TREATMENT AFTER ARRESTS 887 to some patriotic fund, while several had served in the United States army. One man had been seventeen months in France and was discharged for disability, and one had served twelve months at the front. Three men were recorded as having waived their right to exemption from the draft although later they were rejected because of physical reasons. Most of the men whose records were available were unskilled or skilled laborers. Many had savings. Some had monetary interests in small business enterprises. On the whole they were representative of the average immigrant population of the United States. Treatment After Arrest. The 10,000 or more persons arrested on the night of the raids prevented prompt examination, filled the jails to overflowing, and compelled the use of other places of detention. In some instances the men were herded together like animals, and, without proper facilities for caring for them, sanitary conditions were appalling. This was especially true in Detroit and on Deer Island in Boston harbor. Conditions were so bad in the former place that they gave rise to a popular protest and demand that the prisoners be removed from their crowded quarters as their presence constituted a menace to the health of the city. Many of the accused were citizens and were later released, others were detained for only a short interval, and about 3,000 were actually imprisoned. The bail demanded ranged from $500 to as high as $10,000. The average amount was about $1,000. Considering the financial condition of the prisoners, the amounts asked were practically prohibitory. As a result many of the accused were held for an indeterminate period in jail, and their dependent families, with no other means of support, were reduced to want. Yet the Constitution expressly declares that "excessive bail shall not be required nor excessive fines imposed." The fact that these men could not secure their freedom on bail was particularly unfortunate considering the large numbers who were later released because the charges against them could not be proved. Frequently the statement on which the warrant for arrest was issued was made by an agent of the Department of Justice. There was nothing to prevent this agent from also serving the warrant, making the arrest, securing the incriminating evidence, being present at the examination, and even acting as interpreter for the accused. The entire procedure might or might not be performed by the same agent, but at any rate it was all carried on mainly under the auspices of the Department of Justice rather than the Department of Labor. In discussing the examination of the accused, Mr. Panunzio said regarding 124 cases studied that in 17 the interpreter was himself an agent of the Department of Justice, in 8 the government had no evidence at the trial, in 60 evidence consisted of mimeographed selections from the party manifestoes, in 14 only a mimeographed form affidavit was offered, and in others a statement obtained from the alien by threat which might or might not bear his signature or that of the examining officer. In thirty-six of the cases membership cards were submitted. Ten of these showed membership in the Socialist Party which was not a proscribed party. Few of the cards bore any mark which would identify them as belonging to the accused. According to Mr. Panunzio's investigation, many of the prisoners were held incommunicado for several weeks, receiving neither papers, letters, or visits from their friends. Fourteen men, held in the county jail at Hartford, Connecticut, were not even given a first hearing for three weeks and during that period could not be interviewed and were not allowed to communicate with the outside world. Among the typical cases described in the Panunzio report were the following: Andrew Chuprina was a Russian by birth. He came to the United States from Canada and was employed by the Western Electric Company. He was married and the father of three children. He had savings amounting to several hundred dollars. During the war he had registered in the draft, purchased liberty bonds, and for ten months had contributed one dollar a month to the support of the American Red Cross. He was arrested in Detroit because the name "Chuprina" was listed in the membership book of the Union of Russian Workers. When he pointed out that only the last name was printed in the book and that there were other persons of that name in Detroit, the examining inspector changed the charge against him and attempted to show that at the time of his entry to the United States he was likely to become a public charge. On examination it was shown that Chuprina had $100 when he came to the United States and had been regularly admitted. Yet he was detained in jail from December 17, 1919, until after June 1, 1920, because he could not raise bail for $10,000. Later he was freed because there was no evidence sufficient to hold him, and he voluntarily left the country. Wasil Lalajo was arrested November 7, 1919. He could not furnish the $1,000 bail demanded and so was imprisoned. Two days later he was given a hearing, and the government inspector made the following statement: "Two of the special agents who have investigated Lalajo's case strongly recommend that the war TREATMENT AFTER ARRESTS 889 rant be cancelled. In fact, they wanted me to release this alien last night, but owing to the fact that the warrant calls for a bond I did not feel like doing it without authority from the Department. I recommend that the work in this case be cancelled and that the Department notify the Inspector-in-Charge at Cleveland by telegraph that this alien can return to work and to support his family." These findings were dated November 9, 1919. On April 8, 1920, five months later, Lalajo was still in jail. His wife and children were reported destitute and suffering. After 162 days of confinement, he was released and all warrant proceedings against him were canceled. Sam Kot was arrested January 15, 1920. A warrant for his arrest was issued two days later on the seventeenth. One thousand dollars bail, which he could not furnish, was demanded. The evidence and testimony at the hearing were such as to induce the government to order his warrant canceled. He was finally released, April 15, after having been ninety days in jail. Ignatz Maritzka was arrested January 3, 1920. He could not give the $1,000 bond required and so was detained. He was finally freed after eighty-eight days because the evidence was insufficient to hold him. What redress