NAWSA SUBJECT FILE Borah, William E. THE DELINEATOR VOL. LXXVI. AUGUST , 1910 NO. 2 WHY I AM FOR SUFFRAGE FOR WOMEN THE VIEWS OF A MAN WHO LIVES WHERE WOMEN HAVE IT BY WILLIAM E. BORAH, U.S. SENATOR FROM IDAHO The more enthusiastic advocates for woman suffrage seen to claim that when women shall have been given the right to vote, most, if not all, the evils of politics will speedily disappear. The more earnest and distressed opponents of woman suffrage, on the other hand, insist that to extend the right of suffrage to woman, and this beguile her into politics, would demoralize the home, give us coarse and mannish women, and perhaps disturb domestic tranquility, besides many minor evils to follow. As usual, the truth is to be found in the temperate zone which lies broad and tranquil between the extremes. Woman suffrage will not eradicate all the evils of politics or guard wholly against all mistakes of government, but it will tend in that direction. Whatever is accomplished will be for the good and not the bad in politics. It will not make women less refined or less womanly. In fact, I think a seasonable "mud bath" of politics would perhaps have a cleansing and elevating influence upon the social cafe life which prevails to such an extent in some of our social centers. Idaho extended to her women the right to vote in the early days of her Statehood. We do not become at all excited over the effect of woman suffrage in our State. But we do declare it to be our deliberate judgment that her presence in politics, armed with the power to enforce her demand, has been substantially and distinctively for the benefit of politics and of society. It has aided materially in the securing of better laws along particular lines; especially has it tended to cleaner politics in particular and essential matters. Our women have not always been so active in politics as they should be, but it has been observed that when a moral question is up for consideration, the majority vote of the women has been a power upon the right side. It is sometimes argued that women will vote largely with their brothers or husbands, but I have observed that there comes a time upon certain questions when the brothers and husbands vote with the women. We should not be misled by the idea that the American woman will put aside with entire complacency her views and her convictions upon a large class of questions which are coming more and more to be dealt with in politics. And upon these questions her intuitions are far more valuable than the sometimes sordid judgment of men. We have in economics what some are pleased to call potential competition. Translating this into a common or homely phrase or sentence, it is the fear of a scoundrel that if he robs the public too severely or too outrageously some one will administer punishment by getting in and establishing an honest business. The trusts, therefore, they say, hesitate to put their prices beyond a certain mark for fear of this potential competition. This element of strength is not be overlooked in politics in connection with this question which we are now discussing. Women may not always be at the caucuses or they may not always take as active part in many ways as men. Let us concede that for the sake of the argument. There may be very few of them at the State convention, but--and I am speaking from observation extending over a number of years and many political gatherings--the women are nevertheless always a powerful factor in every political gathering where platforms are written, issues made and candidates nominated. Those who expect to win at the polls will never take the chance on the woman vote remaining away upon that occasion. They will not do something which they feel would incur the opposition of the women on the theory that they will not go to the polls anyway. They are practically as potential, indeed in some instances more so, than if they were in charge of the convention. I have seen "slates" broken out of absolute regard for or fear of the woman vote when there were not two women delegates in the convention among some two hundred. Some politicians act upon such occasions out of a high regard for the opinion of those whose vote they are considering; others out of fear. But, whatever the cause or reason, every man who has been in practical politics in a State where women vote knows that what I say is [WILLIAM E. BORAH Drawing by William Oberhardt] true. The woman vote, as a political potentiality, is a powerful factor at all times in shaping the policies of a State Campaign and in determining in some measure, although not to the same extent, the qualities of the candidates. And this factor is always for the good, for whether women may make mistakes or not in the matter of actual voting, men universally accredit to them the aptitude for getting upon the right side of these great moral and quasi- moral questions which are entering more and more into State Campaigns. I read some time ago a leaflet sent out by some good and cultured women presenting a protest against woman suffrage. One of the arguments advanced was that but a small proportion of the women vote in those States where they have been given the right to vote. This, as I have observed the actual practise, is an error. I think a remarkably large proportion of the women vote when you take into consideration, first, that it is a new privilege, against the exercise of which stand the customs and tendencies and teachings from St. Paul to the present day; second, that it is a privilege still rejected and the use of which is still criticised by many good women in the land, which both discourages and discredits its use. If those women who speak disparagingly of the privilege or of those who find a hundred thousand men absent from the polls in a single State even at a presidential election. Shall we take from the more active, the more patriotic, the right of franchise because the surfeited or business-ridden or politically discontented remain away? I hold it to be the duty of every citizen to take an active interest in politics, to study measures and to vote. Instead of its being an evidence of purity and patriotism to remain out of politics, it is generally an evidence of utter selfishness or political disappointment or an ostentatious display of modern Phariseeism. The good women surrounded by all the comforts and culture of prosperous and happy homes may feel a reluctance to enter the arena of politics even to the extent of exercising the right of franchise. But the thousands of women who stand alone and must depend upon their own efforts in the struggle for existence; who feel the injustice of laws or the cruelty of policies; the thousands of women who must join with their husbands in seeking homes and educating families, these ought not to be deprived of a voice in selecting those who are to determine policies and make laws. The next startling argument which those good women advance is that woman suffrage would confuse the functions of men and women and would lay heavy burdens of responsibility upon women which men now chivalrously await an opportunity to assume. It is a little difficult here to determine whether this argument arises out of sympathy for the women or out of a desire to protect the chivalry of men in these modern days. This is the statement, though in a different and more cultured way, which was used in the debates at the country school. The young orator opposing woman suffrage, with a fine sense of the climax so essential in all oratory, reserved until the last the clinching, consternation-spreading argument that if women vote they must work on the roads and go to war! But truly "Summer is not so bad as painted." We find no such evil effects flowing from the exercise of the right of franchise. The functions are not confused--far less confused, indeed that already in the business world. The mother is no less a mother, the home, the husband no less a husband, and even often more a husband. It is absurd, perfectly absurd, to suppose that woman will change her sphere in life by reason of an increased opportunity to enlarge and ennoble that peculiar sphere in which she is by nature placed and from which all the laws and policies of the world will never take her. This is the same doctrine that woman has had to meet in every single initiative of her