Chapter XXII: Appendix: I

BIBLIOGRAPHY ON FREEDOM OF SPEECH

Note: This Bibliography is far from a complete list of even
the modern material in the English language. No Continental
literature is included and information about religious liberty
must be sought elsewhere. The purpose is to cover only the topics
of the book.

A. GENERAL AND HISTORICAL (CHAPTER I)

The legal meaning of freedom of speech cannot properly be determined without a knowledge of the political and philosophical basis of such freedom. Four writings on this problem may be mentioned as invaluable: Plato’s _Apology of Socrates_; Milton’s _Areopagitica_; the second chapter of Mill, _On Liberty_; and Walter Bagehot’s essay, “The Metaphysical Basis of Toleration.” The second chapter of J. F. Stephen, _Liberty, Equality, Fraternity_, has an important critique on Mill. See, also, J. B. Bury, _A History of Freedom of Thought_, the first and last chapters; Grote, _Plato_, Chap. VI; Graham Wallas, _The Great Society_, 195–98. The relation of freedom of thought to political progress is discussed by same, “The Price of Intolerance,” 125 _Atlantic_ 116 (January, 1920); H. J. Laski, _Authority in the Modern State_, passim; same, “The Temper of the Present Time,” 21 _New Republic_ 335 (February 18, 1920). Francis Hackett, “The Invisible Censor,” 21 _New Republic_ 11 (December 3, 1919), sketches the psychology of suppression. For a caustic point of view, see Fabian Franklin, “Some Free Speech Delusions,” 2 _Unpopular Rev._ 223 (October, 1914). The difficulties of the problem as seen from actual experience on both sides are presented in Viscount Morley’s _Recollections_.

By far the best textbook on this and the other civil rights is Cooley, _Constitutional Limitations_, 7th ed.; Dicey, _The Law of the Constitution_, 8th ed., Chaps. VI and VII gives the English law of freedom of speech and assembly.

The best discussion of the legal meaning of “Freedom of the Press in the United States” will be found in an article under that name by Henry Schofield, in 9 _Publications of the American Sociological Society_ 67 (1914). This volume is devoted entirely to “Freedom of Communication,” and contains several valuable papers on different aspects of the problem. Other general legal articles are: “The Jurisdiction of the United States over Seditious Libel,” H. W. Biklé, 41 _Am. L. Reg._ (N. S.) 1 (1902); “Restrictions on the Freedom of the Press,” 16 _Harv. L. Rev._ 55 (1902); “Free Speech and Free Press in Relation to the Police Power of the State,” P. L. Edwards, 58 _Cent. L. J._ 383 (1904); “Freedom of Speech and of the Press,” 65 _Univ. of Pa. L. Rev._ 170 (1916); Joseph R. Long, “The Freedom of the Press,” 5 _Va. L. Rev._ 225 (1918). Freedom of speech is discussed by Dean Pound as an interest of the individual in his “Interests of Personality,” 28 _Harv. L. Rev._ 445, 453 (1915); and as an alleged bar to injunctions of libel in his “Equitable Relief against Defamation and Injuries to Personality,” 29 _Harv. L. Rev._ 640, 648 (1916). For the technique of political trials, see Robert Ferrari, “Political Crime and Criminal Evidence,” 3 _Minn. L. Rev._ 365 (1919); “Political Crime,” 20 _Col. L. Rev._ 308 (1920); “The Trial of Political Criminals Here and Abroad,” 66 _Dial_ 647 (June 28, 1919). Much useful material is collected in the writings of Theodore Schroeder, of which a bibliography by N. E. Sankey-Jones is published by the New York Free Speech League, 1919. Recent articles by him are “A Psychologic Study of Judicial Opinions,” 6 _Cal. L. Rev._ 89 (1918); “Political Crimes Defined,” 18 _Mich. L. Rev._ 30 (1919).