did these men have for their long imprisonment? Were they reimbursed for their lost wages and working time? Were their families supported while they were held in jail for unproved charges? Was anything done to recompense them for their sufferings? Will these men make good future citizens? What will they tell their friends and relatives in Europe about democracy in America? Is this the way to abolish or to increase dissatisfaction with and demonstrations against the government? Perhaps the outstanding fact which was pointed out by the twelve lawyers and which the evidence seemed to substantiate was the illegal conduct of legal public officials. If the Department of Justice forgets its title and subordinates justice to convenience what can it expect of citizens unversed in the way of law and what, indeed, of aliens without many of the rights or obligations of citizenship to control their actions? THE EXPULSION OF THE SOCIALISTS FROM THE NEW YORK ASSEMBLY On the opening day of the New York legislature in January, 1920, the five socialist members were deprived of their seats in the assembly. The socialists had taken their oath of office, swearing to support the Constitution of the United States and of the state of New York and to discharge their official duties to the best of their ability. They also declared that they had procured votes by neither bribe nor promise. All of them with the exception of one man had previously served in the assembly. The party which they represented was a legally recognized party. Presumably its members had as much right to election as did the members of the Republican or Democratic Parties. After the business of the opening day was practically over the five socialists without warning before the crowd of spectators assembled to view the official opening were presented in front of the bar of the house by the sergeant-at-arms. The speaker explained this action by accusing the socialists of attempting to take seats in the assembly when they had been elected on a platform "inimical to the best interests of the State of New York and of the United States." He declared the party which they represented to be an unpatriotic, subversive organization and not a genuine political party. A resolution containing a list of accusations against the party, against the socialist assemblymen as members of the party, and depriving them of their seats in the assembly pending an investigation as to their qualifications and eligibility was read and passed. Without trial and without proof of the authenticity of the charges made, the socialists were expelled to the disfranchisement of sixty thousand voters in New York City. Despite the reactionary spirit of the time, there were not wanting men ready to defend the traditional Anglo-Saxon liberties of the people. Charles Evans Hughes, leader of the American bar, a man prominent in the public eye as former governor of New York, former Justice of the Supreme Court, republican candidate for President in 1916, and later Secretary of State, wrote the speaker of the house expressing his disapproval of the assembly's action. A majority, he said, which deprived the minority of representation did so in direct denial of the fundamental principles of the United States government. He further wrote, "But I count it a most serious mistake to proceed, not against individuals charged with violation of law, but against masses of our citizens combined for political action, by denying them the only resource of peaceful government, that is, action by the ballot box and through duly elected representatives in legislative bodies." Mr. Hughes was not alone in his protest. Criticism of the assembly's action was heard from liberal and conservative groups alike. The bar association of New York City appointed a committee with Mr. Hughes as its chairman to appear before the CASE FOR EXPULSION 391 judiciary committee of the assembly investigating the socialists' case and protect the principle of representative government. The association's representatives were refused permission to participate in the proceedings, but they filed a brief and certain recommendations. They requested the judiciary committee to return a report to the assembly clearing the five unseated assemblymen of any constitutional disqualification for office, or any misconduct, or violation of law, as no such charges had been properly made. They advised that the suspended members be restored at once to the privileges of their seats. If any charges were to be presented against them, they should be presented in an orderly manner, established by proof "after due opportunity to be heard" and until such charges were duly proved the members should be allowed to retain their seats as a personal right and as a right due the people who elected them. Despite the opposition to its action and the developing public sentiment against the continued suppression of civil liberties, the judiciary committee made a report advising expulsion which was adopted by the assembly. The action depriving the socialists of their seats was thus upheld and all five were disqualified from holding office. Case for Expulsion. Several of the reasons given for expulsion were contained in the original resolution. The socialist members were representative of a party which was in sympathy with Soviet Russia and was affiliated with the Third International, which stood for the overthrow of existing governments by force and violence. It could be deduced from this affiliation with a revolutionary body that the Socialist Party, itself, stood for the destruction of government by violence. Moreover the party advocated the use of the general strike and mass action, which were held to amount to force and violence. It was shown that members of the Socialist Party had to swear allegiance to the constitution and platform of the party, and that not only did the Socialist Party have revolutionary aims, but it had officially denounced the war and urged its members to oppose it. The representatives of such a party must themselves be against the government and inimical to the war just fought for democracy. The Socialist Party was not only opposed to the World War but to any so-called capitalist war. It had systematically refused support to military measures. One provision of its national constitution forbade socialist office holders to vote appropriations for military or naval purposes under threat of expulsion. This provision in itself rendered a socialist unfit to hold office in New York, for it disqualified him from taking |