fight for a higher and broader sphere of action. I know--everybody who thinks knows--that the woman who deals in care and sincerity with those questions which lighten the burdens and adjust the equity of humanity is a nobler, stronger, more womanly woman that the woman who sits in enforced idleness, sips her tea and discusses the decline and retirement of some departed social queen. The suggestion that, should the ballot be given to women, the less desirable class of women would avail themselves of this right and the desirable remain aloof, is not sustained in practise or experience. The argument having been called to the attention of the public some time agom a public expression was secured from a number of women of my State. I quote from their published utterances. An elderly lady, long most active in matters connected with the suffrage cause and of one of our oldest and most highly respected families, said: "The majority of the women of the State exercise the right of suffrage and it is only on rare occasions that I have heard of the undesirable class voting at all." A young lady who has taken a most efficient and active part in State politics for several years, who has to do with the public service, who is familiar with all parts of the State and thoroughly qualified to give an opinion, said: " In my experience of seven years in politics in Idaho, which has taken me over the entire State, I have found the thinking women alive to every issue." And she added: "I believe there is a class of men who are just as unfit for the ballot as are Hottentots." (Continued on page 142) and of society. It has aided materially in the securing of better laws along particular lines; especially has it tended to cleaner politics in particular and essential matters. Our women have not always been so active in politics as they should be, but it has been observed that when a moral question is up for consideration, the majority vote of the women has been a power upon the right side. It is sometimes argued that women will vote largely with their brothers or husbands, but I have observed that there comes a time upon certain questions when the brothers and husbands vote with the women. We should not be misled by the idea that the American woman will put aside with entire complacency her views and her convictions upon a large class of questions which are coming more and more to be dealt with in politics. And upon these questions her intuitions are far more valuable than the sometimes sordid judgment of men. We have in economics what some are pleased to call potential competition. Translating this into a common or homely phrase or sentence, it is the fear of a scoundrel that if he robs the public too severely or too outrageously some one will administer punishment by getting in and establishing an honest business with fair prices, and likely put the unjust one out of business. The trusts, therefore, they say, hesitate to put their prices beyond a certain mark for fear of this potential competition. This element of strength is not to be overlooked in politics in connection with this question which we are now discussing. Women may not always be at the caucuses or they may not always take as active part in many ways as men. Let us concede that for the sake of the argument. There may be very few of them at the State convention, but—and I am speaking from observation extending over a number of years and many political gatherings—the women are nevertheless always a powerful factor in every political gathering where platforms are written, issues made and candidates nominated. Those who expect to win at the polls will never take the chance on the woman vote remaining away upon that occasion. They will not do something which they feel would incur the opposition of the women on the theory that they will not go to the polls anyway. They are practically as potential, indeed in some instances more so, than if they were in charge of the convention. I have seen "slates" broken cut of absolute regard for or fear of the woman vote when there were not two women delegates in the convention among some two hundred. Some politicians act upon such occasions out of a high regard for the opinion of those whose vote they are considering; others out of fear. But, whatever the cause or the reason, every man who has been in practical politics in a State where women vote knows that what I say is WILLIAM E. BORAH Drawing by William Oberhardt true. The woman vote, as a political potentiality, is a powerful factor at all times in shaping the policies of a State campaign and in determining in some measure, although not to the same extent, the qualities of the candidates. And this factor is always for the good, for whether women may make mistakes or not in the matter of actual voting, men universally accredit to them the aptitude for getting upon the right side of these great moral and quasi-moral questions which are entering more and more into State campaigns. I read some time ago a leaflet sent out by some good and cultured women presenting a protest against woman suffrage. One of the arguments advanced was that but a small proportion of the women vote in those States where they have been given the right to vote. This, as I have observed the actual practise, is an error. I think a remarkably large proportion of the women vote when you take into consideration, first, that it is a new privilege, against the exercise of which stand the customs and tendencies and teachings from St. Paul to the present day; second, that it is a privilege still rejected and the use of which is still criticised by many good women in the land, which both discourages and discredits its use. If those women who speak disparagingly of the privilege or of those who choose to exercise it should be found defending the right and encouraging the use of it by those who have a chance to use it, there would be a little complaint in a few years of the failure to exercise it. But what shall we say of the thousands of men among the most prosperous citizens of the community who, election after election, fail to vote? It is no unusual thing to 85 ficult here to determine whether this argument arises out of sympathy for the women or out of a desire to protect the chivalry of men in these modern days. This is the statement, though in a different and more cultured way, which was used in the debates at the country school. The young orator opposing woman suffrage, with a fine sense of the climax so essential in all oratory, reserved until the last the clinching, consternation-spreading argument that if women vote they must work on the roads and go to war! But truly "Summer is not so bad as painted." We find no such evil effects flowing from the exercise of the right of franchise. The functions are not confused—far less confused, indeed, than already in the business world. The mother is no less a mother, the home no less a home, the husband no less a husband, and even often more a husband. It is absurd, perfectly absurd, to suppose that woman will change her sphere in life by reason of an increased opportunity to enlarge and ennoble that peculiar sphere in which she is by nature placed and from which all the laws and policies of the world will never take her. This is the same doctrine that woman has had to meet in every single initiative of her fight for a higher and broader sphere of action. I know—everybody who thinks knows—that the woman who deals in care and sincerity with those questions which lighten the burdens and adjust the equity of humanity is a nobler, stronger, more womanly woman than the woman who sits in enforced idleness, sips her tea and discusses the decline and retirement of some departed social queen. The suggestion that, should the ballot be given to women, the less desirable class of women would avail themselves of this right and the desirable remain aloof, is not sustained in practise or experience. The argument having been called to the attention of the public some time ago, a public expression was secured from a number of women of my State. I quote from their published utterances. An elderly lady, long most active in matters connected with the suffrage cause and of one of our oldest and most highly respected families, said: "The majority of the women of the State exercise the right of suffrage and it is only on