_Origins of the First Amendment_:

The history of freedom of speech in America has not yet been fully investigated, but Clyde A. Duniway, _The Development of Freedom of the Press in Massachusetts_, Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1906, is extremely useful for the Colonial period. Max Farrand, _Records of the Federal Convention_, gives material on the proposed free speech clause, II, 334, 340, 341, 545; III, 122, 256, 290, 595, 599, 609. The state debates on this clause are in _Elliot’s Debates_ (2d ed., 1836), I, 359, 360, 362, 369, 371, 375; II, 424, 511, 537; III, 411, 414, 415, 431, 551; IV, 159, 175, 209, 301, 302. J. B. McMaster and F. D. Stone, _Pennsylvania and the Federal Convention, 1787–1788_, Hist. Soc. of Penn., 1888, has contemporary press discussion.

_English History and Law_:

Much light is thrown on the problem by sedition trials in England, before our Revolution and during the French Revolution. The best account of these is in T. Erskine May, 2 _Constitutional History of England_, 2d ed., 1912, Chaps. IX-X, summarized by Charles A. Beard in 16 _New Republic_ 350 (October 19, 1918). See, also, 2 Stephen, _History of the Criminal Law_, Chap. XXIV; Graham Wallas, _Life of Francis Place_, N. Y., 1919; Philip A. Brown, _The French Revolution in English History_, London, 1918; G. O. Trevelyan, _The Early History of Charles James Fox_, relates Wilkes and Junius controversies. See bibliography in J. F. Rhodes, _History of the United States_, IV, 233 note.

For the modern law: F. M. Anderson, “The Law of Sedition in the British Empire,” _House Judiciary Hearings_, p. 273; H. J. Laski, “The Fundamental Law in England,” 31 _Harv. L. Rev._ 296 (1917). Canada: A. V. Thomas, “Quoting Isaiah in Winnipeg,” 110 _Nation_ 850 (January 3, 1920); J. A. Stevenson, “A Set-back for Reaction in Canada,” 110 _ibid._ 292 (March 6).

_Sedition Act of 1798_:

Frank Maloy Anderson, “The Enforcement of the Alien and Sedition Laws,” Ann. Rep. Am. Hist. Assn. (1912) 115; same, “Contemporary Opinion of the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions,” 5 _Am. Hist. Rev._ 45 (1900); Albert J. Beveridge, _Life of John Marshall_, vols. II and III, _passim_, is vivid and collects much contemporary material. The four reported prosecutions are in Wharton’s _State Trials_,—Lyon, 333 (1798); Cooper, 659 (1800); Haswell, 684 (1800); Callender, 688 (1800). Wharton, 23, narrates the events leading up to these statutes; see, also, Channing and other standard histories. For references to the Sedition Act in Jefferson’s letters, see the edition of _Paul Leicester Ford_, VII, 245: “The object of that [the bill] is the suppression of the whig presses;” VII, 246; VII, 266, on unconstitutionality; VII, 283, “The alien and sedition laws are working hard;” VII, 289, 311, 336, 350, 354, 355, 356, on popular opposition to the acts; VII, 367, 371, 483, on continuation of Sedition Law by Congress; VIII, 54, 56 ff., 308 ff., on unconstitutionality and pardons; IX, 456, on dismissal of prosecutions. Madison’s Report on the Virginia Resolutions is reprinted in _Elliot’s Debates_.

_Reference Books_:

Soule’s _Lawyer’s Reference Manual_, for abbreviations of legal reports.

_New York Times Index_, issued quarterly, is very valuable for finding press accounts of prosecutions, etc.

B. THE WAR (CHAPTERS II AND III)

Important decisions under the U. S. Espionage Act are printed in the Federal (Fed.) and United States Supreme Court Reports (U. S.). The latter are in public and university libraries. The Bulletins of the Department of Justice on the Interpretation of War Statutes (cited herein as Bull. Dept. Just.), Nos. 1–204, contain many charges not otherwise reported. Appendix II, _infra_, tells where all reported prosecutions can be found. Supreme Court records and briefs are in the Harvard Law School Library. The cases before July, 1918, are collected by Walter Nelles, _Espionage Act Cases, with Certain Others on Related Points_, Natl. Civil Liberties Bureau, N. Y. This has some state cases, and gives a careful analysis of the decisions. The Bureau has also published _War-time Prosecutions and Mob Violence_, involving the rights of free speech, free press, and peaceful assemblage (from April 1, 1917, to March 1, 1919), containing an annotated list of prosecutions, convictions, exclusions from the mail, etc. It has prepared in MSS. “A Memorandum Concerning Political Prisoners Within the Jurisdiction of the Department of Justice in 1919,” for the Attorney General; and “Memorandum to the President of the United States as to Persons Imprisoned for Violation of the War Laws” (copies in Harvard Law School Library).

