"As a revolutionist, I have no respect for capitalist property laws, nor the least scruple about violating them.... I am law abiding under protest--not from scruple--and bide my time."

"Let the sturdy toilers of the Pacific Coast raise the Red standard of revolt."

"All hail to the revolution."

"I enter the prison doors a flaming revolutionist, my head erect, my spirit untamed, and my soul unconquered."

"In Russia and Germany our valiant comrades are leading the proletarian revolution.... They are setting the heroic example for world-wide emulation. Let us, like them, scorn and repudiate the cowardly compromisers within our ranks, challenge and defy the robber-class power, and fight it out on that line to victory or death."

This favorite leader of the radicals of America was convicted by jury of violation of the Espionage Law on September 12, 1918, and two days later sentenced to serve ten years in the penitentiary. The case was appealed on the ground that the Espionage Act was an unconstitutional abridgment of the right of free speech. The decision of the United States Supreme Court was handed down on March 10, 1919. In the words of a Socialist work, Trachtenberg's Labor Year Book, 1919-1920, page 102, "The Court held that the law was not contrary to the Constitution and affirmed the sentence imposed upon Debs by the lower court. The decision was unanimous that the nature and intended effect of his speech was to obstruct recruiting and enlistment in the army."

Yet this same Year Book, in its account of "The Emergency Convention of the Socialist Party" at Chicago in August-September, 1919, says, page 409: "The Convention went on record offering the presidential nomination of the party to Eugene V. Debs, the nomination to be ratified at the 1920 Convention."

On March 5, 1920, at Albany, in the final argument for the five suspended Socialist Assemblymen, according to the "New York Times" of March 6, 1920, Seymour Stedman said of Debs: "He represents in a sense the Socialist movement. Perhaps he represents it more completely than any other man in this country."

"The testimony leading up to Mr. Hillquit's admissions was given after Martin Conboy of counsel for the Judiciary Committee had read into the record a speech and a signed article by Victor L. Berger. In the speech, delivered at the Socialist National Convention in 1908, Mr. Berger said:

"'I have no doubt that in the last analysis we must shoot, and when it comes to shooting, Wisconsin will be there.'

"In the signed article which appeared in a Socialist newspaper published in Milwaukee the following year, he wrote:

"'Socialists and workingmen should ... have rifles and the necessary rounds of ammunition ... and be prepared to back up their ballots with their bullets.'"

In reply, according to the "New York Times" of February 20, 1920, putting his own far-fetched construction on Victor L. Berger's words, Morris Hillquit himself advanced the doctrine of "a little shooting" in the following statement:

"'History ... has shown that when the privileged minority is about to lose its privileges ... it tries to destroy reform or lawful revolutionary movements by force, ... and in a case of this kind it may come to shooting.

"'It is not at all impossible that, even in this country, when the majority of the people will be ready to introduce substantial reform and take away the privileges of the profiteering class by constitutional, legal methods, these self-same profiteering interests will take offense and try to play some trick upon the people, and in that case it is possible--as a matter of prophecy, not as a matter of program, so far as we are concerned--that the people of this country will be compelled to supplement their political action by a little shooting.'"

Testifying the same day, Hillquit endorsed Debs as follows, according to the "New York Times" of February 20, 1920:

The hypocritical defense made by the Socialists at Albany, through which the unchanged character of the unrepentant plotters has constantly revealed itself, should put us on our guard. Brought into the light by wholesale arrests and deportations, all branches of radicalism, in this country and at Moscow, have adopted new tactics of deception. They profess peace and a return to peaceful methods, claim the liberties which belong only to the law-abiding, and hide behind the sympathies of those who are easily taken in. Yet they justify all their misdeeds, and withdraw none of their evil principles, but rather reaffirm them, with subtlety. What does this mean? It means that the old conspirators, whose overt acts have lately crowded our law-courts, hope to fool the American people into letting them continue their propaganda unto lawlessness under a thin mask of conformity to the very laws they seek to destroy.

Still more significant, the same magazine for February, 1920, published a new incitement to revolution by Leon Trotzky, together with a "Call for Proletarian International" signed by "The Bureau of the Central All-Russian Council of Industrial Unions" and an "Appeal of the Russian Industrial Unions to the Workers of the Allied Countries" signed by "The Bureau of the All-Russian Council of Industrial Union." The "call" reads:

"The Central All-Russian Council of Industrial Unions invites all economic organizations based on the real and revolutionary class struggle for the liberation of labor through the proletarian dictatorship to solidify anew their ranks against the international league of brigands, to break with the international of conciliators, and to proceed in unison with the Central All-Russian Council of Industrial Unions toward the organization of a truly international conference of all Socialistic labor unions and veritable revolutionary workers' syndicates.

"We beg all economic labor organizations that accept the program of the revolutionary class struggle to respond to our call and enter in a direct touch with us."

The accompanying I. W. W. comment was, "We are sure that our organization will be there." Thus, if it be under ground, the mole still works. Moscow still inflames, unifies and directs the great world-conspiracy against the "Entente Powers" and all the nations that have been looking toward peace. The "Appeal," accompanying the "call," says in part:

"Can it be true, that you, the workers of England, France, Italy and the United States, will much longer support your governments and permit your blood to quench the spreading conflagration of the social revolution? Can it be that the international bandits of the League of Nations and the thrice-branded Versailles shall be allowed unhampered to weave their nets for the strangling of the world proletarian revolution?...

"Down with the bandits of imperialism!

"Long live the World Proletarian Revolution!

"Long live the International Soviet Republic!"

An editorial note on the same page, immediately below the article of Trotzky, says: "The above article and the APPEAL OF THE RUSSIAN INDUSTRIAL UNIONS TO THE WORKERS OF THE ALLIED COUNTRIES are taken from documents on Russia of the working class, written by members of the Soviet Government.... These materials were sent to Fellow Worker Wm. D. Haywood by Comrade Leon Trotzky, the valiant Commissary for War of the victorious Workers' Commonwealth. We are happy to announce that the I. W. W. will be the first to publish these latest documents on peasant and industrial life in Bolshevikland."

This pest-house of treason and lawlessness, the Rand School, Hillquit's pet university of Socialism, ought to be dug up by the roots. And what shall we say of such evidence? Why should the Socialist Party of America hesitate to affiliate with the Third (Moscow) International and approve its "programs and methods" when Hillquit's illegitimate offspring, the Rand School, was teaching such "methods" a year before the Bolsheviki seized Petrograd and the dictatorship? Is Hillquit Lenine's pupil or Lenine's teacher? Is Hillquit, backer of the Rand School propaganda, the same gentle Morris Hillquit who as an "expert on Socialism" testified before the Assembly Judiciary Committee on February 17, 1920:

"The word 'revolution' does not have for us the romantic significance of barricade fights or other acts of violence that it has for most of our newspaper writers and school boys." ("Sun and New York Herald," February 18, 1920.)

And perhaps the "school boys" Hillquit referred to are those by his pet institution poisoned and turned into degenerates in the bud of manhood, like poor Oscar Edelman, whose valedictory speech on graduating from a course in the Rand School of Social Science ran thus:

"For us as students, Socialists and Labor Unionists, our work is laid out. We must help educate the workers of America so that their slogan, 'a fair day's wage for a fair day's work' be replaced by the revolutionary slogan, 'abolition of the wage system.' ... In the great world-struggle which is taking place today, we must take active part.... The ideals which today inspire Debs and Lenine are the ideals which inspire us." (Lusk Committee evidence, quoted from "The National Civic Federation Review," July 30, 1919.)

But of all the sublime performances of Hillquit, that which lays the brightest crown on his veracity was the answer he gave at Albany on February 17, 1920, to the long hypothetical question concerning the attitude of the Socialists should their friends of the Third International, the Bolsheviki, invade the United States.

At this question the redoubtable Mr. Hillquit, according to the "New York Times" of February 18, 1920, "settled back in his chair and smiled" and said: "I should say that the Socialists of the United States would have no hesitancy whatsoever in joining forces with the rest of their countrymen to repel the Bolsheviki who would try to invade our country and force a form of government upon our people which our people were not ready for and did not desire." (Italics mine.)

Had Hillquit stopped where the italics began he would have stretched our credulity to the utmost. But if "our people" meant to him American Socialists, we readily believe that invading Bolsheviki, coming to wrest the American dictatorship from our native talent, would find themselves and their undesirable "form of government" pitched into the sea by Hillquit and his crowd. Majority Socialist against Spartacide and Bolshevik against Menshivik--we have seen how one Socialist group repels the "form of government" forced by another.

As we think of Hillquit's love for peaceful "political action"--on the witness stand--those words from his foundling, the "New York Call" of May 1, 1919, return to our minds:

"The world revolution, dreamed of as a thing of the distant future, has become a live reality, rising from the graves of the murdered millions and the misery and suffering of the surviving millions. It has taken form, it strikes forward, borne on by the despair of the masses and the shining example of the martyrs: its spread is irrepressible....

"The war of the nations has been followed by the war of the classes. The class struggle is no longer fought by resolutions and demonstrations. Threateningly it marches through the streets of the great cities for life or death."

Mr. William English Walling, in an article published in the "New York Times," January 20, 1920, asks a pertinent question about the revolutionary activities of the American Socialist Party:

"The 'American Socialist Party,' finds itself compelled, precisely like Lenine, to pretend to be a peace-loving organization, loyally accepting constitutional democracy and opposed to violence. Are we to take it at its own word? Is it possible that a few pious phrases offered on occasion can deceive the American people as to the nature of a propaganda organization that is shouting from the housetops in every corner of the country and every day of the year?

"The only imaginable reason why the public has paid any attention is that there are two or three organizations more wholly given over to violence, whereas the Socialist organization gives a share of its attention to party politics. It was said until recently, 'Oh, the anarchists are for violence, but the Socialists are for law and order.' Last August it was found that a large part of the Socialists were for immediate revolution. Then it was said that the Communists are revolutionary, but the Socialists are for law and order. The reasoning was that if the Left Wing was for immediate revolution, then the Right Wing must be for law and order!"

The tactics of Lenine, Trotzky and Zinovieff, the Bolshevist "triumvirate" of Russia, and of Ludwig C. A. K. Martens and Morris Hillquit in America, are so similar that the evidence brought by Lincoln Eyre out of Russia perfectly interprets the "weasel words" of Martens and Hillquit on the witness stand at Washington and Albany, respectively. Hillquit, the connecting link, according to his testimony at Albany, February 19, 1920, was born at Riga, Russia; came to America a boy, like so many Russian immigrants; attended New York's public schools; and under the protection of the Stars and Stripes, which he would drag down, has made himself so emphatically one of the "capitalists," whom he hates, that he resides on New York's famous "Riverside Drive," and was able to testify with a smirk, "I flatter myself that I am not a failure." (See printed "Testimony" of the trial of the five Assemblymen for the details.)

A moral failure, without extenuation, most Americans will regard Morris Hillquit. For out of thirty-five years, spent by him on our hospitable shores in getting rich under the protection of our Government, institutions and people, he has used at least twenty in trying to destroy the benefactor that nursed him. See the "New York Evening Telegram" of February 17, 1920, as follows: "Mr. Hillquit was called to the stand as the first witness for the five Assemblymen. He gave his residence as No. 214 Riverside Drive, New York City. Mr. Hillquit said he had lived in this country thirty-five years, and had been a Socialist since the party was organized, in 1900."

"Mr. Hillquit testified at length concerning Soviet Russia.... Mr. Hillquit also testified that there were differences between Soviet Government, Bolshevists and the Moscow International. The latter, he said, did not represent Soviet Russia, and the Bolshevists, he said, were merely a national party of Russia." (Italics mine.)

In a cabled account of an interview with Zinovieff, sent by Lincoln Eyre from Russia to the "World," headed, "Riga (by courier via Berlin), Feb. 24," and printed in the "New York World" of February 26, 1920, we have a flood of light showing that the central plot of the Socialist international conspiracy hinges precisely on the distinction which Hillquit had made at Albany a few days before, namely, that the Moscow International does "not represent Soviet Russia." Through the courtesy of the "New York World" we quote from its issue of February 26, 1920, the essential parts of Eyre's statement as follows:

Let us ponder this description of the Third International by its manager and greatest living expert: its scope, a confederation of the world's Communists, a coalition of the Communist parties of all countries; its size, 8,000,000 members, perhaps greatly exaggerated; its nature, "an instrument of revolution;" and its determination, to carry on propaganda, for the violent seizure of every land by a dictatorship, "no matter what happens, legally or illegally." Let us reflect that it is with this Third International, and not the Russian Soviet Government, that Hillquit's Party in America is affiliated, according to the testimony of the Socialists themselves at Albany. Finally, with these facts for a plummet, let us try to find the bottom of Hillquit's hypocrisy in pretending at Albany that he and his disciples do not believe in "revolution" but only in "evolution."

Before passing from Lincoln Eyre's testimony, we further quote from his cable in the "World" of February 26, 1920, what we may call his description of "the Third International at work," as follows:

Thus the overtures of peace and promises of good behavior made by the Russian Soviet Government to the other Powers are pure humbug; and equally false are the professions of peace in America which Hillquit's branch of the Third International has made to lull the fears of the American people. To get the full force of this parallelism we have only to place the law-breaking Socialist Party of America since 1917 in juxta position with the hypocritical Socialist professions and principles brought out in 1920 during the trial of the Assemblymen at Albany.

We have seen how Hillquit on the witness stand justified the disloyal and violently revolutionary utterances of two of the chief offenders, Debs and Victor L. Berger, identifying himself with their sentiments and proclaiming Debs as the highest type of American citizen, the man most fit for President of the United States. We have also seen that the whole Socialist Party was in 1919 committed to the nomination of Debs as its Presidential candidate in 1920; while it is a well known fact that when Congress excluded Victor L. Berger from that body because of his conviction as a lawbreaker, the lawless Socialist Party at once re-elected him to show its contempt for law and order under our institutions.

The testimony piled up by the prosecution at Albany showed that, instead of judging the wholesale lawbreaking by its leaders and members in 1917 and 1918, the Socialist Party had in 1919 and 1920 involved itself in a still deeper guilt, adding treason to disloyalty by affiliating itself with the open enemies of our Government in Russia and other foreign lands. Was this denied by the Socialist defense at Albany? No, the fact of affiliation with the Third (Moscow) Internationale was admitted, reducing the defense to the false principle that the five Socialist Assemblymen should not be excluded on account of their signed pledge of obedience to a lawless organization, no matter how lawless it might be. Thus in summing up for the defense, on March 3, 1920, Morris Hillquit, according to the "New York Times" of March 4, 1920, made the following excellent summary of the evidence against his party:

Similarly, Seymour Stedman, summing up for the Socialists on March 5, 1920, not being able to deny the many convictions of leaders and members of the Socialist Party under the Espionage Law, openly attacked the law itself, according to the following account in the "New York Evening Sun" of March 5, 1920:

"Albany, March 5.--A bitter attack on the Espionage Act was made by Seymour Stedman in his final summing up for the five suspended Socialists before the Judiciary Committee of the Assembly today.

"'Because of that act, you don't know the truth about this war; you cannot know the truth about this war until the Espionage Act is dead,' he asserted....

"Mr. Stedman admitted that the St. Louis war platform of the Socialist Party was drawn 'in lurid language to meet a situation in high flame,' but said no meeting could be called to consider amending it because those who favored it might have been convicted under the Espionage Act....

"Mr. Stedman contended that, of course, the Socialists took their oath to uphold the Constitution of New York State and the United States with the idea that they could interpret for themselves what the Constitution means.

"'Each public officer who takes an oath to support the Constitution swears that he will support it as he understands it, and not as it is understood by others.'"

The "New York World" of March 6, 1920, also gives the following specimen of Stedman's reasoning:

"Answering the charge that Socialists generally were guilty of law violations, he exclaimed: 'Go down to the penitentiaries and get the histories of the birds there and you won't find any Socialists.

"'We are quite willing to say that if 2,000 Socialists had been arrested during the war, we are guilty.'"

It is difficult to follow this logic. After telling us that we wouldn't "find any Socialists" in the penitentiaries, did Stedman suddenly bethink himself of the scores convicted, and then, on the spur of the moment, fix 2,000 as the number of "arrests" necessary to wring from Socialists the confession, "We are guilty"? From a Socialist work, Trachtenberg's Labor Year Book, 1919-1920, page 92, we quote the following figures for Stedman's edification:

"The total number of prosecutions for violation of the Espionage Act from June 15, 1917, to July 1, 1918, were 988. Of these, 197 pleaded guilty and were sent to prison, 166 others were convicted (a large number appealing), and 497 cases were pending for trial July 1st, while 128 had been acquitted or dismissed up to that time. The act has been enforced with increasing vigor since that date, but no official figures subsequent thereto are available."

In short, even accepting Stedman's extraordinary dictum that "2,000 Socialists ... arrested" is the minimum necessary to force Socialists to confess themselves "guilty," that test is more than met by the arrests already known.

Martin Conboy, in summing up for the State in the proceedings before the New York Assembly Judiciary Committee, on March 4, 1920, according to the "New York Times" of March 5, 1920, accused the Socialist counsel and witnesses of "evasive and hypocritical sentiments, expressed on the witness stand, to throw the dust of political, parliamentary and inoffensive acts into the eyes of this Committee and the correspondents of the newspapers." On the other hand, he said, "the leaders of the Socialist Party" lost "no opportunity" to "impress upon the rank and file of that organization that it is impossible to achieve the ultimate triumph of their cause by political action," in support of which he cited the testimony in evidence as follows:

"Every manifesto, every platform, almost every utterance of the Socialist orator carries with it the party mandate that the workers of America should be organized industrially so as to be submissive to the command of a revolutionary leadership.

"In adopting a programme of industrial action, involving the use of the general strike, the Socialist Party has stripped itself of the mask of political action and stands revealed as a radical revolutionary propaganda organization.'"

Another part of Mr. Conboy's address we cite from the "Sun and New York Herald" of March 5, 1920:

Again, in a part of his address reported in the "New York Evening Sun" of March 4, 1920, Mr. Conboy mentioned the fact that "at the National Convention of the Socialist Party of America held in St. Louis," in April, 1917, "its members were directed to deny and repudiate allegiance to this Government," and added:

"The explanation of the anti-American attitude of the Socialist Party of America during the war lies in the anti-national and pro-international character of its programme. Its members are not occasional but perpetual traitors, in constant conflict not merely with the purposes of any temporary administration of the affairs of this Government, but with the very institutions and fundamental laws. They are citizens not of the United States, but subjects of the Internationale, whose pronouncements are to be given their moral support, a support which they not only withhold from but deny to the Government of the United States.

"The principal exponent of this party, who appears here in the dual capacity of witness in chief and counsel in chief, is the international secretary for America of the International Socialist Bureau."

"The Conference ... perfected the organization of the new International and entrusted the direction of the work to an Executive Committee consisting of one representative from the Communist parties of the more important countries. The parties in Russia, Germany, German-Austria, Hungary, Switzerland, Sweden and the Balkan Federation, were directed to send members to the Executive Committee. Parties which have declared their adherence to the new International will be given seats in the Executive Committee, pending the arrival of delegates from other countries. The members of the Committee from the country in which the Executive Committee has its seat [Russia] were empowered to plan the work of the new organization. The Executive Committee was authorized to elect a bureau consisting of five members to do the actual work of the Committee."

Has the Socialist Party of America contributed its Executive Committeeman to this revolutionary machine? Even so, the orders, or "suggestions," evidently come from the Bolshevist Bureau of Five who "do the actual work of the Committee." Are these the Russian power that, according to correspondence found in a raid of the Lusk Committee, has already appointed Eugene V. Debs to reign over us "as 'Proletarian Dictator' of the United States" as soon as the plotted revolution is pulled off in this country? (See "The National Civic Federation Review" for July 30, 1919.) Are these the power, too, according to report, that induced the Italian Socialists and Syndicalists to postpone their proposed revolution to a more convenient season? And was this to give Soviet Russia a chance to put through a temporary peace or truce with Europe to stave off "economic catastrophe?" If so, the twitching revolutionaries in other lands must evidently train their toes to dance at Moscow's convenience.