rare occasions that I have heard of the undesirable class voting at all." A young lady who has taken a most efficient and active part in State politics for several years, who has to do with the public service, who is familiar with all parts of the State and thoroughly qualified to give an opinion, said: "In my experience of seven years in politics in Idaho, which has taken me over the entire State, I have found the thinking women alive to every issue." And she added: "I believe there is a class of men who are just as unfit for the ballot as are Hottentots." (Continued on page 142) THE mother of a fine family, who has been interested in educational work, said: "I do not think it is true that the desirable women do not vote and the undesirable do; emphatically no." Another, a former regent of our State University, universally respected and loved, with as beautiful a home as may be found in the West, said: "I am sure that the majority of the intelligent women of this State vote. I think the undesirable class vote at times, but never any more as a unit than any other class of women." I think these expressions convey the opinion of practically all who have observed the effect of woman suffrage in Idaho. The most startling doctrine, however, comes to me in a bulletin published in Chicago. It asserts that woman suffrage means socialism, that it is part and parcel of the world-wide movement for the overthrow of the present order of civilized society, and the establishment in its place of a revolutionary scheme based upon principles that have been tried and found wanting and which are unalterably opposed to those that form the foundation of the free government under which we live. How it could be effected, what part woman suffrage would have in the movement, is not made clear. This is all left to the imagination, already well aroused and somewhat bewildered by the promised catastrophe. We can not help recurring to a former argument against woman suffrage so often advanced and which indeed is advanced in this same bulletin, to-wit: that she does not want suffrage and would not exercise the right if she had it. Unless woman is going in earnestly and zealously to use this right, to take hold of affairs and exert continuously and persistently this power, it does not seem possible that she would have any considerable part in this revolutionary wreck of things so forcefully described. I do not see how this movement is any kin to socialism or to revolution, unless it is that peaceful revolution by which a large portion of the intelligence and patriotism of the country moves up to a place of influence in accordance with every principle of equity and justice. With the corrupt, hungry, dissolute mob of political satellites voting in our great cities, bought and delivered like cattle, could we not safely place against this the woman in her home devoted to its preservation against every evil that threatens its existence? If these women could see the ease, the imperceptible methods by which a State confers woman suffrage and the people take up the duties under the new regime, the unrevolutionary way in which all things continue to exist, they would at least discard such prophecies as those above. They can go into those States where women vote and have been voting for years, and while they will find good and noble women who are not enthusiastic about the privilege or zealous at all times in its use, they will find, on the other hand, thousands of refined, home-loving, family-rearing women who do exercise this right to the advantage of all and in no wise to the detriment of themselves. As I said in the beginning, the truth about this matter lies between the ridiculous extremes of the millennium on the one hand and the "wreck of the world" on the other. I am not a believer that we can have all the good promised by the extreme woman suffragist. But, on the other hand, I know that many of the arguments made against the cause are utterly discreditable to a thinking man. That woman suffrage will make woman less devoted to her home or her husband; that it will make her unrefined in character; that it will tend to racial confusion, national degradation and disintegration-- these arguments are lacking even in that semblance of truth which is necessary to make them interestingly absurd. No one will deny the influence of woman in this day not only in her own peculiar sphere, but with reference to a great many questions that lie close to the weal or woe of the commonwealth. In fact, the influence of woman in politics and in affairs of state from Aspasia to Dr. Anna Shaw has been far greater than man-written history readily admits. Napoleon banished Madame de Staël from France because she exerted a peculiar power which he could not counteract. Why should we not give that influence the proper channels through which to exert itself? If America's conception of government, if her theory of civilization, rests upon a sound basis, then woman's influence must necessarily be no less potential than man's in establishing our future. Give her, therefore, the right to exercise that power in the manner in which the highest civilization has determined to be the best and most efficient means for serving the public. Our civilization is striving to that point where "what an honorable man may do, an honorable woman may do." Perhaps the most important word to be spoken to those engaged in urging woman suffrage now is "poise." If there is one principle bottomed eternally in the Anglo-Saxon breast it is respect for calm, well-balanced, well-poised and orderly procedure in all the affairs of men. The suds and foam that sometimes gather upon the great ocean of human endeavor are but the temporary evidence of stress and strain. But underneath, pervading the whole body politic, is the element of stability, the indestructible consecration of millions of honest and law-loving people to order and respect. The want of respect for established institutions and those who represent them will greatly retard and militate against a good cause. It furnishes argument for the opposition difficult to answer. Jails and riots, mobs and hisses, are not part of the American woman's campaign. There is no revolution that good and sane people desire which may not be accomplished through the power of public opinion. The cause will succeed, and succeed with remarkable celerity, through a high-minded, intelligent presentation of the justice of the cause. Borah POLITICAL PRISONERS SPEECH OF HONORABLE WILLIAM E. BORAH Lexington Theater, New York March 11, 1923 PRINTED BY- JOINT AMNESTY COMMITTEE 233 Maryland Building Washington, D. C. POLITICAL PRISONERS SPEECH OF HONORABLE WILLIAM E. BORAH, LEXINGTON THEATRE, NEW YORK MARCH 11, 1923 Ladies and Gentlemen: I am greatly pleased to have the opportunity of meeting so many of my fellow citizens for the purpose of considering and discussing what I believe to be a matter of extraordinary concern to the American people. There is involved in this discussion and the action which we seek upon the part of our government, not only the liberty of some fifty off individuals, but broad and vital principles of free government. During the Great War the COngress passed what was known as the Espionage Act. It was passed as a war measure. It was claimed that we had authority to pass it because we were engaged in war. I did not myself believe that even though we were engaged in war we had the power to pass the law, or perhaps I should say some of the provisions contained in the law, but I accredit to those who supported it and voted for it the very best of motives. I am, of course, not going today to engage in a criticism of its passage. It was in war time. We did that as we did many other things under the stress and passion of war and believing it was for the best interests of the country. But that measure has now been taken from the statute books. It was regarded as so obnoxious to the principles of free government that shortly after the cessation of hostilities, the agitation began for its repeal and it was finally repeated as to the provisions with which we are today concerned. It was not thought a fit law to remain upon the statute books of the United States in time of peace. It was believed that it interfered with that freedom of action upon the part of the citizen which is guaranteed