"Black List"

H

OW about the new censorship?

is a live question these days, to publishers in particular and to adicals generally; for to the latter the uestion is equivalent to: How about free peech?

So far, there has been no action taken ither by the Post Office Department or y courts under what is known as the new censorship law." This "law" conists of a clause contained in the recently assed Trading-with-the-enemy Act, makng it illegal not only to mail, but othervise to publish or circulate, matter eclared by post office officials "unmailble" under the old law - that is, the Espionage Act, enacted shortly after our ntry into the war.

By Gilson Gardner

Carriers Succeed Mail

A number of papers denied the privilege of the mails under this old law, have still circulated locally by carrier or on the news stands, or by freight or express.

Secrecy surrounds the administration of the post office censorship to such an extent that not even a list of the papers summoned will be made public. All hearings are behind closed doors, and the records are given to the parties interested "only in confidence." There is no docket, no notice, no open trial, nor any certainty as to when an order will be issued in any case.

Up to date about sixty papers have been put on the "black list," according to Solicitor Lamar, for the Post Office

Absurd and Con-
tradictory

The Idaho Sunday Law Should Be Repealed

While perhaps a worthy object was sought to be attained by its passage, the provisions of the act itself are in many respects both absurd and contradictory, and the matter has twice been before the supreme court, requiring the constru tion at the hands of that tribunal, while many other of its provisions still remain in grave doubt. ... The reasons for many of these prohibitions are simply incomprehensible to the average mind. Personally, I do not believe it proper to legislate upon matters of this kind. . . . As a result of its experience in construing this law, the supreme court has proposed in its report to the governor that it be so amended as to make it intelligible. Undoubtedly the act needs amendment if it is continued in force, but I would suggest as a still better remedy that the entire act be repealed.- Governor James H. Hawley, of Idaho, in his message to the eleventh legislature, 1911.

Department, who, with Third Assistant Postmaster Dockery, constitutes the court of inquisition in the censorship cases. About thirty of these publications have been summoned to show why they should not be deprived of the secondclass mailing privilege, and a number, estimated at a dozen or fifteen, have been completely suppressed. The black list includes everything from small, sporadic monthlies or weeklies to daily papers having a half million circulation. It includes English-speaking as well as foreign papers, and the scope of the Department's activities ranges from Texas to Massachusetts.

Some of the Barred

Among the papers permanently cut off from the use of the second-class mailing privileges are: The Bull, New York City; the Jeffersonian, Thomson, Ga. (one of Tom Watson's magazines); Watson's Magazine, Thomson, Ga.; Wachter und Anzeiger, Cleveland, Ohio; the Leader, Milwaukee, Wis; the American Socialist, Chicago; the Rebel, Texas; the Masses, New York City.

Among the papers summoned to show why they should not be deprived of the mailing privilege are: The Jewish Daily Forward, New York City; the Call, New York City; the American, Charleston, S. C.

In addition, there are probably a dozen. other publications, summoned or suppressed, whose names are unknown.

The list of the summoned and suppressed papers includes practically all Socialistic publications. What appears to be the ordinary formula of Socialism is regarded by the Department as objectionable in many instances under the second paragraph of the Espionage Act, invoked by Postmaster-General Burleson as a "rule to the Post Office Department" to determine what publications are admissible to the mails.

Not All Socialists

It is not only the Socialist press, however, that is regarded by the post office censoring bureau as offensive. The

Charleston American has not the remot est affiliation with Socialism. Its editor was a great admirer of President Wilson! at one time, but he has failed to follow him in the war.

The Jewish daily, Forward, is the prin cipal organ of the Jewish population in New York. Its offending was likewis not due to its voicing of Socialism, but in utterances on the lines of pacifism.

Tom Watson's publications in Georgia were much more militantly opposed to the war, and were aggressively against the conscription law, which Watson contended was unconstitutional.

The Masses, in New York City, has been the voice of a small group of intellectuals who disagree with almost any conventionalities, and have felt them selves free to climb the Olympus of intellect and survey critically all conditions of the commoner human beings in the world's valleys below. This was an of i fense to Burleson, who felt its editor. Max Eastman, must be a traitor to his country. So he held up the publication and neglected to make any ruling on the number of Masses published for subsequent months, with the result that the latter were in effect also refused the mails.

"Citing" Brings Discredit

It is said that serious injury has been done many publications by the mere announcement to the world that they have been "cited to show cause," even when the Department has not ruled that they were guilty. The fact that they were cited tended to discredit them, and has made them an easy prey for competitors and an easy victim of war antagonisms In the case of Victor Berger, some business men of Milwaukee were moved to organize a boycott of advertisers to ruir his publication, while in South Carolina the American, which was the second paper in circulation in the State, suffered heavily in its circulation and also from an incipient boycott by advertisers.

