Library Collections: Document: Full Text

*A letter published in the Appeal to Reason, December, 1910.

I enclose a check to be used for subscriptions to the Appeal to Reason. I am prompted to this by indignation at the unrighteous conviction of the editor, Mr. Fred Warren. I believe that the conviction is unrighteous, although I have arrived at this conclusion with some hesitancy. For a mere woman, denied participation in government, must needs speak timidly of the mysterious mental processes of men, and especially of ermined judges. No doubt any layman would give offence who should be guilty of the indiscretion of criticising the decisions of a high court. Still, the more I study Mr. Warren's case in the light of the Constitution of the United States, which I have under my fingers, the more I am persuaded either that I do not understand it, or that the judges do not. I used to honour our courts, which, I was told, were no respecters of persons.

I was glad and proud in the thought of our noble heritage -- a free law open to all children of the nation alike. But I have come not only to doubt the divine impartiality ascribed to our judiciary, but also to question whether our judges are conspicuous for simple good sense and fair dealing. We may be pardoned if we regard some of their decisions merely as human imperfection, as results of our common mortality, dependent for their seeming iniquity upon our poor human prejudice and ignorance.

Are these not the facts: Several years ago three officers of the Western Federation of Miners were indicted for a murder committed in Idaho. They were in Colorado and the governor of that State did not extradite them. They were kidnapped and brought to an Idaho prison. They applied to the Supreme Court for a writ of habeas corpus, on the ground that they were illegally held because they had been illegally captured. The Supreme Court replied: "Even if it be true that the arrest and deportation of Pettibone, Moyer, and Haywood from Colorado was by fraud and connivance, to which the governor of Colorado was a party, this does not make out a case of violation of the rights of the appellants under the Constitution and the laws of the United States."

Some time later ex-Governor Taylor of Kentucky was indicted for murder and was wanted in his State. Mr. Warren offered a reward for the capture of Mr. Taylor and his return to the Kentucky authorities. I understand that it is not an unusual thing for a private citizen to aid in this way in the apprehension of a fugitive from justice.

To what twistings, turnings, and dark interpretation must the judges of the Circuit Court be driven in order to send Mr. Warren to prison! As I understand it, a federal law defining the kind of matter which it is a crime to mail has been stretched to cover his act. What was the act? The offer of a reward was printed on the outside of envelopes mailed at Girard by Mr. Warren. This was construed as threatening because it was an encouragement to others to kidnap a man under indictment. This the Supreme Court had by implication declared to be an innocent act. For in the case of Pettibone, Moyer, and Haywood the accomplished act of kidnapping was held to be no infringement of the rights of a citizen.

One need not be a Socialist to realize the significance, the gravity, not of Mr. Warren's offence, but of the offence of the judges against the Constitution of the United States and against democratic rights. It is provided that, "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech or of the press." Surely this means that we are free to print and mail any innocent matter. What Mr. Warren printed and mailed had been established as innocent. What beam was in the eye of the judges of the Supreme court or what mote was in the eye of the justices of the circuit courts? It is evident that their several decisions do not stand in the same light. It has been my duty, my life work, to study physical blindness, its causes and its prevention. I learn that our physicians are making great progress in the cure and prevention of blindness. What surgery of politics, what antiseptic of common sense and right thinking, shall be applied to cure the blindness of our judges and to prevent the blindness of the people who are the court of last resort?