by the fundamental principles of our common Charter. And so this law was taken off our statute book and is now a thing of the past. I have only one observation to make in regard to the law, it being now repealed and that it, I trust at no time in the future will it ever be regarded or considered as a precedent for the enactment of any measure of that kind again. It should be regarded, in my opinion, as not only opposed to the principles of free government in time of peace but also in time of war. (Applause). I do not believe that laws of repression, laws which deny the right to discuss political questions, are any more necessary in time of war than in time of peace and I do not believe they are constitutional either in time of war or in time of peace. (Applause). If this blessed old Republic cannot rest upon the free and voluntary support and affection of the American people in time of war as well as in time of peace, if we cannot, as a people, be free to discuss the political problems which involve limb and life, even in time of war, our governments rests upon a very brittle foundation indeed. (Applause). But while the law has been repealed, the men who were sentenced under the law or a number of them, are still in prison. Four years have come and gone since the signing of the Armistice. Many months have passed since the repeal of the law. Still some fifty odd men are in prison under a law which we believed to be too obnoxious to the sense of American freedom and justice to remain upon the statute books. Certainly the dictates of humanity and the plainest principles of justice would demand that the men be given their freedom in any event from the time we repealed the law. (Applause). 3 Many other governments had to deal with political prisoners. They had their political prisoners during the time that the war was in progress, but they all thought it just and wise immediately after the cessation of hostilities to release them. No other government engaged in the was has for the last three years had political prisoners. They have all been released, either through amnesty pardon, or by reason of the fact that their sentences being very short long since expired. And so, my friends this Sunday afternoon, 1923, more than four years after the signing of the Armistice the people of the great Republic of the West, a government conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal, are still discussing the question of whether or not they should release their political prisoners. I cannot regard such a fact as other than strange and to my mind intolerable. Let us hasten to make our belief as a people known that the time has come when we should without further delay give these men their freedom. (Applause). I do not know, and of course therefore I am not permitted to conjecture, just why the government at Washington has hesitated to grant amnesty to these political prisoners. but I believe nonetheless that good can only come from a thorough discussion of these matters in public--I believe furthermore that public opinion always has a wholesome effect upon such questions as these. It at least, properly expressed, aids the Executive department in coming to a conclusion upon the proposition. After all, we are occasionally a government of the people. (Laughter and Applause). There is one power which we all down at Washington respect, and that is, the power of public opinion. I have no doubt at all that if the American people were thoroughly informed as to the facts there would be an undoubted public opinion upon this question, and I have no doubt either that a very large majority of American people would favor an immediate release of these men. Let us bear in mind, my friends, that these men are not in prison at the present time by reason of any acts of violence to either person or property. Whatever might have inhered in the case with reference to these matters in the beginning has long since passed out of the case and these men are in prison today, separated from their families, deprived of an opportunity of earning a livlihood, their health being undermined for the sole and only reason that they expressed their opinions concerning the war and the activities of the government in the prosecution of the war. They are distinctly and unquestionably political prisoners in the true sense of that term. They are not there for the violation of ordinary criminal statutes or for deeds of violence of any kind. Let us not be misled into the belief that they are there because of a conviction of crimes of that nature. These things were cleared away either by the decisions of the court or by virtue of the expiration of any punishment which may have been assessed and they are there today solely for either writing or speaking concerning the war or the prosecution of the war or some matter relating to the war. They are, in other words in prison some four years after the war for expressing an opinion in regard to it. I was thinking today as I was reflecting over this situation that six months before the time we declared war some of the most prominent members of the government at that time would have been guilty of the same offense of which these men are now in prison. (Applause). Six months before we entered the war it was considered most objectionable in the United States to advocate going into the war. Six months before the war began we were told that this great world war had its roots in causes which we did not understand and with which we were not concerned and that we should keep out of it. It would seem that the gravest offense upon the part of these men, so far as expressing their views was concerned, is that they were late in catching 4 up with the procession. They did not or were unable, to adjust their views to the changed condition of affairs as readily as others. Do not misunderstand me. I am one of those who believe that when my country is at war, engaged in deadly strife with an enemy, as a matter of policy we ought to surrender our individual views and get behind the government if we can possibly do so. In such times we ought to reconcile ourselves to our government's successful conduct of the war. But while that is my belief, it is also my contention, grounded in the deepest principles of free government, that if a man thinks a war is unjust or improvident, or that it is being carried on in a corrupt manner it is his absolute right to say so. (Applause). Indeed, if it is a question of the method of carrying on the war and he believes it is unwise or unjust it is his duty to say so. Let me call you attention to the views of a most distinguished American lawyer now a United States Senator, with reference to the nature of these cases and the evidence upon which the conviction rest. Honorable George Wharton Pepper has long been a leader, if not the leader, of the Philadelphia bar. He is not a gentleman who is calculated to permit his sympathies to control his judgment with reference to questions of law and procedure in courts. He has imposed upon himself the very noble service as an American lawyer, believing it to be a part of the duty of an American lawyer, the investigation of these cases. He has performed the high service of going through records of at least one of the trials and has passed his opinion upon the nature of the case. May I read a single paragraph from his statement. He says: "I satisfied myself that in not one of the twenty-eight (28) cases I had looked into did the evidence justify a continuance of restraint." Not one of the twenty-eight cases which he had examined disclosed sufficient evidence, in the first place, to justify a conviction of these men for this particular offense. In other words, my friends, they were convicted under the compelling influence of passion and the excitement and fears which accompany war. It is a fearful thing to have men lie in prison when there is not sufficient evidence, according to great and dispassionate lawyers, to warrant their incarceration. It is a fearful indictment against the justice and proceedings of government. Add to that, my friends, to the insufficiency of the evidence the fact that they are now there solely and alone for expressing their political opinions, and it becomes almost incredible that they should longer remain in prison. We are Americans. We believe that our government can do justice to our people. If by reason of the excitement of war we err at a particular hour in our history, in the name of our government and in the name of the liberty we love, let us correct it as soon as we can after the passions of war shall have passed. It is human to err but it is inhuman to refuse to correct an error after we are thoroughly cognizant of it. Senator Pepper further says: "Each of these men presented a problem in human liberty. I am hopeful that the President will act, hopeful that the public generally will understand that none of these is a case of violence or injury to life or property. None is a case in which there was any conspiracy to hinder the United States. And the most there is against these men are their utterances in and out of print expressing opposition to war, or indifference to it." And for those expressions the sentences ran as high as twenty-six (26) years. A Voice: That's a shame. Senator Borah: Yes, it seems a shame. (Applause). I am now going to read a paragraph from the report of an officer of the Army who was assigned to examine the evidence in some of these cases. I speak with all respect of an officer of the regular army, but will say,- and he would be proud, I presume, to have me say,- that his training of all such officers is such as to lead them to look with great scrutiny and with 5 rigid criticism on anything which partakes of the nature of opposition to the government engaged in war. Certainly, such an officer would not consciously be biased in favor of one who was guilty of interfering with the government under such circumstances. Major Lanier says, after going through the record: "I do not think if I had been a jury I would have convicted a single one of these men." And remember he had been assigned the particular task as a representative of the government to investigate the record and to report. "Because in my judgment there was not sufficient evidence presented to prove that these men were guilty of the conspiracy with which they were charged." Again he says: "I am of the opinion that these men were convicted contrary to the law and the evidence solely because they were leaders in an organization against which opinion was incensed and the verdict rendered was due to public hysteria of the time." Some might say that, owing to my views upon certain questions, I might be unnecessarily, illogically in sympathy with these men. I am not in sympathy with any man who willfully commits a crime. I read these two statements, however, one from a distinguished lawyer, another from an officer of the army whose business it has been to examine the record, as conclusive proof of the fact that these men are in prison, not only for expressing their views, but they are in prison without sufficient evidence to justify them being there, regardless of the crime with which they have been charged. (Applause). What therefore is the real, the controlling, reason for denying these political prisoners their freedom. It is not, in my opinion, the offense for which they were convicted. It is not because the court record condemns them. It is for another offense-- unknown to the criminal code and undisclosed in the sentences under which they are now serving. These men it is claimed are members of an organization known as the Industrial Workers of the World-- an organization, as many of us believe, antagonistic in its teachings to the good order and happiness of society and to the principles of the representative government. I understand they are members of this organization, some of them at least. Let that fact be conceded. Let it be conceded that they are believers in these insupportable doctrines. But these men are not now in prison, under sanction of the law, for sabotage, for acts of violence to either persons or property. They are being punished for political offenses-- charged with having offered opinions and views upon the war and the activities of the government in the prosecution of the war. If these men have violated any law touching the character of the organization of which they are members, if they have been guilty of acts of violence defined by any provision of the criminal code, for these offenses let them be charged, and if convicted, be punished, in accordance with the established laws and procedure of a government of law. If they have come under the ban of our immigration laws, let them be dealt with in the manner there prescribed. But it is manifestly unjust, it is an act of tyranny, to put men in prison because of political opinions and keep them there because they are members of an unpopular organization. It is the very essence of despotism to punish men for offense for which they have been convicted. It is the first essential of justice in a government of law to punish men only and alone for offenses defined by the law. It is the dominating tenet of tyranny to punish men for what they think-- for what they believe. It is a cardinal rule under free institutions to punish men only and alone for what they do. These men are not only now suffering for offenses of which they have not been convicted, but for things of which the criminal law has not yet taken notice. Such procedure, such treatment of our citizens, be they high or low, wise or unwise, correct in their views or wholly erroneous, brings government into disparagement, if not contempt. Such procedure is a prostitution of our courts-- a perversion of the first principles of constitutional government. But there is a much broader principle, my friends, involved in this matter, 6 one of far deeper concern than the freedom of the fifty-three men. That is important, supremely important, to these individuals and their families. Indeed, it is important to all who love justice. No one can do other than sympathize with them in their present condition and yet I say that there is a much deeper and wider principle involved, one touching more closely to the interests of the people of the United States. In my opinion, at the bottom of the controversy there lies the question of what constitutes free speech and free press under the American flag. (Prolonged applause). May I trespass upon your time long enough to read from an ancient document known as the Constitution of the United States (Laughter and applause). I read a single paragraph. It is so simple and so plain that a man need not be a lawyer in order to understand it. In fact, it sometimes seems that the less law one knows, the better he understands the Constitution. (Applause). But it is this particular clause in the Constitution which interests me so far as this situation is concerned. It says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,'--make no law--"or prohibit the free exercise thereof or abridge the freedom of speech. Not deny the freedom of speech, not prohibit the freedom of speech, but not ever shall the Congress abridge the freedom of speech. There are many in this country who delight in writing history and who are always telling us that the Fathers, after all, were a very conservative, reactionary group of men, (Laughter), that while they professed to build a free government they built a Republic so rigid that it does not give sufficient action or freedom of action to the citizen. I read only a short time ago a book by a distinguished educator in this country who undertook to convince his readers that the Fathers were not believers in free government at all. Well, I wish we believed in free government and in the great principles of free speech and free press just as thoroughly as they did. (Applause). When you consider that this Constitution was written in 1787, adopted finally in 1789, at a time when every government in the world looked upon this effort to establish a free government as a mere experiment, as a dream which would pass in a few months, when you realize the circumstances and environments under which this government was formed, you can easily understand what the faith of the Fathers must have been who had the courage to write into the fundamental law "that Congress should pass no law abridging the freedom of speech." Yet even in these days we hear people say that those who framed the Constitution had no faith in the people. (Applause). Abridge the freedom of speech or the press? Certainly the press. (Laughter). I am just as much in favor of a free press as I