ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

lutionary periods on the Continent, just across the channel in England, where there was the greatest freedom of communication, there was practically no uprising whatever. So if history points to anything it points to the fact that attempts at suppression do not reduce but rather tend to increase the dangers of violence.

Mr. DALE. You would not give that as the sole reason for the harmonious conditions in England, would you? You would not confine it to their freedom of speech, I mean the reason for the difference.

Mr. BETTMAN. I think, England, of course has the greatest talent, certainly of all European places, for progress by evolution, by orderly political change. But I think that itself is a result of freedom. I think that capacity for orderly political change is itself the product of freedom.

Mr. DALE. If France at that time had had a government like the government of the British Isles, it would have been physically impossible for them to have gone through with those various revolutions.

Mr. BETTMAN. Well, of course, but the Government of England was no accident. The Government of England was the result of the successive fights for the fullest freedom. They had had uprisings in the time of George III, which was a despotism, and that was when the seditious prosecutions occurred.

Mr. DALE. But my point is that the revolutions in England were prevented not because of the broader liberties that they had under the statutes, but because of their broad government there was no occasion for these revolutions.

Mr. BETTMAN. But if the broad government had tried repressive measures there would have been occasion and they did not try.

Mr. DALE. That is true, but the Government itself was so constituted that they could not have had these repressive measures that they had in France.

Mr. BETTMAN. Of course England was more representative of the people undoubtedly, but if the Paris Commune had caused the then Government of England to be stampeded into a policy of repression and imitation of the policy at the time of the great revolution, there would have been rioting in England.

Mr. DALE. But along that line of argument, you say that the passage of the sedition laws aimed to restrain freedom of speech, and yet that did not disturb the people.

Mr. BETTMAN. Those laws were repealed. The panic died down and they were repealed. They did away with them, but before they did away with them, there was an era of terror.

Mr. DALE. It would not make any difference in England, under their form of government, how strong the sedition laws were, because there would not be the occasion for the uprisings that there was in Franċe.

Mr. BETTMAN. Of course. I think we agree, but we express ferently.

Mr. DALE. Probably.

it dif

Mr. BETTMAN. This lack of action is due to freedom. It is a free government. But the main thought-I would like to end with the one I began with, and the one that I feel is the justification for my asking this indulgence of you-I think the time has come in the United States when you, the members of Congress, as official leaders

of our public opinion, should say that we have had enough of this sort of stuff, which causes inevitably these violations of American methods of administering justice. There is no such dangerous situation which requires us to depart. In war there was. But now that the Great War is over, there is no necessity, no occasion for us to continue this departure from our traditional methods of administering justice. If a man commits crime, let him be punished. If a man incites another to crime, let him be punished. But inevitably, if you try to reach the talk of violent things, then inevitably you will reach much talk that should be allowed.

You can not write these statutes and then so control the administration of them that only the persons that ought to be will be be reached. As a matter of fact, all history shows, just as the history of England shows, when they went after the fellows advocating universal suffrage, that the power which generates these laws and which is generated by them, crushes a great deal of the freedom that ought to exist, and that we all want, no matter what our sentiments are. And if you will actually restrict your suppression to exciting crime, there are enough statutes to reach them all, and you will really reach everything that needs to be reached, at least in the present state of affairs, and personally I believe that even what amount of revolutionary agitation there is to-day, under a more liberal administration of the laws that that will dissolve away in the sunlight of a traditional freedom.

Mr. RALSTON. Do you care to proceed with the hearings further? It is only 5 o'clock.

The CHAIRMAN. Bourke Cochran, of New York, has asked to be heard to-morrow morning. That time has been set for him. You will require an hour more?

Mr. RALSTON. Yes.

(Thereupon, at 5.15 o'clock p. m., the committee adjourned until to-morrow, Saturday, January 24, at 10.30 o'clock a. m.)

COMMITTEE ON RULES,

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D. C., January 24, 1920.