Meanwhile, under the International, the diabolical work of getting the immoral elements ready for violence goes on in every land, including the United States.

"Socialism does not believe in the State, wants to annihilate it entirely. It holds that the task of the State has always been to oppress the country in the interests of one class. So long as there are classes in society which seek supremacy, the mastery, there must be a State. But as soon as classes are eliminated the State will have no justification for existence, and it will disappear of itself.

"The Socialist movement rouses the workingmen to revolution. It preaches to them the class struggle, awakens within them class-consciousness, makes all necessary preparations for Socialistic order. When society is ready for the overturn, when the Socialistic organization feels that the moment has come, it will make the revolution.

"The dictatorship will be employed for the one thing, to eliminate capitalism by force, take away by force the capital from private owners and transfer it to the ownership of the community. The industries will be managed by the workingmen through their soviets.

"Let the true Socialists stand as sentinels; let them see that the Socialist programs strike with hot, revolutionary blood. The great task of the Socialist movement is to create an army in this country which should be ready to make the Socialist revolution when the suitable moment arrives. This army must know its aims and the method of attaining these aims, must be an intelligent army. Every soldier in it must himself know the way, the plans, the strategy."

In the "Outline of the Evidence Taken Before the Judiciary Committee to and Including February 5, 1920," issued by counsel for the State, they quote from the Yiddish book, cited above, referring to the printed "Testimony," pages 199, 204 and 207, in proof that the Jewish Socialist Federation, which published the book, is "part of the Socialist Party," and introducing their citations from the book with the very significant remark, "Published in Yiddish the principles of Socialism were not camouflaged as they frequently are in English." Bearing this in mind, let us note how this plain-spoken book, which we cite from the State counsel's "Outline," pages 31-34, gives the lie to Hillquit's camouflage about "revolution" being "evolution." The book says:

This is the real stuff, hid in a foreign tongue, with which Hillquit's gang poisons the East Side of New York City, while the gang's leaders lie to the American people.

Yet if the real plan is not to give us Socialism by "peaceful evolution" but to impose it on us by "a revolution, and class-dictatorship," what is the real object of the "political action" carried on meantime by these hypocrites? Again the Yiddish book gives us the real thing:

"So long as the State is ... a tool in the hands of the bourgeoisie in the fight against the proletariat, ... why do the Socialists seek to send their representatives there? Where do Socialists fit into the State? What can they do there?

"Socialists seek to enter into the government for two reasons, first, to be nearer to the doors of the chambers, where dictatorship sits, and second to hinder the dictatorial work in any way possible. The first reason is the most important. Sitting in Parliament or in Congress, being inside of the government ranks, affords Socialists an opportunity to find out the plans, the strategy of the State. And knowing this, they can carry out the propaganda the better."

If this is not treason--wickedness using "political party" methods both as a mask and a blackjack to destroy the State--what is it?

We must save our country, and save it now. Now is the time to act--now, before it is too late; and we must act so effectively and so vigorously that the Socialists and all their allied, criminal, revolutionary crews will wish that they never had seen a red flag or left their homes abroad. They are conspiring enemies of our country. They are traitors to the flag under which Washington and his soldiers fought for the independence of America; traitors to the flag to whose defense the brave men of 1812 rallied; traitors to the flag for which a million soldiers suffered or died in our great Civil War. They are traitors to the flag that symbolizes the union of countless happy homes under a democratic government held in honor, respect and veneration. Traitors they are to the flag that stands for freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and for the protection of individual as well as of family rights. They are traitors to the flag of a much slandered and calumniated government, which, though imperfect, like all things on this earth, extends its blessings to all, not even excepting ungrateful Socialists and other radicals.

Fellow citizens and fellow countrymen, rally to the defense of the flag that you love! Denounce, to the north, south, east and west, the evil teachings and deceptions of the Red conspirators; for there is nothing that will more quickly ruin the parties of Reds than to reveal to the world their professed and secret teachings.