The enforcement of the Espionage Act and similar statutes is officially summarized in the Reports of the Attorney General for 1917, 1918, and 1919, with lists of prosecutions and results, and circulars issued to district attorneys. See, also “Suggestions of Attorney-General Gregory to Executive Committee in Relation to the Department of Justice,” 4 _Am. Bar. Assn. J._ 305 (1918). An invaluable account of the war work of the Department is, John Lord O’Brian, “Civil Liberty in War-time,” 52 _Rep. N. Y. Bar Assn._ 275 (1919). A military view of censorship is “The Proper Relations between the Army and the Press in War,” Army War College, November, 1915.

_The American Labor Year-Book_, 1919–20, Rand School, N. Y., narrates several prosecutions in detail.

The issues involved in the current decisions are presented in non-technical form by these articles: “Freedom of Speech,” Z. Chafee, Jr., 17 _New Republic_, 66 (November 16, 1918); Ralph Barton Perry in a book review, 7 _Yale Rev._ 670 (April, 1918); “The Supreme Court _vs._ the Supreme Court,” 22 _New Republic_ 235 (April 21, 1920).

_Legal Articles on the War_:

“Freedom of Speech and of the Press,” W. R. Vance, 2 _Minn. L. Rev._ 239 (1918); “The Espionage Act Cases,” 32 _Harv. L. Rev._ 417 (1919); “Threats to Take the Life of the President,” 32 _Harv. L. Rev._ 724 (1919); “The Vital Importance of a Liberal Construction of the Espionage Act,” Alexander H. Robbins, 87 _Cent. L. J._ 145 (1918); “Sufficiency of Indictments under the Espionage Act,” 87 _Cent. L. J._ 400 (1918). The Espionage Act is one of the topics covered by Judge Charles M. Hough, “Law in War Time—1917,” 31 _Harv. L. Rev._ 692, 696 (1918). Thomas F. Carroll, “Freedom of Speech and of the Press in War Time,” 17 _Mich. L. Rev._ 621 (1919); Z. Chafee, Jr., “Freedom of Speech in War Time,” 32 _Harv. L. Rev._ 932 (1919).

_Treason_:

Charles Warren, “What Is Giving Aid and Comfort to the Enemy?”, 27 _Yale L. Rev._ 331 (1918).

_Post-office_:

“Federal Interference with the Freedom of the Press,” Lindsay Rogers, 23 _Yale L. J._ 559 (1914), substantially reprinted as Chapter IV of his _Postal Power of Congress_, Baltimore, John Hopkins Press, 1916; R. E. Cushman, “National Police Power under the Postal Clause of the Constitution,” 4 _Minn. L. Rev._ 402 (1920); William Hard, “Mr. Burleson, Espionagent,” 19 _New Republic_ 42 (May 10, 1919), and “Mr. Burleson, Section 481½ B,” 19 _New Republic_ 76 (May 17, 1919); “Burleson and the Call,” 22 _New Republic_ 157 (January 7, 1920); “The Call,” 1 _Review_ 652 (December 13, 1919). For examples of war censorship and legal discussion of Title XII of the Espionage Act, Carroll, _op. cit._, in 17 _Mich. L. Rev._ 629.

_Particular Cases under the Espionage Act and State War Acts_:

_Abrams_ (Chapter III):

The principal sources are the _Transcript of Record_, Supreme Court of the United States, October Term, 1919, No. 316, Jacob Abrams _et al._, Plaintiffs-in-Error, _v._ The United States; the two briefs; and the opinions of the court in 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 17 (1919), also reprinted in “The Espionage Act Interpreted,” 20 _New Republic_ 377 (November 26, 1919). Transcript and briefs are in the library of the Law School of Harvard University. It has not been thought necessary to give references to the _Record_ except for significant passages. Some information about the trial not contained in the _Record_ is taken from current issues of the _New York Times_ and the _New York Call_, or from personal conversation and correspondence; the sources of such unofficial data are indicated in every instance, and have been carefully checked from the Stenographic Minutes of the trial, in the U. S. Attorney’s office, N. Y., where they were very kindly placed at my disposal. See also Palmer Deportations Testimony, 173.

For criticism of the trial, see the pamphlet, _Sentenced to Twenty Years Prison_, published by the Political Prisoners Defense and Relief Committee, New York, 1919; “Our Ferocious Sentences,” 107 _Nation_ 504 (November 2, 1918).

Comment in support of the majority opinion of the Supreme Court will be found in a note, “The Espionage Act and the Limits of Legal Toleration,” 33 _Harv. L. Rev._ 442 (January, 1910); and in articles, “Justice Holmes’s Dissent,” 1 _Review_ 636 (December 6, 1919); John H. Wigmore, “Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Thuggery,” 14 _Ill. L. Rev._ 539. The minority opinion is supported by a note, “Free Speech in Time of Peace,” in 29 _Yale L. J._ 337 (January, 1920); and 14 _Ill. L. Rev._ 601; and articles “The Call to Toleration,” 20 _New Republic_ 360 (November 20, 1919), “What Is Left of Free Speech,” Gerard C. Henderson, 21 _New Republic_ 50 (December 10, 1919).

_Berger_ (see under Legislative Exclusion).

_Debs_:

David Karnsner, _Debs, his Authorized Life and Letters from Woodstock Prison to Atlanta_, N. Y., 1919. Reviewed by Harry Salpeter, “Martyr or Felon?”, 110 _Nation_ 520 (April 17, 1920). Scott Nearing, “The Debs Decision,” Rand School, N. Y., 1919, contains Debs’ addresses at Canton and in the court-room. “The Law of the Debs Case and Freedom of Speech,” 19 _New Republic_ 13 (May 3, 1919); followed by correspondence, _ibid._, 151 (May 31). “The Trial of Eugene Debs,” Max Eastman, _The Liberator_ (November, 1918), gives another defendant’s impression.

_I.W.W._ (see under Radical Activities).

_Nearing_:

Scott Nearing, “The Great Madness: a Victory for the American Plutocracy,” Rand School, N. Y., 1917.

_O’Hare_:

“The Conviction of Kate Richards O’Hare and North Dakota Politics,” Natl. Civil Liberties Bureau, N. Y.; “The Kate O’Hare Booklets,” published by Frank P. O’Hare, St. Louis.

_Syracuse Socialist Case of 1920_ (Steene, Hotze, and Preston): 21 _New Republic_ 302 (February 11, 1920); “Bringing the Constitution into Disrepute,” _ibid._ 330 (February 18, 1920).

_Townley_:

C. R. Johnson, “The Conviction of Townley,” 20 _New Republic_ 18 (August 6, 1919); Judson King, “The Prosecution of Mr. Townley,” 109 _Nation_ 143 (August 2, 1919); “The Trial of Townley and Gilbert,” 1 _Review_ (July 26, 1919). An impartial account of the Non-Partisan League is Arthur Ruhl, “The North Dakota Idea,” _Atlantic Monthly_ (May, 1919).

C. RADICAL ACTIVITIES IN THE UNITED STATES AND PEACE-TIME RESTRICTIONS
UPON FREEDOM OF SPEECH (CHAPTERS IV AND V)

_Backgrounds_:

All consideration of governmental activity against radicalism should be preceded by an inquiry into the nature and purposes of the various radical movements, which must be carefully kept distinct. Bertrand Russell, _Proposed Roads to Freedom: Socialism, Anarchism and Syndicalism_, N. Y., 1919, is a fair-minded survey though opposed to the present system. Among books on Russia are E. H. Wilcox, _Russia’s Ruin; Russian-American Relations_, ed. Cumming and Pettit. See, also, under I.W.W., _infra_.

On anarchy legislation of the past and similar problems, Ernst Freund, _The Police Power_, §§ 471–484. F. T. Hill, _Famous Battles of the Law_, narrates the Chicago affair of 1886. Concrete data on the handling of radical meetings before the war are furnished by Arthur Woods, _Policeman and Public_, New Haven, 1919; and J. F. Rhodes, _History of the United States_, Vol. VIII, N. Y., 1919. The work of the New York Bomb Squad is told by Tunney and Hollister in _Throttled_, Boston, 1919.

_Blasphemy_:

Austin W. Scott, “The Legality of Atheism,” 31 _Harv. L. Rev._ 289 (1917).

_Sex topics_:

Theodore Schroeder, _Obscene Literature and Constitutional Law_, N. Y., 1911, and other writings by him; J. C. Ruppenthal “Criminal Statutes on Birth Control,” 10 _J. Cr. L. & Crim._ 48 (1919); and see P. _v._ Byrne, 163 N. Y. Supp. 680, 682.

_Moving-picture Censorship_:

Amy Woods, “Boston and the ‘Movie’ Censorship,” 44 _Survey_ 108 (April 17, 1920).

_Strikes and Labor Troubles_:

The ability of freedom of speech to withstand such strains has not been sufficiently studied. William Hard has written a series of articles on Passaic: “America in Passaic,” 22 _New Republic_ 182 (April 7, 1920); “Learn from Passaic,” 22 _ibid._ 213 (April 14); “They Must Have Espionage,” 22 _ibid._ 248 (April 21). On the Steel Strike, see S. Adele Shaw, “The Makings for Revolution,” 20 _ibid._ 52 (August 13, 1919); W. Z. Foster, _The Great Steel Strike_; The Interchurch Report on the Steel Strike of 1919.

_Proposed Federal Sedition Bills and National Conditions_:

Four official reports have been published, which are valuable not only in relation to this topic, but also for information about deportations, state legislation, radical activities, and the work of the Department of Justice. These are: (1) _Bolshevik Propaganda, Hearings before a Subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary_, United States Senate, Sixty-fifth Congress, Third Session and thereafter, pursuant to Senate Resolutions 439 and 469 Washington, 1919. This is the report of the Overman Committee, and contains the testimony of Raymond Robins and others on Russian internal affairs. Cited as Bolshevik Propaganda in this book.

(2) Investigation Activities of the Department of Justice, Letter from the Attorney General transmitting in Response to a Senate Resolution of October 17, 1919, a Report on the Activities of the Bureau of Investigation of the Department of Justice against Persons advising Anarchy, Sedition, and the Forcible Overthrow of the Government, Sen. Doc. No. 153, 66th Cong., 1st Sess., Wash., 1919. Cited as Investigation Activities in this book.

(3) Rule Making in Order the Consideration of S. 3317, Hearings before the Committee on Rules, House of Representatives, 66th Cong., 2d Sess., on H. Res. 438, Wash., 1920. Cited as House Rules Hearings in this book.

(4) Sedition, Hearing before the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, 66th Cong., 2d Sess., on S. 3317, H. R. 10650 and 12041, Serial 16, February 4 and 6, 1920. Wash., 1920. This contains official publications of the Communist parties, etc. Cited as House Judiciary Hearings in this book.

See also copies of the various bills and the proposed amendments; also House Judiciary Report submitting Graham Bill, H. R. Report No. 542, 66th Cong., 2d Sess.; also Reports listed under _Deportations_.

Among articles in periodicals on these bills and the “red hysteria,” are: Frank I. Cobb, “The Press and Public Opinion,” 21 _New Republic_ 144 (December 31, 1919); Z. Chafee, Jr., “Legislation Against Anarchy” (Overman Bill), 19 _ibid._ 379 (July 23, 1919); “A New Alien and Sedition Law,” 20 _ibid._ 366 (November 26, 1919); Swinburne Hale, “The ‘Force and Violence’ Joker,” 21 _ibid._ 231 (January 21, 1920); “The Red Hysteria” (Harvard Liberal Club Dinner), 21 _ibid._ 249 (January 28); William Hard, “Perhaps the Turn of the Tide” (House Rules hearings on Graham Bill), 21 _ibid._ 313 (February 11); “What Is Attorney General Palmer Doing?” (circular letter by him), 110 _Nation_ 190 (February 14); “The Issue of Free Speech,” 1 _Review_ 634 (December 6, 1919); “Mock-Hysteria,” 2 _Review_ 43 (January 17, 1920); “What Shall We Do with the Direct Actionist?”, 89 _Cent. L. J._ 313 (1919); Walter Lippman and Z. Chafee, Jr., “Free Speech and Free Press as Factors in International Affairs,” League of Free Nations Bulletin, March, 1920.