In several cases, notably the Call and the Jewish Forward, the Department has withheld its decision, leaving the sword of Damocles hanging over their heads

war topics. The editor of the Charleston American has also offered to cease expressing his pacifist views. The Department has not made any reply to their offers. Washington Herald, Nov. 4,

W

E have received a number of communications from different sources soliciting our coöperation and protesting against the action of the Post Office Department in excluding from the mails publications that have criticized the draft and the whole war policy of the Government. These appeals are evidently in the interests of a propaganda of unlimited freedom along the lines indicated. But it has seemed to us that the present is not an opportune time to press these questions, and that the Government is not altogether at fault.

It would appear that some of the departmental acts complained of have been arbitrary and not according to American. law and principles, as we understand them; but the man who rocks the boat in midstream is likely to get scant consideration, whether he is technically entitled to it or not, and the same is true of those who in a time of national peril seem, even in small degree, to do or say things that might, though only indirectly, give aid and comfort to national enemies. We wish that all men would be moderate, and especially so in times of great public stress. Liberty is often restricted because of its abuse. For example, there has never been the same freedom of speech in American cities since the Haymarket Riot, that was enjoyed before that time. The bomb that killed eight Chicago policemen the night of May 4. 1886, and seriously injured sixty-six others, struck down at the same time that full measure of freedom of speech known

in this country before that fatal hour. Not only in Chicago, but in every American city, it was practically said: "If we cannot have free speech without murder, we will not have it at all." This determination was and is sustained by public opinion.

And now again, in the second decade of the twentieth century, because of the abuse of freedom of speaking, writing, and publishing, liberty is being further restricted, not only by the authorities, but by public opinion. Men are giving their lives, as they believe, and as the great majority of the people believe, to make democracy safe in the world, and that majority will brook no interference, nor tolerate words and acts calculated in any way to give aid and comfort to the enemies of popular government.

Some of these men who complain of arbitrary action on the part of the Government, may be technically right in thinking that they have kept within the guaranties of the Constitution, but however that may be, the effect of their acts and words has caused further restriction rather than enlargement of the liberties of the people. We are sorry they cannot see this, and voluntarily forego for the time being even what they esteem the Constitutional measure of their individual rights, in the interests of the larger right of a great democracy to perpetuate its own existence and to keep alive in the world," government of the people, by the people, and for the people."

Congress was regularly established. Its observance was fostered by an intensely religious people. Their customs were unmistakably molded by it, and the laws of the different commonwealths, which were formed as the country was settled, were strongly characterized by legislation in its behalf.

Our Fundamental Laws Repudiate Sunday Legislation

The time came when the various colonies wished to unite. After a metamorphosis covering some years they emerged with a full-fledged written Constitution and a federal government. Being mostly religious men, it would not have been a strange thing if those who were instrumental in framing the fundamental laws for these United States, had incorporated some of their religious customs into that new Constitution. Many times these statesmen expressed their belief in a guiding and overruling Providence. But the Articles of Confederation, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution form a threefold witness against the principles of religious legislation. No demand or suggestion is made in them for a law setting apart Sunday as a sabbath, nor even as a civil rest day. Nor is there any provision for such a thing in the future.

The American Government Civil, Not Religious

It is not necessary to recognize God and force his precepts upon unwilling minds by means of civil law; for his law is already elevated to a higher position than any civil law; it is intrenched in the very citadel and throne of the heart, and far beyond the reach of any human 1aw.

By Ch

Imes

Religious Worship Should be Free The feelings of many were no doubt ected in the words of one who wrote the days closely following the adopof the Constitution:

If I observe Sunday, I ought to observe rom a motive of religious obligation and priety, not because the laws of man have scribed it. If I am convinced that it is duty, a duty which I owe to God, to obe that day, no government can have a it to prohibit me from doing so. As I have no right to interfere with my neigh

opinions in any other way than by ar

gument and persuasion, so neither can government in justice do so with the people." -"An Inquiry Concerning the Liberty and Licentiousness of the Press," by John Thompson, p. 47 (1801). Sunday Recognized by Congress; but Its Observance Not Enforced

Congress has recog

nized the existence of certain religious feelings, and especially has it respected the conscience of its own members. With some exceptions it has adjourned its sessions from Saturday to Monday, thus giving the members the day most generally observed as a rest day. But such recognition is vastly different from legislating to protect the day from desecration by either Congress or the people at large. The right to use Sunday for a day of labor has been repeatedly asserted by Congress to the present time.

Over and over again efforts have been made to secure from Congress some action that would place it on record as favoring a national Sunday law. The chief promoters of this scheme are the churches, who are most interested and who hope to be the chief gainers in case such a result could be achieved. But this deliberative body has uniformly refused to accede to such demands. It must be stated in this connection, however, that, under pressure from the great religious organizations, Congress is beginning to relax its former hold upon the Constitutional principles of absolute liberty to all.

Congress Asserts Its Right to Sit on Sunday

Saturday, May 20, 1826, when the House of Representatives was in session and the hour of midnight arrived, Mr. Powell of Virginia introduced this resolution: "Sunday is not, in the contemplation of the laws and Constitution of the United States, a legislative day upon which business ought to be transacted by the House of Representatives." This resolution was tabled,