beef, for instance,
be lowered as a result of the now
order? That is tho test which in?
terests the average man."
"The Springfield Republican"(Ind.
? Rep.) applauds the victory and con
! eeives that a real check has been ad
i ministered to the monopolistic con?
trol of the American food market.
It discusses the whole problem and
its relation to socialism a3 follows:
"True, a great sendee to society
may have been performed through the
economies made possib'e by the effi?
ciency of large-scale management. The
! story of the profitable utilization of the
by-products o? food animals by the
; concentrated packing industry reads
, like a romance. The humorous saying
that everything in a pig was now made
: an article of commerce except the
I squeal had a basis in reality. The won
; derful elimination of waste has been
i one of the remarkable achievements
' and services of this industry.
"Yet, if the food we eat, the soap
we use, the leather we wear and
numerous other necessaries of every?
day life are to be under the control of
a few private industrial magnates on
a tremendous scale, without effective
competition, why should we any longer
1 regard the industrial organization as
' 'free' or a3 consistent with individual
Initiative and liberty? Why damn so
1 cialir.m and chase its propagandists
into the next town if We must live
anyhow under a form of socialism pri?
vately conducted for private profit?
This is the heart of the issue, and
there is something to it besides the
; mere question of cheapnc.-s of prices."
As for reducing price?, "'The Re?
publican" concedes that no such re?
sult is to be hoped for, and even dis?
cusses the possibility that the ulti
' mate result upon prices may be to
demonstrate the superior economy of
A typical expression of Demo?
cratic opinion of the more extreme
type is the following from "The Phil?
adelphia Record":
"In inducing the big meat packers -
Swift <fc Co., Armour & ('?>., .Morris it
: Co., Wilson & Co., Inc., and the
Cudchy Packing Company?to with
I draw from all interests except those
: directly Involved in the production of
\ meat, poultry, butter, eggs and cheese,
the government has scored a greater
'? victory than many an Administration
: has been able to boast of. In the
i nearly eight years of Roosevelt occu?
pancy of the White House he accom?
plished nothing of such vital impor
: tance to the average American, and
: there is nothing in the Taft* regime
'. to compare with it. Bui the much
maligned Wilson administration, be?
sides winning the World War, to men
- tion but one of its many feats, brings
! the packers to terms with less ado than
- General Leonard Wood would make in
I addressing a Sunday school on the
| burning lessors of patriotism."
?From The St. Louis Post-Dispatch.
- . <*>
I"^\EW, if any, prospects are
H( claimed for the anti-prohi?
bition forces, either of an
oasis before the fatal 16th of
January, or of some way of proving
the Eighteenth Amendment to bo
unconstitutional. The Supreme
Court's decision in favor of war-time
prohibition proved a bitter disap?
pointment to those who had been
preparing to send huge stocks of
liquor to the cities for a "wet"
Christmas, or at least one final
grand and glorious New Year's Eve,
such as there used to be before the
It is felt to be more and more
probable that, in the words of " The
Los Angeles Times," "Bohemia is ?
passing, whether for good or ill."
Still, after the first shock, it was
generally agreed that the Supreme
Court was right, irrespective of the
ment- of prohibition itself. If the
state of war was over, not only the ,
prohibition act, 'out the other war?
time acts, such ;ts the Lever and the
espionage bills, which have boon ex?
tensively used recently, would have
ceased to function,
Many other papers are content
to leave the matter there, while
some go further, to praise or blame .
Congress, and to discuss the ques- !
lion: Has liquor any chance?
These who approve of prohibi?
tion in itself urce that the ultimate
gain will far offset losses in value
of the liquor and in revenue to the
government. If the saloon was a
deterrent to efficiency and aid to
the enemy during the war, asks
"The Rocky Mountain News," whj
be anxious to let down the bars?
Prohibition is, not a sentimental but
an economic issue. The days "when
a man could carry his week's wages
home in a liquid form under his
hide' and beat his wife as an ap- j
propriate end to a perfect day" are \
gone forever, thinks "The Arkansas !
Gazette." ".lohn will be missed," j
says "The St. Paul Daily News," j
"as tuberculosis, smallpox or tooth- j
ache if they were suddenly abol- !
ished." There will, of course, be
some inconvenience at first, but that i
is only the "hangov ;r" after our
wet days, but, as "The Philadelphia i
Public Ledger" agrees, the miseries
caused by drink were much worse.
But the "wets'" chief question is
nut who did it, but what can be done
about it? The only possible chances
are ratificatii n of the peace treaty,
which would leave a brief period be
fore the fatal 16th of January, but
time is flying: a successful attack'
on the amendment itself, and the
loophole remaining in the fact that
the Supreme Court did not decide
what constitutes intoxicating liquor.
'The Baltimore American" reminds
us that nothing has been decided as
to the alcoholic content to be al?
lowed; upholding war prohibition or
constitutional prohibition does not
establish the half per cent rate. I
"There is a loophole," agrees "The
Philadelphia Inquirer," "for beer
and light wines."
"What Is an intoxicating beverage?
Is it the right and duty of Congress to
define it?. If so, it is not ?inncult to i
anticipate that the auestion will be
flung into politics hereafter. If one
Congress can limit alcohol to one
half of one per cent, another can raise
the limit to four or any other per cent
within reason, can it not?