am of free speech-- they go together. And the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition their government for a redress of grievances goes along with free speech and free press. Without these things there can be no such thing as a free people. A great American has well said: "You can chain up all other human rights, but leave speech free and it will unchain the rest." It was my opinion, as I have stated, at the time of the passage of the Espionage law that it violated the first amendment of the Constitution of the United States. But we passed it. The Supreme Court has held that it did not violate the provision of the Constitution. And while we are bound by that decision so long as it stands and while I have great and profound respect for the Supreme Court of the United States, it has not changed by opinion in regard to the constitutionality of this law. We ought not to be afraid of the freedom of speech so long as it relates to the discussion of the activities of the government and to the discussion of public questions. No man has a right to advise the commission of crime. No man has a right to insist upon the violation of the law. But every American citizen under our Constitution has the right to discuss with the greatest of freedom all questions relating to political matters or as to the wisdom of any course which the government may be pursuing. 7 It is incredible to me that in a particular exigency that men should be prohibited from earnestly expressing their views as to the wisdom or unwisdom of an act or a policy upon the part of the government, (Applause.) I thank God every time I think of it that no Espionage law, no repression of free speech, availed or prevailed at the time that the Elder Pitt and Edmund Burke were denouncing the war of the English government against the American colonies. We were then fighting for our freedom and these brave men denounced in language as immortal as freedom itself the war of the English government upon the American colonies. (Applause). But there is a peculiar doctrine which has come to have recognition in this country to which I must refer. It was said during the late war that as soon as war was declared the Constitution of the United States was in a sense suspended, that the Congress could pass any law it saw fit to pass. At first, that seemed to me to be a subject of amusement, and I still really think it is. But as a matter of fact, it was seriously advocated by learned and able men, legislators and executive departments. It was upon that theory and apparently upon that principle that many things were done during the war. For myself, I want to repudiate it once and for all. I trust that no such vicious and un-American doctrine will ever be seriously considered by the people of this country. There is only one way that you can change the Constitution of the United States or suspend any of its provisions, and that is, in the same way and by the same manner pointed out by the Constitution. (Applause.) Every clause, every line, every paragraph, of that Great Charter obtains in time of war just the same as in time of peace. (Applause.) Washington was something of a soldier. Hamilton understood something of war. The framers of the Constitution had all passed through a great conflict of eight years in length. They undoubtedly understood that the Republic would in all probability be called upon to wage war in the future. Do you suppose they thought they were building a government or writing a Constitution which was to obtain during peaceful days only? They wrote a Constitution sufficient and efficient to carry on the work of peace and also to carry on war. The Constitution gives sufficient power by its own terms for the conduct of war and none of its provisions are suspended, or annuled by the declaration of war. Any other theory would be perfectly vicious. It would be to write it into our very government the doctrine of the tyrants that necessity knows no law. I pause here to read in support of this proposition a paragraph from a celebrated decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. Let those who think that our Constitution was made for peace and not for war turn to this decision and read it in full. The Court says: "The Constitution of the United States is a law for rules and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men at all times and under all circumstances. No doctrine involving more pernicious consequences was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism, but the theory of necessity on which it is based is false; for the government within the Constitution has all the powers granted to it which are necessary to preserve its existence as has been happily proved by the result of the great effort to overthrow its just authority." There, my friends, coming from the Supreme Court, is the true doctrine. The Constitution obtains in time of war as well as in time of peace. The first amendment of the Constitution can be construed no differently in time of war than in time of peace. An Espionage law that is unconstitutional in time of peace is unconstitutional in time of war. Let us have faith in our government and also faith in our people. This is, therefore, not a mere question today of the liberation of fifty-three 8 men, important as that is. It involves the great underlying principle of free government. And our President, who is now in the South seeking the rest to which he is entitled and the rest which I sincerely hope may come to him, could do no greater service to the cause of American institutions than to turn aside for a moment and reannounce our devotion to these plain provisions of the Constitution of the United States, provisions of the Constitution which have been construed and about which there is no doubt as to their meaning. But let us turn over a page of history and take a lesson from the past, from men of great prestige and still holding the affections of the American people. Let me read you a line from the speech of a truly beloved American. You will recall that Abraham Lincoln did not agree with the policy on the Mexican war. In a debate in the House of Representatives he said; speaking of the President of the United States: "He knows not where he is. He is bewildered, confounded and miserably perplexed man. God grant that he may be able to show that there is not something about his conscience more painful than his mental perplexity." That was said in the midst of the war. He thought the war was unjust and unwise and he said so. He thought it was being carried on from wrong motives and he said so. He believed it was against conscience and he so declared. If the late Espionage law had been upon the statute books and someone had seen fit to invoke it, he doubtless would have been sent to the penitentiary instead of being, to the everlasting honor of the American people, shortly thereafter made President. He had a perfect right to express himself. But he had no better right to express himself than the humblest member of an organization or the humblest citizen of the United States. I read a paragraph from a speech of Daniel Webster, the great constitutional lawyer and distinguished statesman, who was also opposed to the Mexican war. "We are, in my opinion, in a most unnecessary and therefore a most unjustifiable war. I hope we are nearing the close of it. I attend carefully and anxiously to every rumor and every breeze that brings to us any report that the effusion of blood caused in my judgment by a rash and unjustifiable proceeding on the part of the government may cease. Now, sir, the law of nations instructs us that there are wars of pretext. The history of the world proves that there have been and we are not now without proof that there are wars waged on pretext, that is on pretenses, where the cause assigned is not the true cause. That I believe on my conscience is the true character of a war now being waged against Mexico. I believe it to be a war of pretexts, a war in which the true motive is not distinctly avowed but in which pretenses, afterthoughts, evasions, and other methods are employed to put a case before the community which is not the true case." Men may differ, some may think that Webster was in error as to judgment and some may think he was right. But there are thousands and hundreds of thousands who believe