It remains to be shown that the rapid spread of Socialism, besides being due to the extraordinary zeal of the Revolutionists, is largely the result of artful deception.

The Marxians, who are fond of being called "scientific" Socialists, may very aptly be compared to little boys who might try to prove to their teacher that the solution of a certain problem in mathematics was correct, because that of another problem of an entirely different nature was wrong. Or, better still, they may be likened to an egg dealer who would attempt to prove to a customer that every egg in one crate was good, because a few in another were unfit for use. The appropriateness of comparing the "scientific" Socialists to the amusing youngsters, or to the illogical egg dealer, will be evident to the reader when he reflects that the revolutionists, north, south, east and west, from the first day of January till the last of December, condemn the present system of government and industry, endeavoring thereby to persuade the people that Socialism is the only remedy for the evils from which they are suffering.

Most of the speeches and writings of the "Knights of the Red Flag" consist in severely criticising prevalent evils. By attacking the present system of government and industry they hope to have the workingmen conclude that the Socialist Party alone can save mankind from complete ruin. This, then, is the way in which "scientific" Socialism leads unreflecting laborers to believe that the contemplated state would be the most perfect institution under heaven, replete with countless blessings and free from every evil.

It often happens that the revolutionists dazzle the eyes of the weary with the vivid pictures that they draw of intolerable civil and economic conditions, whether these be true, false or imaginary. The result is that the poor people frequently brood over the wrongs from which they happen to be suffering. They become so thoroughly discontented and blinded with class hatred that they are no longer able to see the advantage of reforming the present system by constitutional and lawful methods. Finally, when they have almost lost their reason and can no longer realize that the drug offered them has never been proven capable of remedying the evils that weigh heavily upon them, they accept and swallow the poisonous dose of Socialism and become a thousand times more wretched than they were before. The very potion they drink, with a view to being cured, makes them most unhappy for the rest of their lives, and in many cases for all eternity. If there is anything that non-Socialists should be on their guard against it is this base form of tactics by which the revolutionists have been eminently successful in gaining new recruits.

If those whose party emblem is a flaming torch could even prove that everything without exception in the present system of industry is worthy of condemnation, and that the entire government is corrupt to its very core, it would no more follow from this that Socialism was the remedy than it would follow that the solution of one problem in mathematics must be correct because another solution of an entirely different nature was wrong, or that all the eggs in one crate must be good because there were some in a second crate unfit for use.

It is very common for Socialists to assume that certain fundamental principles have been proven to be true, whereas the fact is that these very premises, from which they draw their conclusions, are often false and without the slightest foundation. An excellent illustration of this has already been given in preceding pages, where it was shown that the Socialists incorrectly assumed that there would be no poverty in their state, and argued from this that there would be very little prostitution. It is evident, therefore, that unless those who listen to the Marxians are on their guard and demand that the premises be proven the Socialists may deduce from incorrect premises conclusions which will make it appear that their intended state will bestow heaven's choicest blessings upon mankind.

Though examples of deceit have already been given, the attention of the reader will be called to the testimony of no less an authority than Eugene V. Debs, who in the following article, published in the "International Socialist Review," Chicago, January, 1911, will be seen to substantiate our charge:

"The truth is that we have not a few members who regard vote getting as a supreme importance, no matter by what methods the votes may be secured, and this leads them to hold out inducements, and make representations which are not at all compatible with the stern and uncomprising principles of a revolutionary party. They seek to make the Socialist propaganda so attractive--eliminating whatever may give offence--to bourgeois sensibilities--that it serves as a bait for votes, rather than as a means for education, and votes thus secured do not properly belong to us."

It is not unfrequently that we hear Socialists appealing to this or that plank of their party platform as proof sufficient that their organization favors or opposes a certain policy. An argument of this sort should have very little weight with careful thinking men, once their attention has been called to the fact that the Socialists have been proven guilty of a base lie by stating in their 1908 platform that the party is not concerned with matters of religious belief. But even if the revolutionists had never inserted in their platform a statement that was untrue, nevertheless the following facts show that their platform planks are very far from being reliable.

The delegates of the party assembled in national convention on May 15, 1908, by a vote of 102 to 33 passed a plank declaring for the collective ownership of all the land. ("Proceedings of 1908 National Convention of the Socialist Party," page 186.)