"Public sentiment in the end will
govern. If it decides that the coun- '.
try is better off without beer. Con?
gress will acquiesce. 1? it wishes a
four per cent beer and light wines, it
will elect representatives to Washing?
ton who will proceefl to authorise them.
But it may be taken for granted that
the day of 'hard stuff' is -pone for?-?r."
If Congress should pass a reso?
lution (such as the Knox resolution)
declaring the state of war ended
the President could sign it and de?
clare demobilization at an end, says
The New York Tribune. Time
for this, however, has almost ex?
pired, and the principal question
now concerns the possibility of over?
throwing the amendment, an at?
tempt now being made by that pe?
culiarly independent state, Rhode
Island. This attempt, according to
"The Knickerbocker Press," is
based on Article X of the Consti?
tution, reserving powers not dele?
gated to Congress to the states.
But The New York Tribune
ar-rues that "We, the people," es?
tablished the Constitution and hav#
a right to amend it as we wish.
Judging from all this, the "wets' "
chances are considered very slim.
There may be a brief period before
the 16th or possibly the 29th of
January, but the amendment will
stand, according to the general
view, althou-rh the liquor supporters
will probably fight a desperate legal
battle until the bitter end.
Railroads Must Be Returned?But Flow?
?T IS difficult to draw any definite .
conclusions, from the public opin?
ion of the country upon the rail-.
road problems, save the basic one
that there is apparently an over-,
whelming sentiment against public
ownership of the Plumb plan type or
any other type. Support for nation
? alization is confined to Mr. Bryan,
1 Senator La Follette, the former
i labor supporters of the Plumb plan
1 and the radical press of the country.
' Both Democratic and Republican
' papers are almost unanimous in de?
manding a return to private owner
i ship. As "The Boston Herald"
< states this general attitude:
"The general public is far from be?
ing gratified with the results of gov?
ernment operation of the railroads up
to date. It has watched deficits piling
up; It has seen increasing inefficiency,
the deterioration of rolling stock,
tracks and plant, and a continuous
practice of 'grabbing while the grab
: bing Is good' on the part of different
I groups of employees. It has borne
| these developments with patience dur
? ing the war and demobilization as c
i part of the necessary war burden, but
I to continue them fpr two years or mor?
I of peace, to promote the 'nationalUa
tion' of the roads under the Plumb
plan, would be too much.
"The hope of the railroads, of the
national, industrial, business and pub?
lic interests dependent upon them, and
of the millions of Americans who have
invested their savings In them, lies in
their return to private management as
soon as may be, under legislation al?
lowing them to serve the nation effi?
ciently, to repair deterioration, to com?
pensate adequately all groups of their
employees, and to earn a fair return
upon their capital."
Between the two plans now em
: bodied in bills?the Cummins bill,
which has just passed the Senate,
. and the Esch bill, which the House
> passed some time ago?opinion has
; little detailed criticism to offer. It is
: recognized that the two bills must
'? now be thrashed over at length in
?conference and that anything may
result, A number of papers hope
i that the anti-strike feature of the
! Cummins bill will be preserved, but
! the opposition of labor is recognized
j a3 a powerful factor in the House.
An interesting comparison of the
- two bills is the following from "The
I Springfield Republican," whose high
J praise of Senator Cummins is echoed
in a number of other Democratic
"The Cummins railroad bill has
passed the Senate substantially ns Mr.
Cummins framed i', and this is a no?
table tribute to the Senator. He de?
serves credit for courageous innova?
tions, whether or not they are wholly
wise. To him go the chief responsi?
bility and the credit for such radical
changes in our railroad policy, if en
; acted into law, as a government guar?
antee of a minimum return on tne pri?
vate capital invested and the strength
eui.' .- of weak roads with the surplus
earnings of strong roads, compulsory
consolidation of railroads into some
twenty-live or thirty systems corre?
sponding to as many tranbportation
areas, Federal incorporation of the
I companies, a division of authority be?
tween the old Interstate Commerce
Commission and a new federal trans
I portation board, and declaring strikes
I in Interstate commerce unlawful.
"The House bill is much the more
conservative, in that it leaves the old
I order existing before the war more
nearly intact. By so much the House
. bill is less of a departure from the
principles of private ownership. It
; permits consolidations of railroad, but
1 it does not compel them. It does not
J create a new body to divide authority
with the Interstate Commerce Com
mission. It loaves rate-making exactly
whore it was before the war. It does
not guarantee a minimum return on
capital to the railroad security holders.
Because it is ao conservative the House
bill may be seriously defective, for the
old system, according to the opinion of
the foremost authorities, had broken
down. In regard to credit, the rail
? roads were being starved and their de
? velopment Impeded.
"The Cummins bill represents an ef?
fort, and a very skillful one, to combine
the advantages of government owner-,
ship with the perpetuation of private
ownership, although it is based on the j
assumption that government ownership
is out of the question. Thus it goes
far toward the consolidation of strong
and weak Lines; in rate-making it re?
quires rates that will yield a 'fair' re?
turn, while the guaranteed minimum '.
return amounts to the use of the gov
; eminent credit to insure privately
^?wned railroads against underfeeding
or bankruptcy, the weak and the strong '
; roads being practically merged in the :
ample bosom of the government's finan
cial power and resources."
In general there is astonishingly
little discussion of the bills in detail,
; and, aside from the Plumb pian, uoj
I alternative presented.
Temporarily Solid, Anyhow
?From Tk? Philadelphia Evming Udg*r.~

xml | txt