The Debs Decision
S >>
Scott Nearing >> The Debs Decision
"I think of these little children--the girls that are in the textile
mills of all description in the East, in the cotton factories of the
South--I think of them at work in a vitiated atmosphere. I think of them
at work when they ought to be at play or at school; I think that when
they do grow up, if they live long enough to approach the marriage
state, they are unfit for it. Their nerves are worn out, their tissue is
exhausted, their vitality is spent. They have been fed to industry.
Their lives have been coined into gold. Their offspring are born tired.
That is why there are so many failures in our modern life.
"Your Honor, the five per cent. of the people that I have made reference
to, constitute that element that absolutely rules our country. They
privately own all our public necessities. They wear no crowns; they
wield no sceptres, they sit upon no thrones; and yet they are our
economic masters and our political rulers. They control this Government
and all of its institutions. They control the courts.
"The five per cent. of our people who own and control all of the sources
of wealth, all of the nation's industries, all of the means of our
common life--it is they who declare war; it is they who make peace; it
is they who control our industry. And so long as this is true, we can
make no just claim to being a democratic government--a self-governing
people.
"I believe, your Honor, in common with all Socialists, that this nation
ought to own and control its industries. I believe, as all Socialists
do, that all things that are jointly needed and used ought to be jointly
owned--that industry, the basis of life, instead of being the private
property of the few and operated for their enrichment, ought to be the
common property of all, democratically administered in the interest of
all.
"John D. Rockefeller has today an income of sixty million dollars a
year, five million dollars a month, two hundred thousand dollars a day.
He does not produce a penny of it. I make no attack upon Mr. Rockefeller
personally. I do not in the least dislike him. If he were in need, and
it were in my power to serve him, I should serve him as gladly as I
would any other human being, I have no quarrel with Mr. Rockefeller
personally, nor with any other capitalist. I am simply opposing a social
order in which it is possible for one man who does absolutely nothing
that is useful, to amass a fortune of hundreds of millions of dollars,
while millions of men and women who work all of the days of their lives
secure barely enough for existence.
"This order of things cannot always endure. I have registered my protest
against it. I recognize the feebleness of my effort, but fortunately I
am not alone. There are multiplied thousands of others who, like myself,
have come to realize that before we may truly enjoy the blessings of
civilized life, we must reorganize society upon a mutual and
co-operative basis; and to this end we have organized a great economic
and political movement that is spread over the face of all the earth.
"There are today upwards of sixty million Socialists, loyal, devoted,
adherents to this cause, regardless of nationality, race, creed, color
or sex. They are all making common cause. They are all spreading the
propaganda of the new social order. They are waiting, watching and
working through all the weary hours of the day and night. They are still
in the minority. They have learned how to be patient and abide their
time. They feel--they know indeed--that the time is coming in spite of
all opposition, all persecution, when this emancipating gospel will
spread among all the peoples, and when this minority will become the
triumphant majority and, sweeping into power, inaugurate the greatest
change in history.
"In that day we will have the universal commonwealth--not the
destruction of the nation, but, on the contrary, the harmonious
co-operation of every nation on earth. In that day war will curse this
earth no more.
"Your Honor, I ask no mercy. I plead for no immunity. I realize that
finally the right must prevail. I never more clearly comprehended than
now the great struggle between the powers of greed on the one hand and
upon the other the rising hosts of freedom.
"I can see the dawn of a better day of humanity. The people are
awakening. In due course of time they will come to their own.
"When the mariner, sailing over tropic seas, looks for relief from his
weary watch, he turns his eyes toward the southern cross, burning
luridly above the tempest-vexed ocean. As the midnight approaches, the
southern cross begins to bend, and the whirling worlds change their
places, and with starry fingerpoints the Almighty marks the passage of
time upon the dial of the universe, and though no bell may beat the glad
tidings, the look-out knows that the midnight is passing--that relief
and rest are close at hand.
"Let the people take heart and hope everywhere, for the cross is
bending, the midnight is passing, and joy cometh with the morning....
"Your Honor, I thank you, and I thank all of this court for their
courtesy, for their kindness, which I shall remember always.
"I am prepared to receive your sentence."
Whereupon the judge sentenced Eugene Debs to ten years in the West
Virginia Penitentiary--the penitentiary at Atlanta being too crowded to
receive him.
6. THE APPEAL
An appeal was taken to the Supreme Court of the United States and was
argued on the ground that the Espionage Act was unconstitutional. No act
was charged against Debs, except the Canton speech. In that speech he
had simply stated what he had said a thousand times before, but the
Court held that under the Espionage Act a man who made a speech, the
probable result of which was to create mutiny or to hinder recruiting
and enlistment--was guilty, providing that he did it knowingly and
wilfully. The jury had to decide, first, that he had done something the
probable result of which was to create mutiny or to hinder recruiting
and enlistment, and then if he had done it, that it was done with
intent, knowingly and wilfully. The jury had found Debs guilty under
these circumstances.