that the Mexican war was not justified. But do you think it ever occurred to Mr. Lincoln or to Mr. Webster that, believing the war was without justification, unwise and unrighteous, they did not have the right as American citizens to say so. What I am pleading for today is not a new rule, not a new precedent, but an old rule and the maintenance of an old precedent, a rule in which our Fathers believed, which our forbearers would never have given up and a rule which is written in the Constitution of the United States and which the great statesmen of America have defended from that time until this. (Applause). Let me say a few words about another phase of this question. There is still another reason why I feel so keenly about this matter. I think this is one of the steps which should be taken to help break this fearful psychology of war which still remains with us, notwithstanding four years have passed since the signing of the Armistice. You will all remember the morning after the signing of the Armistice,—what a happy world it seemed at that time. You could not meet anyone that happiness was not written on his or her very countenance. We 9 though we were passing out of the bitterness, away from the hatreds and the passions, which had cursed the world for many, many months. We felt that we were about to escape from the fearful condition of mind which had been expressing itself in so many ugly ways, hoping to get rid of the antipathies, the hatreds, and the vengeance which naturally come with war. We felt that we were turning our backs upon these things and would again be free from them. But while the fighting had ceased upon the battlefield and the armies had surrendered, we know today, as a matter of fact, that we did not get away from the passions which came with the war. Look over Europe today, torn and distracted from corner to corner, and side to side, by the same racial antipathies, the same hatreds, the same turmoil, the same strife, the same urge for blood. Where, my friends, is this all going to end? Shall we not make a brave fight to get away from these things. You may talk your leagues and your alliances, your schemes for peace, but if you cannot get rid of this passion, this bitterness, this urge for blood, there can be no peace, (applause) there can be no peace until we turn our backs upon the ugly things which came with the war. Let us take one step, at least, release the political prisoners and put that ugly record behind us. It is a little thing in one sense, an inconsequential thing, to turn loose fifty-three men, fifty-three out of 110,000,000 people, but it is an awful thing on the other hand to keep them in prison, an awful thing for the United States to say that even one man shall be restrained in prison four years after the war for expressing his views as to the wisdom of the war. If we can do that my friends, if America can get rid of these things, if we can put behind us these questions which have torn and distracted us for years, then shall we again become a happy and contented peoples. That is Americanism. Americanism is liberty. And what is liberty. It is not a mere right to be free from chains, it is not a mere right to be outside the prison walls—liberty is also the right to express yourself to entertain your views, to defend your policies, to treat yourself and your neighbors as free and independent agents under a great representative Republic. (Applause). What we ask today, what we ask of our President and the government at Washington, therefore, is not to depart from old precedents or to establish new precedents, but to go back, to return to those principles upon which the Fathers built and without which this government cannot exist. Free speech is the supreme test of free institutions. Do not let us mislead ourselves into the belief that the principles which we discuss here today or the question which we discuss concerns alone these men who are in prison. It is a far more vital question than that. There is no subject, there can be no subject, of deeper concern in these days than that of preserving these civil rights of the citizen. It is a matter which relates directly and immediately to the welfare, the security and the happiness of all. But it is especially of the highest concern to the average citizen. Those of influence and uncommon ability, of commanding wealth, may secure rights under any condition or under any kind of government sufficient to make life comfortable, or at least endurable. But the average man or woman, the man of limited means, or circumscribed influence, finds security only and alone in the great Charter itself— a Charter binding alike upon the courts and the Congress, upon majorities and minorities, and upon the rich and the poor. Newspapers of great prestige, I observe, always publish, whatever the occasion, whatever they please to publish. Men of great power will, as they did during the war, say whatever they choose to say. It is the less influential or the less feared politically, it is the less powerful, who lie in jails or purchase their freedom by becoming the intellectual slaves of those temporarily in control. The Constitution however in its guarantees makes no distinctions, it knows no class, it recognizes neither prestige nor poverty—under its terms all stand upon a plane of equality. All therefore who 10 prize human liberty will be jealous to see the Constitution administered according to its letter and its spirit. That is the price of free government. The framers of the Constitution were the most practical of men. They were not intellectual adventurers. They were not dreamers. They knew the worth of that concrete thing called liberty and they knew how to secure it. There was really nothing new in the bill of rights. They were rights and privileges which the hard experience of centuries had wrought out and laid at their doors. For these rights and privileges men had gone to prison and even to death. The rust of human blood had made sacred the very things with which some are now disposed to trifle. But the Fathers, knowing the value of these rights, incorporated them safely in the fundamental law. They knew you would have to protect the citizen against majorities just as in ancient days he was to be protected against kings and despots. They gathered up the experience, that bitter experience, which had cut away the superfluous and the false and incorporated them in a place where they ought never to be challenged nor disregarded. They had the courage and the practical common sense to put those things where they believed they could never be forfeited, save by the people themselves. But now we find, sirs that they are being forfeited by those whose highest duty it is to preserve them—those who have been entrusted with power. The assaults these days upon the Constitution, and particularly upon the Bill of Rights, are persistent and insidious, as tireless as they are dishonorable. They are made under spacious pleas and for all kinds of purpose and with all kind of proclaimed good intentions. The most pronounced and precious privileges of the citizens they dare not openly challenge, but under the cover of public service they are nevertheless frittered away. But however made, or by whomsoever or for whatsoever purpose, men who really believe in a representative Republic, will resist these aggressions whenever and however and by whomsoever made. We cannot afford to barter these rights or sacrifice them for any cause or for any purpose or under any circumstances. It may sometimes seem advisable to do so for a day or to meet some particular emergency, but in the end it will prove a costly experiment. Whether in peace or in war, they should be guarded, religiously guarded. The people may change the Constitution if they choose. They may rehabilitate these rights from time to time in the manner pointed out by the Constitution. But so long as the Constitution remains as it is, it is the sacred duty, as well as the high privilege of those who stand in places of responsibility, to see that it is preserved in all its integrity. I thank you. (Great and prolonged applause). 