It was on September 7, 1909, less than a year and four months after the adjournment of the convention of 1908, that the words declaring for the collective ownership of all the land were, by a referendum, stricken from the party platform, while by another referendum it was decided to insert among the principles of the platform that the party was not opposed to the occupation and possession of land by those using it in a useful and bona fide manner without exploitation. ("Proceedings of the 1910 National Congress of the Socialist Party," page 25.)

About eight months after the adoption of this substitute plank, a bitter contest concerning the ownership of "all" the land took place in the National Congress of the party, which was held in Chicago from May 15, 1910, till May 21, 1910. ("Proceedings of the 1910 National Congress of the Socialist Party," pages 220 to 235.) Thus, during the 1910 Congress, notwithstanding the fact that there existed at that time a plank in the party platform guaranteeing the possession of land to persons who would use it in a bona fide manner, the representatives of the party in national congress assembled, being unable to decide whether or not it was to the best interests of the party to abide by this plank, referred the matter to the next convention. ("Proceedings of 1908 National Convention of the Socialist Party," page 235.)

Then, when the 1912 Convention met, it made another change, and declared for the collective ownership of land wherever practicable. ("The 1912 Platform of the Socialist Party"--Cf. "The Call," May 19, 1912.) In addition to this, it stated that occupancy and use shall be the sole title to land. ("The 1912 Platform of the Socialist Party"--Cf. "The Call," May 19, 1912.)

It is noteworthy that the Convention of 1908 had previously voted down this proposition to make occupancy and use the sole title to land, after the proposition had been denounced as being anarchistic, unsocialistic, nonsensical, foolish, and a dream ("Proceedings of 1908 National Convention of the Socialist Party," pages 188, 189 and 191.) One of the foremost opponents of the proposition was Delegate Morris Hillquit, who asked:

"What does the amendment mean? Occupancy and use the basis of title to land. How do we know whether the co-operative commonwealth will infer and arrange it in that way? Aren't we taking a long excursion into the domain of the future and into the domain of speculation? It may be true that the dream of the dreamer may become a reality, if this dream is the dream of the nation. But we have not come here to dream dreams and leave it to the future to realize them or to show them to be just mere pipe dreams.... The Socialist state may just as well decide on an entirely different basis for the distribution of land. It may not at all be bound to our resolution here today that occupation forms a title." ("Proceedings of 1908 National Convention of the Socialist Party," page 189.)

When the Marxians are brought face to face with the charge of adopting a program today, rejecting it tomorrow, hesitating about it on the next day and compromising it on the fourth, as they did in respect to the collective ownership of "all" the land, let them not argue that such changes are to be expected in the evolution of Socialism. They should be forced to confess that they acted in such a way solely to gain votes. Confront them with the speeches delivered in their National Convention of 1908 and in their National Congress of 1910, both by the delegates who advocated the collective ownership of "all" the land and by those who opposed it. For the convenience of the reader passages from some of these speeches will now be given:

Delegate Cannon of Arizona: "I contend that the public ownership of all machinery and land is one of the things for which the Socialist Party is working. If some of the Comrades get up and tell us in Germany they are not working for that, I move that we inform the German Comrades that they are behind the times. The idea of not including the land is nothing more or less than political expediency." ("Proceedings of 1908 National Convention of the Socialist Party," page 175.)

Delegate Payne of Texas: "I want to know if this convention of this movement which we call the great revolutionary movement is going to go down in history as catering to a small middle class of land owners, or are you going to stand for the great proletarian farming class?" ("Proceedings of 1908 National Convention on the Socialist Party," page 181.)

Delegate Morrison of Arizona: "Is it possible that we have so far forgotten ourselves, that we will attempt to curry favor with a few capitalist farmers? Why is this resolution here? What is the object of it? What is the purpose of it? Is it to secure votes? Do you hope to deceive some one as to the actual, real program of scientific Socialism? Or are you, in other words, going to lie to the farmers of this country in order to secure their suffrage? Are you going to present something to them that you know is not contained in the Socialist program? Can you afford, as representatives of this great revolutionary party, to do that which in a few years you will be ashamed of? I say no." ("Proceedings of 1908 National Convention of the Socialist Party," page 184.)

Delegate Goaziou of Pennsylvania: "I know we have in this country a growing movement among Socialists who are wanting votes no matter how they will get them. They are willing to put in appeals to the farmers, appeals to the middle class and appeals to everybody, so that they can get votes." ("Proceedings of 1908 National Convention of the Socialist Party," page 209.)

Delegate Thompson of Wisconsin: "We know that there is a very large portion of votes of this country on the farm, under agricultural conditions and environment, over forty per cent. Less than thirty per cent of the votes of this country are under industrial conditions. When we get to the point where we want to do something, we must have some way or other of getting these two forces welded together. We can never win out with thirty per cent of the vote. We will have to have at least a substantial majority, and that we cannot have without the farmers." ("Proceedings of 1908 National Convention of the Socialist Party," page 185.)

Delegate Victor Berger of Wisconsin: "We cannot have Socialism in this country, if we don't get the farmers in some way. If you try to take away the farms of twelve millions of farmers of this country, you will have a big job on your hands. You might as well try to reach down the moon.... You remember how much effort and how many men it cost England to conquer 30,000 farmers, Boers--Boers, mind you--and now try to take the farms from these 12,000,000 American farmers and you will have about a million times harder job. Besides, they don't need to fight. All they have to do is to stop bringing food to Chicago for six weeks, and Comrade Morgan and the rest of Chicago would be knocked out." ("Proceedings of the 1910 National Congress of the Socialist Party," page 230.)

Delegate Simmons of Illinois: "There is just one thing on earth that I will toady to and that is a fact. And when I meet a fact so big as the farmer question in America, a fact that has in it the future of 12,000,000 of people of the producing classes, without whom we stand no more chance of a Socialist victory in this country than we do of changing the orbit of a comet, and when I face a fact as big as that, I don't try to stand in front of it, and howl empty phrases, in the hope that the fact will get out of the way." ("Proceedings of the 1910 National Congress of the Socialist Party," page 231.)

Since the revolutionists, to win votes, frequently point to the reforms they have proposed or in some cases accomplished, we should all be on our guard lest, being allured by these reforms, we be led into the Socialist camp, and later on suffer the dreadful evils that have been shown would result from the adoption of the Marxian system of government.

Those who vote the Socialist ticket insist on calling the attention of non-Socialists to the immediate demands enumerated in their party platform, many of which are excellent. Workingmen, however, should remember, first, that many of them are only meant for the time our present Government is still in power; moreover, that a crime-ridden, anarchical and bankrupt state could not grant them, and, furthermore, that there is no reason why our Government, in its present form, could not grant all the Marxian demands that are really advantageous.

The Socialists often argue from some successful results in government ownership of public utilities to the success of Socialism itself. Though it cannot be denied that government ownership of public utilities has in some instances been a success, still anti-Socialists can just as well argue the failure of Socialism from failures in government ownership, which are entirely too numerous to require comment. If in the future it should become evident that great benefits would accrue from the national, state, or municipal ownership of certain public utilities, which are now privately owned, our present form of government, without becoming Socialistic, could take them over, just as many of our cities have already taken over water, gas and power plants. But the number would have to be limited, for it has already been shown in Chapter XVII what terrible consequences would follow from adopting the scheme of Socialism, whereby the people would collectively own and manage all the principle means of production, transportation and communication. Public ownership on such a large scale, so as to conform with the plans of the revolutionists, implies that the vast majority of workingmen would be government employees. The result, as has been shown, would be a terrible reign of discontent, strife, crime, revolution and chaos; whereas the prudent purchase of a small number of public utilities, under the present system of government, would entail none of these evils, since most workingmen could refuse positions that they did not care for or where the wages would not satisfy them, and do this without injuring the government.

The Socialists, especially when they appeal to the less educated, frequently argue that since their party platform says nothing concerning the teaching of a certain doctrine, for instance free-love, it is evident that the party does not advocate it. Such a method of reasoning is, of course, absurd and utterly unworthy of men who style themselves scientific; for by arguing in exactly the same way, it would follow that their flag is not the red flag because there is no plank in their party platform stating that it is.

Although many Socialists have written an abundance of anti-religious literature, other members of the party have composed books, pamphlets and articles that in no way attack the church. Some of the revolutionists, in their endeavors to make their movement attractive to Christians, go so far as to claim that even Christ was a Socialist. Since, therefore, the enemies of our country have at their disposal writings which attack religion, as well as those that are in no way hostile to it, they are well able to supply with attractive reading matter not only atheists who are opposed to all forms of religion, but Christians, no matter to what denomination they may chance to belong.

In like manner there are to be found within the Socialist Party writers who advocate free-love and others who are opposed to its propagation, either through a personal repugnance to legalized sin, or else because they think that by teaching loose morals the party would alienate many prospective members. Hence, the Socialists can satisfy the depraved by recommending to them the different works on free-love, and at the same time they can give satisfaction to those who are opposed to the base doctrine by referring them to books which not only do not advocate it but even condemn it in the most emphatic way.

In this double-dealing party there is a very strong faction whose members advocate direct action, in other words, violence, as a means for bringing about the downfall of our Government and of the entire industrial system. Opposed to these men, who are frequently termed the "Reds," there is a rapidly disappearing faction of so-called "Yellows," who rely upon the use of the ballot, and decry direct action, either through personal repugnance to violence, or, as seems most likely, because they deem peaceful methods more prolific of votes, and consequently of future political advantage to themselves. The direct actionists by their inflammatory speeches and writings are especially successful in gaining recruits from among the more disorderly elements of society, whereas the political actionists appeal rather to those persons who are opposed to the destruction of life and property.

It is by no means uncommon for the revolutionists to avoid as far as possible the discussion of knotty problems relative to the working details of their contemplated state. They often do this by telling us that the people of the future will be the ones to solve the problem in question. In illustration two examples will be given, the first of which is taken from the "Appeal to Reason," January 6, 1912:

"Do Socialists think all men should be paid alike--the man with the pick the same wages as the lawyer or doctor?"

"Socialists differ on this proposition. Whatever a majority of the people may decide will prevail."

Again we read, in the April 6, 1912, edition of the same paper:

"Will producers get paid for the number of hours worked, or for the amount of production?"

"No one knows just how the returns will be regulated, for the reason that they are to be regulated according to the will of the whole people and not according to the scheme of the 'Appeal to Reason.' It is possible that both methods may be tried, and the best prevail."

A subterfuge that often meets with success, and which for this very reason is a favorite one among the revolutionists when they are on the point of being defeated in an argument, consists in this, that they do their best to dodge the question at issue by leading their opponents off on some side topic, such as the evils and abuses of the present day. Every anti-Socialist ought, therefore, to be on his guard, and as soon as he notices the national enemy trying to draw him off on a tangent, he should steadfastly refuse to take up the new line of argumentation, but should compel the evader to stick to the question at issue.

It happens, too, and not unfrequently, that in the course of a dispute, when a Socialist is being defeated, he will ask the non-Socialist to prove that the present system is superior to that which is pictured in such beautiful colors by the followers of Karl Marx. Now, in the first place, the burden of proof rests with the Socialist, for if he wishes to lead another into his camp, it is his task to prove to him that everything there is congenial and attractive. The non-Socialist would indeed act very imprudently if he should attempt to prove that the present system offers more attractions than the Socialist Utopia whose perfections exist only in the imaginations of the revolutionists. What he might do, however, would be to show that the present system of government and industry, even in its unreformed state, is far superior to the condition of affairs that would actually exist if our constitutional government should ever have to give way to the regime of the revolutionists.

On reading Socialist literature or listening to the speeches of the revolutionists one is impressed with all the wonderful benefits that the party proposes to confer upon our citizens if it should ever rule the land. Of course very many of the proposals are made solely on the authority of the speaker or writer. But even if they have the approval of the Party, we must not forget that it is one thing to propose to grant a favor and quite another thing actually to grant it. There are lots of things that men say they propose to do, without ever intending to do them. And it frequently happens that after having had the best intentions, they change their minds or else are utterly unable to carry out their plans.

Karl Marx about half a century ago taught the absurd doctrine that as all wealth is produced by labor, to the laborers all wealth is due. He held, on the one hand, that all the profits arising from the sale of goods should accrue to the workingmen in virtue of the labor required for their production, and, on the other, that the capitalists who had not performed any work should not be entitled to a share in the profits.

This old doctrine, unreasonable as it is, is still taught at the present day not only by European Socialists but also by the revolutionists of our own country. During the May Day parade in New York City on May 1, 1912, when some 50,000 men marched behind red flags, great numbers of leaflets, entitled, "The Issue," were distributed among the spectators. These leaflets had been published by the Socialist Party of New York City and openly advocated the old doctrine of Karl Marx, the Father of modern Socialism, for on the third page appeared "A Parable," from which we quote the following:

"A man was once engaged in making bricks just outside the wall of a lunatic asylum. Presently a lunatic looked over the fence and asked:

"'What are you doing?'

"'Making bricks.'

"'What are the bricks for?'

"'I don't know. What does it matter to me?'

"'But why do you make them, if you don't intend to use them for anything?'

"'Why? Well it's my work.'

"'But I don't see why you should work for no object. If you don't use the bricks, who will?'

"'How should I know? It's nothing to do with me.'

"'Don't know what you are going to do with your own bricks?'

"'They are not my bricks. They belong to the boss.'

"'But didn't you make them?'

"'Yes.'

"'Then how comes it that the boss owns them?'

"'It's his brick kiln and his clay hole.'

"'Oh, didn't he make the kiln?'

"'No; the bricklayers built them.'

"'Did he dig the clay hole?'

"'No; those men over there dug it.'

"'Why do they dig clay holes?'

"'It's their work. The boss pays them to do it.'

"'Oh! does he pay you, too, to make these bricks?'

"'Yes.'

"'But where does he get the money to pay you with?'

"'He sells bricks.'

"'And you made those bricks he sold?'

"'Yes.'

"'Don't you think you'd better come inside?...

"'But I say, how much will the boss sell those bricks for?'

"'Oh! about $500.'

"'How long will it take you to make them?'

"'About ten weeks.'

"'How much does the boss pay you for working so hard?'

"'Two dollars and fifty cents a day.'

"'That will be $150 in ten weeks. Ha! ha! ha! aha! he! he! he!'

"'I don't see (wiping the sweat from his brow) the joke, you confounded ass.'

"'You must come inside. He! he! he!!!'"

American Socialists, therefore, as well as the early German revolutionists, teach that to the laborer all wealth is due.

Though the low wages that many workingmen receive is a disgrace to our civilization and an abuse that cries to heaven for vengeance, still it is absurd to hold that wages should be so much increased as to leave nothing for the capitalists. For, in the first place, if the workingmen should enjoy the entire profits of their firms or industries all the owners would soon become bankrupt and fail, and, in the upheavals due to unemployment and the impossibility of supplying the necessaries of life, the present system of our Government would certainly fall a prey to revolution, the Socialists would come into power and then would follow the terrible disturbances shown in Chapter XVII, "Socialism, a Peril to Workingmen."

We have no defence whatsoever to offer for dishonest capitalists, but maintain that honest capitalists are entitled to a reasonable share in the profits arising from their investments. For, in the first place, if it were not for the capital in the possession of honest capitalists, millions of workingmen would be terribly handicapped in earning a living. If this fact is not immediately evident to the reader it will become so when he reflects that many farm, mill and factory workers, and the employes of many big business houses would have to seek other positions if the capital required for the industries was not supplied by the owners. The buildings, machinery, raw materials, etc., in most cases are not and cannot be supplied by the laborers and workingmen, but are furnished by the capitalists who, if they wished, could sell them and spend the money obtained from the sale for their own personal enjoyment. For this reason, and also because the capitalists referred to are subject to many financial worries, assume great responsibilities, run the risk of incurring serious losses of one kind or another, including business failure and bankruptcy, it is only just that they should receive a reasonable recompense for their share in the production of the goods.

From what has been said regarding the falsity of the Marxian doctrine, that to the laborer all wealth is due, it follows that the Socialists, by teaching this false principle, have been misleading the laborers and workingmen for over half a century.

Some of the best known American Socialists, when confronted with the evident fallacy of the Marxian doctrine concede that Marx was mistaken and that they do not approve of his teachings on this subject. Now, if these leaders and their followers are in the majority, they should long ago have compelled the minority in the party to stop deceiving the uneducated. On the other hand, if they themselves constitute the minority, their own personal opinions amount to little, since the majority of the members of the Socialist Party would in that case be guilty of advocating foolish and absurd doctrine.

The attractive and popular motto, "Workingmen of the world unite. You have nothing to lose but your chains," has moved many a poor workingman to enlist in the revolutionary cause. Very little reflection, however, is needed to expose the absurdity that is found in the second part of the motto. For no matter how badly off men may be financially, it has been shown that they not only would not lose their chains by uniting under the red flag of Karl Marx but would be completely crushed by the much heavier ones of bloody revolution and a wretched form of government which would bring with it a religious prosecution and widespread lawlessness, crime and chaos.

Realizing that the police would do much to help the revolutionary movement, if they could be made friendly to it, some Socialists have been extremely anxious to win them over. To certify this statement we shall quote part of an article which appeared in "The Call," New York, April 25, 1911, urging Socialists to get control of the police force:

"A policeman's vote, like any other person's vote, counts one. Policemen are wage-earners, who, like other wage-earners, are eager to improve their circumstances. Policemen will vote the Socialist ticket when they realize that the Socialists in office will insist upon their receiving more pay, more leisure, more sick and old age benefits, more privileges.... Adopt constructive resolutions demanding that constables be paid higher wages, that they be granted shorter hours, that they be given more days off each week, that they be exempted from paying part of their wages into the superannuation fund, that they be accorded the right of combination, that a more generous system of sick benefits be drawn up, that they have the right of appeal against dismissal and abuse to a representative committee of citizens."

The revolutionists are leaving nothing undone in their extraordinary efforts to gain recruits for the overthrow of our National Government. This is evidenced by the appearance in their papers of articles like the following, entitled, "The Pure Water Problem," which was published in "The Call," April 30, 1912:

"As a political organization, the Socialist Party must address itself to every question that interests the electorate. And in each case it must offer the public a carefully thought out solution instead of mere generalities and hackneyed phrases. Otherwise it will not succeed in winning the confidence of the majority of voters. Now almost every city in America is confronted with a pure water and sewage disposal problem.... If the Socialist Party steps into the arena with clear-cut proposals that deal in a radical, constructive and common sense way with this problem, it will not only help to secure pure drinking water for citizens, but it will break down considerable prejudice against the Socialist movement, and cause people to study the more revolutionary features of our own official platform."

Information comes to us that on account of recent Government raids the Red organizations are assuming a variety of aliases. The Communist Party has taken the innocuous title of "The International Publishing Company," alias "The International League of Defense." The I. W. W. operates under any local name which comes handy. Individual Reds often spread their doctrines, and incite workingmen to take part in outlaw strikes, while professing to be members of no radical organization.

The Young People's Socialist League, closely affiliated with the Socialist Party, planned to use disguises, if necessary, after the Socialist Party adopted its anti-war program in 1917. Thus in "Outlines of the Evidence Taken Before the Judiciary Committee of the Assembly of New York," pages 608-9, appears a letter of William F. Kruse, National Secretary of the Young People's Socialist League, written to the secretaries of its different branches, in which he urged them to have an "unofficial emergency committee," have "several copies of your most important records and especially your mailing list stowed away in various safe and secluded places," and have "three trustworthy officers broken in for each important job." "At least one of these officers should be a girl," he continued, "so that if our boys are jailed for refusal to serve, the girls can keep the League going." He added: "If ever the Y. P. S. L. is suppressed you will immediately get together all its members as quietly as possible under the name of some athletic club, dance society or pleasure club. The name of this organization should have nothing in common with Socialism."

In concluding this chapter the attention of the reader is called to the fact that the Socialists are trying their best to make it appear that the interests of the American workingmen in general are jeopardized when a member of their party is put in jail or is on trial. This is rank hypocrisy. Even if the Socialist Party was a real workingman's party, this fact would not give it the right to set up its justly condemned bomb throwers, its preachers of Bolshevist revolution, its teachers of race suicide, etc., as working-class martyrs and protagonists of free speech, which they claim is no longer allowed in our country.

There are millions of workingmen in the great Republican, Democratic, and other American parties who don't need and don't want bomb-throwers, imported Marxian revolutionists, race suiciders, free-lovers, atheists, hypocrites, professional liars and deceivers to petition the Government in their name for the release of imprisoned Socialists on the plea that these are being prosecuted because they are leaders of the working-class. First of all, Debs, Haywood and their crews are leaders of blood-thirsty revolutionists, and not the leaders of the law-abiding workingmen who maintain the Democratic and Republican parties. They are the enemies of the latter, and the real object of the Socialists is to stir up trouble in our country by endeavoring to procure amnesty for a set of scoundrels who, after their release, would, by their subversive and dangerous doctrines, try to plunge the country we love and all honest labor into a much more terrible abyss than that into which the Bolsheviki have plunged Socialist Russia.