_State Sedition and Syndicalism Laws_:

“Criminal Syndicalism,” 20 _Colum. L. Rev._ 232 (1920); letter in 110 _Nation_ 202 (February 14, 1920). _California_, Perry L. Edwards, “Criminal Syndicalism—Back-firing Against Industrial Unrest by the Legislature of California,” 89 _Cent. L. J._ 336 (1919); “The Conviction of Anita Whitney,” Clare Shipman, 110 _Nation_ 365 (March 20, 1920). _Connecticut_, “‘The Most Brainiest Man,’” 110 _ibid._ 510 (April 17). _Massachusetts_, Z. Chafee, Jr., “Warns of Anti-Anarchy Bill,” _Boston Sunday Advertiser_, April 13, 1919. _New Jersey_, H. E. Cory, “The Intellectuals and the Wage Workers,” N. Y., 1919 (p. 208 on Boyd case). _New York_, Swinburne Hale, “Criminal Anarchy,” 21 _New Republic_ 270 (January 28, 1920); [McAdoo decision against Gitlow and Larkin], House Judiciary Hearings, p. 155; A. Giovannitti, “Commercialism on Trial,” _Liberator_, March, 1920 (Gitlow trial). _Oregon_, “American by Decree” (foreign language press), 22 _New Republic_ 262 (April 28, 1920).

See U. S. official reports, _supra_, and Appendix V, _infra_.

_Industrial Workers of the World_:

There are two studies by scholars. Paul Frederick Brissenden: _The I.W.W.: A Study of American Syndicalism_. Colum. Univ. Studies in History, etc., vol. 83, 2d ed., N. Y., 1920. Carleton H. Parker: “The I.W.W.,” _Atlantic Monthly_, 651 (November, 1917), reprinted in his _The Casual Laborer and Other Essays_, N. Y., 1920.

For the Chicago trial, see U. S. _v._ W. D. Haywood _et al._ Bull. Dept. Just., No. 175; Evidence and Cross-Examination of W. D. Haywood [in same]; Evidence and Cross-Examination of J. T. (Red) Doran [in same]; Indictment [in same], I.W.W. Pub. Bureau, Chicago.; “The Truth about the I.W.W.”, Natl. Civil Liberties Bureau, N. Y.; “The Persecution of the Radical Labor Movement in the United States.” N. Y. Defense Committee of the I.W.W., N. Y.

The Sacramento trial is discussed in “Ol’ Rags and Bottles,” 108 _Nation_ 114 (January 25, 1919); _American Labor Year-Book_, 1919–20, 100 and 107, has accounts of Chicago and Sacramento trials.

For the Washington situation, see [Washington Injunction Against Membership in the I.W.W.], 109 _Nation_ 843 (_January 3, 1920_); Jerrold Owen: “Centralia,” _American Legion Weekly_, December 12, 1919; Anna Louise Strong, “Centralia: An Unfinished Story,” 110 _Nation_ 508 (April 17, 1920); E. M., “Centralia,” 22 _New Republic_ 217 (April 14, 1920). Ole Hanson, _Americanism vs. Bolshevism_.

_Deportation of Aliens_ (Chapter V):

The best review of the procedure is by Assistant Secretary of Labor Louis F. Post, “Administrative Decisions in Connection with Immigration,” 10 _Am. Pol. Sci. Rev._ 251 (1916). Recent legal articles: Howard L. Bevis, “The Deportation of Aliens,” 62 _U. of Pa. L. Rev._ 97 (1920); “Deportation of Seditious Aliens,” 23 _Law Notes_ (N. Y.) 64 (1919); “Deportation of Aliens who Advocate the Overthrow of Government by Force,” 89 _Cent. L. J._ 369 (1919). John Lord O’Brian, “The Menace of Administrative Law,” address to Maryland Bar Association; June, 1920.