Debs was an American, and as an American he relied upon a certain
guarantee contained in the First Amendment to the Constitution:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of
speech or of the press, or the right of the people peacefully to
assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Debs, as an American citizen, relied upon that guarantee, and his
lawyers, in making the appeal, relied upon that guarantee.
Over and against that guarantee was the Espionage Act passed originally
in 1917--June 15th--and amended June 16, 1918.
The language of the original act was as follows:
(Title I, Sec. 3.) "Whoever, when the United States is at war, shall (1)
wilfully make or convey false reports or false statements with intent to
interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces
of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies, and
whoever, when the United States is at war, (2) shall wilfully cause or
attempt to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of
duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or shall (3)
wilfully obstruct the recruiting or enlistment service of the United
States, to the injury of the service or of the United States, shall be
punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more
than twenty years, or both."
The Amended Act was far more drastic:
"Whoever, when the United States is at war, shall wilfully make or
convey false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with
the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United
States, or to promote the success of its enemies, or shall wilfully make
or convey false reports or false statements, or say or do anything
except by way of bona fide and not disloyal advice to an investor or
investors, with intent to obstruct the sale by the United States of
bonds or other securities of the United States or the making of loans by
or to the United States, and whoever, when the United States is at war,
shall wilfully cause, or attempt to cause, or incite or attempt to
incite, insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the
military or naval forces of the United States, or shall wilfully
obstruct or attempt to obstruct the recruiting or enlistment service of
the United States, and whoever, when the United States is at war, shall
wilfully utter, print, write or publish any disloyal, profane,
scurrilous or abusive language about the form of government of the
United States, or the Constitution of the United States, or the military
or naval forces of the United States, or the flag of the United States,
or the uniform of the Army or Navy of the United States, or any language
intended to bring the form of government of the United States, or the
Constitution of the United States, or the military or naval forces of
the United States, or the flag of the United States, or the uniform of
the Army or Navy of the United States into contempt, scorn, contumely,
or disrepute, or shall wilfully utter, print, write or publish any
language intended to incite, provoke or encourage resistance to the
United States or to promote the cause of its enemies, or shall wilfully
display the flag of any foreign enemy, or shall wilfully, by utterance,
writing, printing, publication or language spoken, urge, incite or
advocate any curtailment of production in this country of any thing or
things, product or products, necessary or essential to the prosecution
of the war in which the United States may be engaged, with intent by
such curtailment to cripple or hinder the United States in the
prosecution of the war, and whoever shall wilfully advocate, teach,
defend, or suggest the doing of any of the acts or things in this
section enumerated, and whoever shall, by word or act, support or favor
the cause of any country with which the United States is at war or by
word or act oppose the cause of the United States therein, shall be
punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more
than twenty years, or both." ...
There you have both pieces of legislation. On the one hand, the
Constitution provides immunity, and on the other hand, the Espionage Act
provides a penalty for the expression of opinion.
The Supreme Court on the 10th of March handed down its decision. The
decision was read by Justice Holmes and concurred in by the entire
court.
7. THE SUPREME COURT DECISION
The substance of the decision is contained in the following sentences:
"The main theme of the speech was Socialism, its growth and a prophecy
of its ultimate success. With that we have nothing to do, but if a part
or the manifest intent of the more general utterances was to encourage
those present to obstruct recruiting service, and if in passages such
encouragement was directly given, the immunity of the general theme may
not be enough to protect the speech."
Justice Holmes concludes, after a review of the case, that the immunity,
under the First Amendment, did not protect the speech. In that argument,
he referred to a decision which had been handed down on the 3rd of March
known as the Schenck Case--another Espionage Act case--in which this
point concerning the immunity under the First Amendment was stated at
length by Justice Holmes in this language:
"We admit that in many places and in ordinary times, the defendants
would have been within their constitutional rights. But the character of
every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done.... The
question in every case is whether the words used are used in such
circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present
danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress
has a right to prevent."
That is the Debs decision. That is the method in which the Supreme Court
handled the popular liberties guaranteed under the First Amendment. The
Court might have thrown the Espionage Act out under the First Amendment
as it threw out the Child Labor Law. The Court might have ruled this act
unconstitutional. The Court did not decide that Congress had no right to
pass the Espionage Act. The Court did decide that since Congress had
passed the Espionage Act, Debs had no right to make his speech. What are
the implications of this position of the Supreme Court? "Congress shall
make no law abridging the freedom of speech," says the Constitution.
Congress passed a law abridging the freedom of speech, and the Supreme
Court holds that the Courts, in interpreting the Constitution, must bear
in mind the law that Congress has passed. We had thought that the
Constitutional guarantee was superior to any law that Congress might
pass, but the Court specifically holds in the Schenck Case that if "the
words are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to
create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the
substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent," then the First
Amendment affords no protection.
Congress is made the arbiter. Congress now decides what may be said and
what may not be said.
This means that the Constitution does not guarantee personal liberty.
Speech is free, if you keep within the laws passed by Congress, not
otherwise. "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech,"
declares the Constitution. Speech is free, says the Court, if you obey
the laws passed by Congress. What is the result? If the United States
enters the League of Nations as a constituent part of it, and if the
League of Nations carries on a series of minor wars, this country will
be at war perhaps for fifty years, and during that time free speech will
be banned under this decision of the Supreme Court; during that time
the Espionage Act will operate; there will be no free speech in the
United States.
Congress--under this decision--might pass a law making it a crime to
advocate the establishment of industrial democracy in the United States,
and from the time that law was passed, any man who advocated industrial
democracy in the United States would have no immunity under the First
Amendment.
Congress might pass a law making it a crime to demand that the Courts of
the United States be abolished, and from that time no person could
advocate the abolition of the United States Courts without violating the
law.
Congress might make it a criminal offense to criticize the President and
from that day forward no person could criticize the President without
violating the law.
This decision makes Congress, not the Constitution, the arbiter of the
limits of freedom of expression; therefore, we must conclude that
neither the Courts of the United States, nor the Constitution of the
United States can be relied upon to guarantee the American people the
right of free speech. Thus freedom of discussion is ended. Democracy in
the United States is dead. The Supreme Court on the 10th of March, in
the Debs' case, wrote its epitaph.
A little thought will reveal the seriousness of the situation. A little
reflection will show the position in which the American people find
themselves, with regard to personal liberties, since the tenth of March,
1919.
8. THE CLASS STRUGGLE AGAIN!
Classes have come and classes have gone down through the pages of
history. Whenever the position of a ruling class has been threatened,
the ruling class has crucified the truth-tellers.
Compared with the necessity of protecting ruling class privileges and
prerogatives, the right of a man to express his mind goes for nothing.
That is the lesson of history and that is what we are witnessing today.
Men who have stirred up the people; men who have raised their voices in
protest; men who thought straight; men who have loved their fellow men
too much; men who have had conviction and courage and purpose; men who
were willing to stick by their ideals--such men have suffered in every
age.
Eugene V. Debs has stirred up the people all his life. Since he was a
boy firing a locomotive engine, he has been an agitator. He has always
stood for justice, for liberty and brotherhood. He has loved his fellow
men; he has been gentle and sincere; he has been devoted to what he
regards as the greatest cause in the world. On this war he has stood
like granite, unwavering and unflinching, voicing the protest of the
masses who had no voice with which to speak. He has uttered what they
believed.
The preachers who deserted their flocks; the teachers who betrayed their
trust; the editors who took their 30 pieces of silver in these last few
years--they are free; they are honored; they are respected. But this man
who thought straight; who loved his fellows, who spoke his convictions;
who was true to his ideals--this man is permitted to go to jail by the
Supreme Court of the United States.
I have seen the Supreme Court and I have seen Eugene V. Debs. From the
Supreme Court I got neither love nor inspiration; from Debs I got both.
In his generation in the United States, there is not a greater man than
Eugene V. Debs--not because of what he has done, but because of what he
is, and when the history of this generation is written, that fact will
be recorded.
The masters in all ages have put men like Debs in jail because it is the
truth-teller that the masters fear most. They fear the Truth; they fear
the Light; they fear Justice; and the man who turns on the Light and
speaks the Truth and cries out for Justice--is their greatest enemy. So
they have always tried this process of putting ideas into jail.
9. PUTTING IDEAS IN JAIL
Years ago, when the Mexican War was being fought, an American named
Henry D. Thoreau refused to pay his war tax. He did not believe in the
war and he refused to support the Government that prosecuted the war. So
they put Thoreau in jail. Later he wrote about his experience:
"As I stood considering the walls of solid stone, two or three feet
thick, and the door of wood and iron, a foot thick, and the iron grating
which strained the light, I could not help being struck with the
foolishness of that institution which treated me as if I were mere flesh
and blood and bones, to be locked up....
"I felt as if I alone of all my townsmen had paid my tax....
"I could not but smile to see how industriously they locked the door on
my meditations, which followed them out again without let or hindrance,
and they were really all that was dangerous. As they could not reach me,
they had resolved to punish my body; just as boys, if they cannot come
at some person against whom they have a spite, will abuse his dog.
"I saw that the State was half-witted, that it was timid as a lone
woman with her silver spoons, and that it did not know its friends from
its foes, and I lost all my remaining respect for it, and pitied it.
"Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a
just man is also a prison. The proper place today, the only place which
Massachusetts has provided for her freer and less desponding spirits, is
in her prisons, to be put out and locked out of the State by her own
act, as they have already put themselves out by their principles. It is
there that the fugitive slave, and the Mexican prisoner on parole, and
the Indian come to plead the wrongs of his race, should find them; on
that separate but more free and honorable ground, where the State places
those who are not with her but against her--the only house in a slave
State on which a free man can abide with honor.
"If any think that their influence would be lost there, and their voices
no longer afflict the ear of the State, that they would not be as an
enemy within its walls, they do not know by how much truth is stronger
than error, nor how much more eloquently and effectively he can combat
injustice who has experienced a little in his own person.
"There will never be a really free and enlightened State until the State
comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power,
from which all its own power and authority are derived, and treats him
accordingly."
10. THE SUPREME COURT COULD NOT SAVE SLAVERY
Once before the Supreme Court of the United States tried to save a
decaying social institution--the institution of Slavery. There was a
slave named Dred Scott. He was owned by a resident of Missouri. He was
taken into Minnesota and into Illinois. Illinois was a free State by its
own laws. Minnesota was free by the Missouri Compromise of 1820. Then
his master took Dred Scott back to Missouri, and there Dred Scott tried
to gain his freedom. The case was finally decided by the Supreme Court
of the United States in 1857.
The Supreme Court held (two justices dissenting) that Scott could not
sue in the lower courts because he was not a citizen and, therefore, was
not entitled to any standing in the courts; that at the time of the
formation of the Constitution, negroes descended from negro slaves were
not and could not be citizens in any of the States; and that there was
no power in the existing form of Government to make citizens of such
persons. In the course of his decision, Judge Taney used the following
language:
"It is difficult, at this day, to realize the state of public opinion
which prevailed in the civilized and enlightened portions of the world
at the time of the Declaration of Independence, and when the
Constitution was framed and adopted in relation to that unfortunate
race. But the public history of every European nation displays it in a
manner too plain to be mistaken. They had for more than a century before
been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to
associate with the white race, either in social or political relations;
and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was
bound to respect, and that the negro might justly and lawfully be
reduced to slavery for his benefit. He has been bought and sold and
treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever a
profit could be made by it. The opinion was at that time fixed and
universal in the civilized portion of the white race."
The Chief Justice went farther than the point at issue warranted, and
stated that the power of Congress to govern territory was subordinate to
its obligation to protect private rights in property and that slaves
were property and as such were protected by the constitutional
guarantees; that Congress had no power to prohibit the citizens of any
State to carry into any territory slaves or any other property, and that
Congress had no power to impair the constitutional protection of such
property while thus held in a territory.
The Dred Scott decision fastened Slavery forever upon the United States.
Slavery lasted just six years.
11. MORE PATCH WORK!
At the present time, Capitalism is tottering to its downfall. The world
is in chaos and revolution. The Supreme Court has handed down a decision
which ostensibly will assist in preserving established order, but the
United States is a Capitalist nation and, as Mr. Wilson himself has so
admirably put it:
"The masters of the Government of the United States are the combined
capitalists and manufacturers of the United States." ("New Freedom,"
page 57.)
Capitalism is disappearing from Europe--Russia, Germany, Austria,
Bohemia, Hungary--the list is growing from week to week. When the
President came back on his little visit to America there was one new
thing that he said, and only one new thing:
"The men who are in conference in Paris realize as keenly as any
Americans can realize that they are not the masters of their people."
(Boston, February 24th, 1919.)
"When I speak of the nations of the world, I do not speak of the
governments of the world. I speak of the peoples who constitute the
nations of the world. They are in the saddle, and they are going to see
to it that if present governments do not do their will, some other
government shall, and the secret is out and the present governments know
it." (Boston, February 24th.)
"I want to utter this solemn warning, not in the way of a threat; the
forces of the world do not threaten, they operate. The great tides of
the world do not give notice that they are going to rise and run; they
rise in their majesticity and overwhelming might and they who stand in
the way are overwhelmed. Now the heart of the world is awake and the
heart of the world must be satisfied. Do not let yourselves suppose for
a moment that the uneasiness in the populations of Europe is due
entirely to economic causes and economic motives; something very much
deeper underlies it all than that. They see that their governments have
never been able to defend them against intrigue or aggression, and that
there is no force of foresight or of prudence in any modern cabinet to
stop war." (New York, March 4th, 1919.)
Then comes Mr. Wm. Allen White on the 11th of March with a similar
statement. On the next day comes Mr. Lansing with the statement that
unless something is done and done quickly, the capitalist system in
Europe will be overthrown. The world is in chaos. The fabric of
civilization is threatened. The health and happiness--the very life of
the world--is threatened.