International Socialist Review (1900) Vol 17

INTERNATIONAL SOCIALIST REVIEW 17
suspended and the House entered upon
an excited discussion as to what to do
with the recreant Congressman, whose
utterances were characterized by Mr.
Austin of Tennessee, a Democrat of light
and leading, as "a disgrace to the American
Congress. ,,
This characterization
was undoubtedly correct. But only in
the sense that it was a disgrace to the
American Congress to have to be reminded
that according to the American
theory of government the sanction of
governmental power rests in the consent
of the governed, and that where that
sanction is wanting the "governed" have
the right to use all means at their command
in order to overthrow the iniquitous
government. But Mr. Austin
did not mean it exactly that way. What
he meant to say was that the affirmation
of this doctrine—which is the doctrine of
the Declaration of Independence—by one
of its members was a disgrace to the
American Congress. He therefore expressed
the very laudable wish to be able
to move the expulsion of London from
the House. And in default of such
power he desired to have London made
to apologize for thus "insulting" the
House, in which desire many of Mr. Austin's
colleagues, both Democratic and Republican,
heartily and vociferously joined.
Which was surely disgrace enough.
But here something even more disgraceful
happened—disgraceful not only
to the American Congress, but also to the
American Socialist movement. The
Socialist Congressman, instead of insisting
on his rights, and making the most
of his opportunity to confound the Bourbons
of the House by teaching them a
lesson in American history and American
governmental theory, actually apologized.
And not only that, he actually went back
on himself, denying that he ever uttered
the words in which he should haye
gloried. And all this in such a miserably
abject way that the reading of the
printed record of this scene is sickening
and disheartening beyond measure.
What has happened to London? This
is a riddle which will puzzle all those who
knoW'feim, and who have watched his
hitherto tnanful course in the House of
Representatives. Whatever we may
think of London's views on certain sub-
jects, surely London is no coward. Why,
then, this abject pater peccavi?
Perhaps we may find the key to this
riddle in the attitude of the Socialist
press towards this incident. Not merely
the reptile Socialist press, but the Social-
ist press that counts. In speaking of
the incident, the New York Volkszeitung
said, editorially, that London could not
have said the words which we italicized
above, for had he actually have said them
he would have been no Socialist.
This sounds amazing, incredible. But
it is so writ in black on white in the editorial
columns of the Volkszeitung of May
9, A. D. 1916. And there is no doubt that
the Volkszeitung states what might be
considered the official American Socialist
opinion on this subject. It seems that
the cancer of legalism has so eaten into
the marrow of our bones that we have
left even "Section Six" behind. That
section referred only to the United
States, where we have manhood suffrage.
The right to use "illegal" means against
their oppressors was still, tacitly at least,
reserved to those who are deprived of
the right to vote. But in the meantime
our legalistic doctrine ha5 evidently received
an important extension : The right
to use "illegal" means is forbidden—according
to this improved "Socialist'*
Code—even to those who have no other
means at their disposal, those who cannot
use "political action" because they have
no political rights.
It seems that was this official socialist
doctrine of legalism that made London
eat his words so abjectly. At first London
thoughtlessly followed his socialist
and revolutionary instinct and courageously
reminded the House of what used
to be good democratic doctrine and should
still be good socialist doctrine. But Mr.
Austin of Tennessee reminded him that
what was good democratic doctrine once
was no longer, that it was in fact a
"disgrace" to an alleged democratic Congress
to have it uttered within its sacred
precincts. Whereupon London evidently,
recalled that the Bourbon members of
Tennessee were in possession not only of
the true modern Democratic doctrine, but
also of the true modern Socialist, or at
least American Socialist, doctrine, and
he hastened to eat his words.
Digitized by VjOOQIC