The committee assembled at 10.30 o'clock a. m., Hon. Philip P. Campbell (chairman) presiding.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Blanton, the committee will hear you now.

STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS L. BLANTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS.

Mr. BLANTON. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee: I appear as the legal spokesman, in my representative capacity, of about 325,000 people living in my district, the seventeenth district, of Texas.

I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that the people of my district, without reservation, are unqualifiedly in favor of a proper antisedition bill with teeth in it.

The CHAIRMAN. The only bill that is before this committee now is the House substitute for the the Senate bill.

Mr. BLANTON. Yes; but, Mr. Chairman, the Rules Committee well knows that in presenting a rule it can change that bill in any and every particular that it desires.

The CHAIRMAN. No; we are not changing the bill at all.

Mr. BLANTON. Well, it has been done in past times.

The CHAIRMAN. No.

Mr. BLANTON. Both in the Democratic and Republican Congresses. The Rules Committee, through resolution, brings a measure before the House and says: "We want it passed so-and-so; and we want it passed only in this particular way."

The CHAIRMAN. Well, you will have to leave it to the Rules Committee to decide what they will do. They will not change this bill. Mr. BLANTON. Yes; but they can present a rule to the House whereby the House can change it.

The CHAIRMAN. The House can change it if we bring in a rule; yes.

Mr. BLANTON. And I feel sure that the Rules Committee has not yet lost confidence in the House of Representatives as the real representatives of the people—the legislators who are more closely connected with the people than, probably any other branch of the Government, because they come directly from the people every two years. I am sure that the Rules Committee is not afraid to leave proposed legislation to the House of Representatives and let them frame it. If it is improperly framed, let them correct it by amendments. The Judiciary Committee merely asks the Committee on Rules to bring in a rule merely making the proposed sedition bill in order to be considered at this time by the House, which would then have the right to amend the bill and perfect it in every particular necessary.

The chairman of this committee has given out through the press publicly that the leading newspapers all over the land are against this bill. I challenged yesterday on the floor of the House the chairman to show me

The CHAIRMAN (interposing). The chairman was not on the floor yesterday to hear the challenge of the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. BLANTON. Yes; that is true. I will say for the benefit of the chairman, however, that usually he is present on the floor.

The CHAIRMAN. I was attending to my duties in this committee. Mr. BLANTON. Yes. I am sorry he was not present on the floor, because we need him there all the time. His judgment and counsel are good; and he heads one of the strongest State delegations in the House; I have always said that.

But the chairman said that there were some newspapers from Texas that were opposing this bill. I challenged the chairman yesterday to show me a loyal newspaper in Texas which was opposed to a proper antisedition measure. I want to call the chairman's attention

The CHAIRMAN_(interposing). Just where is Bryan, Tex.?
Mr. BLANTON. Bryan is a small city in Texas.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, it is in Texas?

Mr. BLANTON. Yes; it is a small city there; a very small city.
The CHAIRMAN. I have this telegram from there-

Mr. BLANTON (interposing). Well, I hope the chairman will not take this out of my time, because I need all the time I will have.

The CHAIRMAN. No; this will be omitted from your time. [Reading:]

BRYAN, TEX., January 22, 1920.

In the opinion of the Bryan Daily Eagle, a great mistake would be made should bill be passed which sought to muzzle the press of America. It can not be done, and surely only the enemies of free government are back of the endeavor. ARCHIE B. O'FLAHERTY, Publisher.

I have some more here.

Mr. BLANTON. Will the chairman not put those telegrams in a little later, because there are some things I want to bring before this committee?

The CHAIRMAN. But the gentleman from Texas has just stated that the press of Texas are in favor of the legislation.

Mr. BLANTON. All right; I am willing that you should read them if you will allow me the time afterwards.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas will be given time to make his statement; but he has stated that, without authority, the chairman has given out that certain newspapers were opposed to this bill.

Mr. BLANTON. I hope the chairman will finish reading them and then I will proceed.