Original sources: The administrative hearings are largely buried in the files of the immigration officials. A few cases are extracted in Charles Recht, “American Deportation and Exclusion Laws,” League for Democratic Control, Boston, 1919, and “The Anarchist Deportations,” 21 _New Republic_, 96 (December 24, 1919). The whole procedure in the Communist raids is exhaustively shown by the record in Katzeff _v._ Skeffington (Colyer case) in the United States District Court in Boston. The _Federal Reporter_ contains several recent decisions on the deportation of radicals. The decision of Secretary of Labor Wilson on the Communist Party is in _House Judiciary Hearings_ (p. 17), which also gives the platform, manifesto, etc., of this and the Communist Labor Party. Much of the same material with a history of the creation of the two parties is also accessible in _American Labor Year-Book_, 1919–20. Part of the decision of Assistant Secretary Post on the raid cases is in “On Behalf of Louis F. Post,” 22 _New Republic_ 264 (April 28, 1920). The most valuable document in the raids is Judge Anderson’s decision in the Colyer case, in the _Federal Reporter_, 265 Fed. 17.

The history of left-wing Socialism is also narrated by an impartial observer, Gordon S. Watkins, “The Present Status of Socialism in the United States,” 124 _Atlantic_ 821 (December, 1919); and in H. W. Laidler, “Socialism in Thought and Action.”

Congressional reports of especial value, 66th Congress, 2d Session, 1920: (1) Three pamphlets of Hearings before a Subcommittee of the House Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, “Communist and Anarchist Deportation Cases” “I.W.W. Deportation Cases,” “Communist Labor Party Deportation Cases,” all cited herein as _House Immigration Hearings_. These contain many administrative decisions, but not the complete records. (2) “Investigation of Administration of Louis F. Post, Assistant Secretary of Labor, in the Matter of Deportation of Aliens, Hearings before the Committee on Rules, etc., on H. Res. 522,” 2 parts; cited herein as _Post Deportations Testimony_. (3) “Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer on charges made against the Department of Justice by Louis F. Post and others, Hearings before the Committee on Rules, etc.,” Part I; cited herein as _Palmer Deportations Testimony_.

Much important testimony from the Colyer case, including the official instructions, is in the pamphlet, “To the American People. Report upon the Illegal Practices of the United States Department of Justice,” by 12 lawyers, National Popular Government League, Washington, May, 1920; cited herein as _Illegal Practices_.

Popular articles on the “Buford” and the January raids are: “The Deportation,” 1 _Review_ 695 (December 27, 1919); “The Raid on the Reds,” 2 _Review_ 22 (January 10, 1920); “Deporting a Political Party,” 21 _New Republic_ 186 (January 14, 1920). Ernst Freund, “Burning Heretics,” 21 _ibid._ 266 (January 28, 1920); “A Federal Judge Speaks Up” (Bourquin, J., in _Re_ Jackson), 22 _ibid._ 135 (March 31); “Deportations and the Law,” 110 _Nation_ 131 (January 31); F. R. Barkley, “Jailing Radicals in Detroit,” 110 _ibid._ 136; F. C. Howe, “Lynch Law and the Immigrant Alien,” 110 _ibid._ 194 (February 14); “Another Man Without a Country,” 110 _ibid._ 289 (March 6); Lincoln Colcord, “Martens and Our Foreign Policy” (correspondence of Secretary Wilson and John E. Milholland), 110 _ibid._ 324 (March 13); Winthrop D. Lane, “The Buford Widows,” 43 _Survey_ 391 (January 10); “Aliens and Sedition in the New Year,” 43 _ibid._ 422 (January 13); Sidney Howard, “The Colyer Trial Opens,” 44 _Survey_ 105 (April 17). See, also, some of the articles on the red hysteria, etc.

Accounts of the New England raids from the point of view of the aliens are, “The Soviet of Deer Island, Boston Harbor, January-February, 1920, by One of the Members,” Boston Branch of Am. Civil Liberties Union; “Deported via Deer Island,” MSS. report prepared for the Bureau.

_Searches and Seizures_ (Chapters V and VI):

“The Case of the Rand School,” published by the School, N. Y., 1919; “The Truth about the Lusk Committee,” Nation Press, N. Y., 1920; “Whose Home Will Be Safe?”, 19 _New Republic_ 303 (July 9, 1919); Anna L. Strong, “A Newspaper Confiscated—and Returned,” 109 _Nation_ 738 (December 13, 1919).

D. POWER OF A LEGISLATURE TO EXCLUDE OR EXPEL FOR OPINIONS (CHAPTER VI)

For the English law, T. Erskine May, _Parliamentary Practice_, 12th ed., London, 1917; same, _Constitutional History of England_, vol. I, for Wilkes, and also G. O. Trevelyan, _Early History of Charles James Fox_, and Macaulay’s second _Essay on Chatham_. Justin McCarthy, _History of Our Own Times_, vol. III, for Bradlaugh.

For Congress, Asher Hinds, _Precedents of the House of Representatives of the United States_, Washington, 1907. This contains many Senate cases. See, also, Webb & Pierce, Compilation of Senate Election Cases, 1789–1913, Washington, 1913. Other Congressional compilations may be useful. Massachusetts cases are collected by Cushing, Loring, and Russell; New York, by Armstrong.

_Berger_:

Victor L. Berger, Hearings before the Special Committee appointed under the Authority of House Resolution No. 6 concerning the Right of Victor L. Berger to be Sworn in as a Member of the Sixty-sixth Congress, 2 vols., Wash., 1919. (These contain records of the prosecution and _Milwaukee Leader_ case.) Cited herein as _Berger Hearings_.

Ho. Cal. No. 91, 66th Cong., 1st Sess., Report No. 413, Case of Victor L. Berger of Wisconsin. Cited herein as _Berger Report_.

“Victor L. Berger,” _Socialist Review_, (February, 1920); “The Berger Victory,” 109 _Nation_ 820 (December 27, 1919); for account of the trial from the side of the defense, _American Labor Year-Book_, 1919–20, 97–100.

_New York Socialists_:

The record of the investigation was printed by the Assembly. Briefs include, Brief of Special Committee appointed by the Association of the Bar of the City of New York (January 20, 1920); Outline of the Evidence taken before the Judiciary Committee to and including February 5, 1920, with a discussion of some conclusions to be drawn therefrom [against Socialists and signed by Attorney-General and associate counsel]; Brief for the Socialist Assemblymen, March 15, 1920; Brief for the Judiciary Committee, March 24, 1920.

Articles in periodicals (all in 1920): “The Issues in the Fight at Albany,” 2 _Review_ 121 (February 7); “Hillquit on the Socialist Programme,” 2 _Review_ 193 (February 28); “Governor Smith’s Opportunity,” 2 _Review_ 421 (April 24); “Speaker Sweet Does His Bit,” 22 _New Republic_ 210 (January 21); “The Mob in High Places,” 22 _New Republic_ 279 (February 4); “Up to the Voters,” 22 _New Republic_ 200 (April 14) [Lusk Bills]; 22 _New Republic_ 171 (April 7); “Minority Rights at Albany,” 110 _Nation_ 288 (March 6); Lewis S. Gannett, “The Socialists’ Trial at Albany: A Summary,” 110 _Nation_ 361 (March 20); Loula D. Lasker, “Back in the Districts: What New York Assemblymen’s Constituents Are Thinking,” 53 _Survey_ 767 (March 20); Robert Minor, “Dissolving the Duma at Albany,” _Liberator_ (March 20).

E. SCHOOLS

Henry R. Linville, John L. Tildsley, and Z. Chafee, Jr., “The Schools and the Issue of Freedom,” in leaflets, “The Public and the Schools,” published by Public School Education Assn., N. Y., May 3, 17, 24, 1919. Various pamphlets have been issued on both sides of the controversies in New York and Washington, and several articles printed in the _Nation_.