11 Boralis speech From Collier's, The National Weekly 250 Park Avenue, New York City Talk by the Honorable William E. Borah, U.S Senator from Idaho during Collier's Radio Hour, over WJZ and associated stations, Sunday evening, May 19, 1929. The thought which I have in mind this evening would take more than ten minutes if I were to present if fully, but I think I can give you the idea. There is a fascinating story somewhere to be found in mystic lore - I read it years ago - which undertook to reveal how an awful crime, committed in the stately mansion of an old estate, forever after determined the fate of the inmates of that home, Those born after the crime had been committed - the innocent - were nevertheless compelled to recognize the effects and to obey the fateful decrees and to suffer because of the crime of their ancestors, When some boy or girl of the family sought to escape the spell of the ancient mansion, disease overtook them and they were brought back to the mansion to shrivel and die within the walls of the accursed mansion. This story illustrates my theme tonight. Ten years ago an awful crime was committed. A war, without justification, brutal and ruthless - without parallel - was started and lasted four long years. Millions of men lost their lives and millions more were made cripples. The question which I propound tonight is this: How long is that crime going to fix the fate of unborn generations? How long are we going to determine our course as a people or as a race by the decrees and the principles and the incidents which sprang from that time beginning August, 1914? For myself, I am in favor of determining our course in national and international affairs not by what criminals did ten years ago, but by what the interest of humanity and the demands of justice at this time, and for the future, demand of us. Let us see if we cannot break the spell of the world crime. When the Treaty of Versailles was signed, a celebrated French statesman declared: "This treaty is a continuation of the war." Subsequent years and subsequent events seem to have confirmed this extraordinary prophecy. Perhaps the most important question in international affairs at this time is how to get from under the feeling and bitterness and the influence born of the world war. We are, in international affairs, proceeding along the same lines and in the same way as we would proceed if that war had closed but yesterday. We do not seem to be building with our faces to the future, but building with our thoughts entirely on the past. We seem to be controlled by what has happened rather than by what should happen. How long shall the spirit of Versailles animate and control international affairs? There has not been a conference in Europe during these ten years but that it had to contend with this war spirit. Europe is at the present time plastered with military alliances. It has the heaviest military establishments at this time that it has ever had in its entire history, heavier than when the war broke out in 1914. All this is very well illustrated by the so-called "peace conversations" which have been taking place a short time since in Europe. Plans and hopes and ideals were discussed, but the one cruel, concrete result of that peace gathering was the place and status conceded to conscription, and to the reserve of forces. These conscription and reserve forces constitute the rock foundation of militarism. Little wonder, therefore, that when their position was conceded there was great rejoicing among those who rely entirely upon force in international affairs, and the announcement was ironically made that now we could come to a better understanding with reference to disarmament. Thus, step by step, for the last ten years, while we have been talking of disarmament and peace, there has been fastened upon the world the heaviest military establishment in all the history of the world, and a naval armament without precedent or parallel. While we have discussed peace, and apparently longed for peace, we have yielded to the spirit of the war and built for armaments and for war. Humanity escaped from the World War -2- mangled and bleeding and carrying a great tax burden - a tax burden which has meant hunger and disease to millions of men, women and children. Have the last ten years been utilized to lift the load of taxes or to lighten the weight of armaments? Not at all. On the other hand, they have been years calculated to create heavier armaments and increase the tax burden. In the language, therefore, of the great French statesman, these treaties have been but a continuation of the war. It is true that this war has not been waged as it was waged prior to November 11, 1918, but waged in a way scarcely less deadly in its effects upon millions of human beings. Another illustration of the fact that we are attempting to settle all matters in the light of war principles, rather than in the light of future interests and future peace, is found in the story of reparations. You will easily recall that Germany at the close of the World War was stripped of her colonies, of Alsace-Lorraine, one of the wealthiest industrial centers of the world - of vast wealth in the Saar Valley - in Upper Silesia - and of her shipping. In addition to this, under the treaty of Versailles, there were deliveries of property exceeding three billions of dollars. These deliveries, under the terms of the treaty, could not be put to the credit of Germany on the reparations account, and between the coming into effect of the reparations clauses of the treaty and that of the experts clauses of 1924, there were deliveries of property amounting to between six and seven billions of dollars. Between September 1, 1924, and October 31, 1928, there were payments amounting to one billion-five hundred million dollars. Since the war, therefore, Germany has delivered in cash or in property payments to the extent of nearly twelve billions of dollars. Yet, for weeks and weeks, the world has watched with anxious solicitude the struggle now going on over reparations. If it were only a question of dollars and cents, only a question of how much Germany can pay and still live, the intellectual combat would still be of uncommon interest. But in a sense that struggle over reparations involves the economic health of Europe and possibly the future peace of the whole world, and it is all being fought out not upon the interests of posterity, not upon the interests of the world as it now stands, not upon the interests of those who were innocent of the war, but fought out on war lines, and in the spirit of the great world conflict. Posterity has no chance to be heard. Those who must earn the vast sums yet to be paid, as well as those who may suffer in case peaceful adjustments are not had, have no voice. The participants in the conflict are tied down by the dead hands of the parents. Perhaps no abler man could be found among men to deal with this subject than Mr. Owen D. Young, but Mr. Young is not permitted to deal with this subject from the standpoint of humanity, from the standpoint of world peace, or the future happiness of generations. He must deal with it according to treaty terms and plans and principles springing from the world war and in the spirit of the world war. I am one of those who believe that the human family cannot indefinitely carry the load which is being piled upon us under present policies, or upon the theory that everything must be adjusted from now till doomsday in the light of the results of the world war. The burdens of government are undermining and destroying citizenship, are undermining and destroying character and physical fitness in some of the most advanced countries of the world. Unless there is to be a change in attitude, a change of view, a change of principles, unless we are to approach public questions in a different frame of mind, I do not see how this burden is to be diminished, and we cannot change our mental attitudes and change our viewpoints, nor change the principles on which we are proceeding in international affairs, until we have broken the spell of the great crime of 1914. What I am speaking for tonight is the interest of posterity, of those who are now living, of those who are to carry the burden. They are entitled to settlement and adjustment and to principles which fit into present conditions and not to conform to principles and conditions which sprang from a great world conflict. I thank you. Transcribed and reviewed by contributors participating in the By The People project at crowd.loc.gov.