The CHAIRMAN. I am now showing the gentleman from Texas that certain newspapers from Texas are opposed to this bill.

I suppose the gentleman knows where that is?

SAN ANTONIO, TEX.

Mr. BLANTON. Yes; I know where San Antonio is. It is a large city.

The CHAIRMAN (reading):

SAN ANTONIO, TEX., January 21, 1920.

and so forth (addressing the chairman).

The publishers of the San Antonio Express and the Evening News earnestly object to the enactment of any sedition bill or other measure empowering the Post Office Department, or any other authority, to forbid mail circulation of any publication on accusations of containing seditious matter, without such final order before it may become effective being subjected to court review and a decision. Otherwise these publications heartily favor the enactment of any proper law that will put down sedition or lawless movements against the Government and the public welfare.

They are opposed to this bill.

There is another from the Dallas News of similar import.

Mr. BLANTON. Would the chairman kindly put in the exact telegram from the Dallas News?

The CHAIRMAN (reading:)

CHAIRMAN RULES COMMITTEE,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.:

We think that newspapers ought to be held responsible for what they publish and say

There is no punctuation in these telegrams, of course

but we object to provisions of the Graham bill and similar measures because they seem to give the Postmaster General and other Federal officials power to inflict the death penalty on newspapers without an opportunity for pub

lishers to be heard; in other words, the bill would reenact in a violent way the old censorship. Such system of legislation would be a death blow to a

free press.

That is signed "A. H. Belo & Co., publishers Dallas and Galveston News and Dallas Journal."

And these telegrams are all from reputable newspapers of every section of the country. There is not a telegram here from a radical newspaper.

Mr. BLANTON. Now, Mr. Chairman, we find out just about what is the matter. You saw a statement that was put into the press last Sunday morning by Mr. Samuel Gompers, president of the American Federation of Labor, by which the whole country was led to believe that there was an attempt on the part of Congress to muzzle the press in exercising its proper constitutional prerogative of publishing the news or advocating proper, lawful measures.

And naturally newspaper editors would rise up in alarm at such a proposition. Not a one of these newspapers cited are against a proper antisedition bill. The Bryan Eagle clearly shows that it is in favor of a proper antisedition law, but it does not favor a law that would permit the Attorney General, without any appeal to the court, to hold a publisher guilty of a crime carrying with it the death penalty. And so with the San Antonio Express, and so with the San Antonio Evening News; and so with those great southern Democratic newspapers, the Dallas News and the Galveston News. They want a proper remedy when charged with crime; they want the opportunity to be heard. You do not blame them; and I do not blame them for that. They are all in favor of an antisedition bill, but they don't want us to put any clause in the bill authorizing the Postmaster General to convict them without a hearing and having the courts finally pass on the matter.

But this bill has no such terms, and even if it had, why, the great chairman of our great Judiciary Committee stated here the other day, in the presence of this committee, that all of those little matters which were open to improper construction would be changed by the committee on the floor of the House. All the Judiciary Committee wants is to get this Committee on Rules to make a sedition measure in order, and thus give the House of Representatives the right to consider and perfect such a law in a proper way.

In other words, the President of the American Federation of Labor said, after consulting with his distinguished attorney who represents him-when the chairman asked him, "Mr. Gompers, will you kindly point your finger to the particular clause in this bill which will in any way shackle organized labor, or prevent any member of it from exerting every lawful effort in an attempt to properly or improperly change the Constitution? Will you point that out to us?" when he was asked that question Mr. Gompers hesitated and hemmed and hawed, and gulped, and looked around; couldn't answer, and finally he turned to his distinguished counsel for relief.

And it took an attorney, a great attorney in the Nation's Capital, seated by him, to help him point out the supposed paragraph. He did then point out a paragraph, which Mr. Gompers said prevented the exercise of moral force.

And then the chairman of the great Judiciary Committee (Mr. Volstead) immediately arose and said, "Why, that is not the intent of the committee. It is only physical force and violence to

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »