FEAR
By EDNA ST. VINCENT MILLAY

Vanzetti’s Last Statement
By WILLIAM G. THQMPSON

Psychology and Justice
By JOHN DEWEY

The Martyrs of Massachusetts
By c. l. CLAFLIN
PUBLISHED BY
THE SACCO - VANZETTI DEFENSE COMMITTEE
P. O. Box 93, Hanover St. Station, Boston, Mass.




SACCO-VA NZETTI NATIONAL LEAGUE
104 FIFTH AVENUE
NEW YORK CITY
Date ............ .: ........... .1 ........... ..
Please enroll me as a member of the Sacco-Vanzetti National
League. I enclose $.I ................... .. to help carry on the work of the
League that the memoryof Sacco and Vanzetti may not die and that
proof of their innocence may be spread further throughout the world.
Name ..................... ..
Street N 0

Town


.n "In
(94.7LM462'LW


W l;- /M¢_T74&L
BM
was:
A R
By EDNA ST. DlNCETlT MlLLAl]
There are two names you would not have
__ me mention, for you are sick of the sound of
' them. All men must‘die, you say, and these
men have died, and would that their names
might die with them; would that their names
were as names written in the sand, you say,
to be dissipated by‘ the next incoming tide!
For you long to return to your gracious world
of a year ago, where people had pretty man-
ners and did not raise their voices; where-
people whom you knew, whom you had enter-
tained in your houses, did not shout and weep
and walk the streets vulgarly .carrying ban-
ners, because two quite inconsequential people,
.two men. .who could not even speak good
English, were about to be put ‘forever out of
mischief’s way. Do let us forget, you say;
after all, what does it matter?
You are right; it does not matter very
much. In aworld more beautiful than this it
would have ‘mattered more. On the» surface
of a Christianity already so spotted and de-
faced by} the crimes of the Church this stain
does not. show very ‘dark. In a freedom ‘al-
ready so riddled and gashed by the crimes of
‘the state this ugly rent is with difficulty to be
distinguished at all._
And you are right; it is well to forget that
men die. So far we have devised ‘no way to
defeat death, or to outwit him, or to buy
him over. At any moment the cloud may
split ‘above us and the golden spear of death
lea-p~ at ‘the heart; at any moment the earth
crack and the hand of death reach up from
the abyss to grasp our ankles; at any mo-
ment the wind rise and-sweep the roofs’ from
our‘ houses, making one dust of our ceilings A
and ourselves. And if not,\ we shall die soon,
anyhow. It is well to forget that this is so.
But that man before his time, wantonly an]
without sorrow, is thrust from_ the light of
‘Aside from this there is little comment.
‘has changed; nothing is forgotten.
the sun into the darkness of the grave by his
brother’s blindness or fear it is "Yell to re-
member, at least until it has been shown to the
satisfaction of all that this too .s beyond our
power to change. '
Q I’ I
Two months ago, in Massachusetts, these
men whom I do not name were efliciently
despatched out of thesunlight into the dark-
ness of the grave. The executions of the
death sentence upon them went forward
without interference; there were no violent
demonstrations. Whatever of agitation there
was has steadily decreased since- that night.
Today things are very quiet. From time to
time some small newspaper remarks edito-
rially that the hysteria which swept the
country has abated, and congratulates its
readers upon having escaped disintegration.-
The
general opinion is that“ the afiair has pretty
well blown over. And the world sleeps easy
on its pillow.
Yet if all is quiet today, it is ‘more for this -
reason than for any other that; though you
sit in the same room with a man you cannot
hear his thoughts. And the tumult is in the
mind; the shouting» and rioting are in the
thinking mind. Nothing has abated; nothing
It is as
if the two months- which have elapsed were
but the drawing of a breath. In very truth,
for those who sat in silence on that night of
the 22nd of August, waiting for news from the
prison, and. in ‘silence when the news came,
it is stillthe night of the 22nd of August, for
there has been no dawn. '
I do not call these men by name, for I know
how nervous and irritable you become at the
sight of these names on the printed- page;

4 ~ -.
how your cheek flushes and you cluck with
exasperation; how you turn to your family
with words on your tongue which in former
days you would not have used at all—“vipers,
vermin, filth.” This is because you were just
dozing off nicely again after the shocking
uproar of two months ago, and do not wish
to be disturbed. You are as cross as an old
dog asleep on the hearth if I shake you and
try to get you out into the rainy wind. This
is because what you most want out of life is
not ‘to be disturbed. You wish to lie peac'e-
fully asleep for a few years yet, and then to
lie peacefully dead.
If you should rouse yourself for a moment
and look about you at the world, you would
be troubled, I think, and feel less peaceful
and secure, seeing how it is possible for a
man as innocent as yourself of any crime to
be cast into prison and be killed. For whether
or not these men whom I do not name were
guilty of the crime of murder, it was not for
murder that they died. The ‘crime for which
they died was the crime of breathing upon
the frosty window and looking out. ' _
“These Anarchists)!” you say; “shall I never
hear the last ofithem?”
Indeed, I fear it will be some time before
you hear the last of them. I 4'_do not mean
by this what you think I mean. I do not
mean that plotting mischief is afoot, that
thousands of people hitherto gentle and retired
are now grimly engaged in fashioning engines
of death to plant beneath the State House
floor. This is not what I mean, although you
will say it is what I meant.
. Q I I’
It is of your children 'I was‘ thinking, your
young sons and daughters, your grandsons
and granddaughters, these young people with
whom-you have already so much difliculty,
because, as you say, they have so few illusions.
How often already have they not, stood look-
ing at you coldly while with warm cheek‘ and
faltering accent you presented your pretty
concepts: duty, honor, courage, purity, sacri-
fice—those fragile dolls of yours, that are
always ‘dressed for summer, no ‘ matter what
the sky?
Your children heard you discussing the case
in question. ‘\‘Anarchists, murderers, ‘Anarch-
ists, Anarchists.” This was your discussion
of the case. They looked-at you, yawnerl, and
left the room.
‘FEAR
Their minds are dark to you. But they are
busy. Out of your sight they read, the)
ponder, they work things out. In your pre-l
sence they often sit in a not too respectful
silence, interrupting suddenly your placid
remarks by their brisk utterance of some
untidy truth~ never mentioned in your house
before. '
They are frankly occupied chiefly with’ the
real business of life, which, as ~everybody
'knows, is having your own wayfand getting
as much as possible for as little as possible.
It is you who have taught them this angular
truth; you have failed only in that you have
not been able to impart to them as well the
ruflles and passementerie with which you are
accustomed to adorn it. .They were just
beginning to look about them \at life when
war broke out and surrounded ‘them with
death. They know how important it is to
have a good time while you can; in the next
war it_ is they who will be taken.
As for their illusions, well, they have seen
you at war, and they are beginning to under-
stand why you went to war; they have seen
you engaged in -many another dubious and
embarassing activity; and now they have seen
this. They who have been chidden time and
again for having so little softness in them s‘ee
now their parents, for all their gentle voices
and courteous ways, more hard, more unscru-
pulous, more relentless, than themselves in
their most _iron moods. ‘It is from these
children, I fear, that you are likely to hear
again on the subject, though not in so many
words. I * ~
But, you say, what we did was done for the
good of the country, to protect its honor, its
institutions, the glory of its flag.
.What is this honor, that a breath can
tarnish? This glory, that a whisper can bring
it low? What are these noble institutions,
that a wind from any quarter can set to
trembling like towers of jelly? .
You do not know exactly what they ar .
For you do not live with them. They are not
trees to shade you, water to quench your
thirst. They are golden coins, hidden under
the mattress in a very soiled wallet. The only
pleasure they afl’ord you is the rapturous
dread lest some one may be taking them away.
And some one is taking them away. But not
the one youthink. .' .
Unkindness, hypocrisy, and greed—these are
FEAR
. \
the forces that shall bring us low and enslave
our children. Yet we quarter their troops in
our houses without a murmur. We show them
where the treasure is'hid. But they know it
already. -
This is the way you look at it: These men
were Anarchists, and they are well out of the
way ;‘ you are fortunate to have escaped
destruction at their bands; they were probably
murderers; but, in any case, they are well out
of the way. It was that word Anarchist
which brought them to the chair; that word,
and your ignorance of its meaning.
‘I.
For you do not at all know what ‘an
Anarchist is. And all through this trial in
which the word Anarchist has played such an
important part you have ‘not ‘even looked up
the word in the dictionary, your position being
that, in the first place, you know quite well
enough, and, in the second place, you would
think shame to know.
An Anarchist, you‘ insist, is a man who
makes bombs and puts them under the State
House, and that is that. . On the ‘contrary,
that- is by no means that. The person you
_ have ‘in mind .is not an Anarchist, he is a
You will find him everywhere-—
among
bomber.
among Anarchists, among Fascists,
dry~law enforcers, among Modernists, among
Fundamentalists, and freely distributed
throughout, the Ku Klux Klan. He is. that
person who,‘ when he does not like a thing,
lynches it, tars and feathers it, ‘lays a curse
upon it, or puts a bomb under it. His name
is legion, and you- will find him in every party.
An Anarchist, according to the dictionary,
is a person 'who believes that human beings
are naturally good, and that if left to them-
selves they would, by mutual agreement, govern
themselves much better and much more peace-
bly than they are being governed now by a
government based on violence. An interest-
ing theory. Nonsense, of course, because man
is not naturally good; man is naturally cruel,
selfish, and vain, and what he would be if left
to his own devices it is horrible to contemplate.
Still, it is an interesting concept, very ideal-
istic, very pretty.
Of those who hold with the theory of An-
archism, the dictionary further tells us, there
is one group whose members “occasionally
resort to‘ an act of violence against represen-
tathcs of oppression to express a protest
against, or to draw public attention to, exist-
ing social wrongs.” (It is in this group that
your bombers are happy and at home.) But
“generally speaking,” says ' the dictionary.
“Anarchism repudiates violent methods, and
hopes for a gradual evolution towards its
goal.”
I' ‘I ‘I-
Ah, you will say, but these men belonged
to the violent group!
Their history would indicate otherwise. Up
to the time of their detention for the crime
for which they were later sentenced to die
no slightest act of violence had ever been
attributed to either of them. There are‘ those
who would have given much to be able to
bring to light against them such an act of
violence, and were unable to do so; it is to
the counsel for the prosecution that I refer.
“Throughout the entire trial” (I quote the
uncontested ‘statement of one who was in a
position to know‘ the facts)——“not one word
of testimony’ was‘ ‘introduced against their
character for honesty, peace, dnd good order.”
I am going into this in sbme detail because
I find it interesting. You,“ I fear, find it not'
only uninteresting, but vaguely and uncom-
fortably obscene. Yet, after all, you have
very plentifully had your say on the subject— ‘
that action of yours, you know, that spoke so
much louder than any words.
These men were castaways upon our shore,
and we, an ignorant and savage tribe, have
put them to death because, their speech and
their manners were ‘different from our own,
and because to the untutored mind that which
is strange is in its infancy ludicrous, but in
its prime evil, dangerous, and to be done
away with. _
These men were put to death because they
made you nervous; and your children know
. it. The minds of your children are like clear
pools, reflecting faithfully whatever passes on
the bank; whereas in the pool of your own
mind, whenever an alien image bends above, a.
fish of terror leaps to meet it, shattering its '
reflection.
' 'o I» a
I am free to say these things because 1 am
not an Anarchist, although you will say that
I am. It is unreasonable to you that a person
should go to any trouble in behalf of another

person unless the two are members of the
same family, or of the same fraternity, or, at
the remotest, of the same political party. As
regards yourself and the man who lives next
door to you, you wish him well, but not so
very well. Even if he is a. member of the
same church as yourself, you do not wish him
so inordinately well. Whereas if he does not
belong to the same church as yourself, and
if, in addition, he does things a little out of
the ordinary, such as walk in the street
without a hat, you do not wish him well at
all. In any case, as regards your neighbor
and yourself, although you have no desire to
see his house burn down or his children killed
in a motor accident, a most modest worldly
success will do very well for him, as far as
you are concerned. For these and other rea-
sons sufliciently naive and self-revealing, you
take it as a. matter of course that, of the
many persons involved in the recent agitation
in Boston, those who were not in the ring
for what they could get out of it were revolu-
tionists of the most flagrantgdye. ‘It is impos-
sible for you to conceive‘ that men could weep
in public and'wornen permit themselves to be
thrown in jail because ,(as it seemed to them)
the blue hem of Justice was being dragged in
the \mire. In the world in which you live
Justice is a woman of stone above a court-
house door.
As I said before, I am not sufliciently
idealistic to share the political opinions of
these men with whose fate I am concerned. '
It is impossible for me to be an Anarchist, for
I do not believe in the essential goodness of
man; man is quite patently, to my sight, the
worm of the Moody and Sankey hymns. Ex-
cept for this fact, I should of course think
twice before writing as I do. For, although
I was born in this country, and am possessed
of that simple right of the citizen to hold any
opinions he may hold, yet to avail one’s self
of this right and express opinions contrary to'
the opinions of the majority may become, as
we have lately seen, a folly punishable by the
extreme correction.
still insisting that these two poor- wretches
- other than himself.
For surely you are not_
FEAR
were put to death solely for the crime of
murder? You and I both know that we must
be careful, not only what we do, but also
what we say, and even what we think, if we
would not have one day our sleep brutally
broken in upon and ourselves rudely forced
to enter a place where we do not at all wish
to go. And surely you will not deny that, if
you would remain undisturbed, it is more
important_to be on the side of the established
order of things than to be innocent of even
the grossest crime?
As I said before, I dare say these things
because I am not an Anarchist; but I dare
say them for another reason, too: because my
personal physical freedom, my power to go in
and out when I choose, my personal life even,
is no longer quite as important to me. as it
once was. Death even, that outrageous in-
trusion, appears to" me at ‘moments, and more
especially when I think of» what happened in
Boston two months ago, death appears to me
_ somewhat as a darkened room, in which one
might rest ong’s battered temples out of the
world’s way, ‘leaving the sweeping of the
crossings to those who still think it important
that the crossings be sswept. As if indeed it
mattered the least bit in the world whether
the crossings be clean or foul, when of all the
people passing to and from there in the
‘course of an eight-hour- day‘ not one out- of
ten thousand has a spark of true courage in‘
his heart, or- any love. at all, beyond the love
of a/cat for the fire, for any earthly creature
The ‘world, the physical
world, and that once was all in all. to me,
has at moments such as these no, road through
a wood, no stretch of shore, thatqcan bring
me comfort. The beauty of these things ‘can
no longer at such moments make up to me at
all for the ugliness ofqman, his cruelty, his
greed, his lying face. --
(From The Outlook)
‘W .
Danzetti's Last Statement
' Monddq, August 22, 1927
fl Record by 1]). C3‘. THOMPSON
Sacco and Vanzetti were‘ in ‘the Death
House in the State Prison at Charlestown.
They fully understood that they were to die .
immediately after midnight. Mr. Ehrmann
and I, having on their behalf ‘exhausted every
legal remedy which seemed to us available,
had retired from the active conduct of the
case, holding ourselves in readiness, however,
to help their new counsel in any way we could.
I was in'New Hampshire, where a message
reached me from Vanzetti that he wanted to
see me once more before 'he died. I innue-
diately started for Boston" with my son,
reached the prison in the late afternoon or
early evening, and was at once taken by the
Warden to Vanzetti.‘ He was in one of the
three 'cells in a narrow room opening imme-
diately to'the chair. In the cell nearest the
chair was Madeiros, in the middle one Sacco,
and in the third I found Vanzetti. There was
a small table in his cell. and when I entered
the. room' he seemed to be writing. The iron
. bars on the front of the cell were so arranged
as to leave at one place a wider space, through
which what he needed could be handed 'to him.
Vanzetti seemed to be expecting me; and
when I entered he rose from his table, and‘
with his characteristic smile reached through
the space between the bars and grasped me
warmly by the hand. It‘ was intimated to me
that I might sit in a chair in front of the
cell,' but not nearer the bars than a straight
mark painted on the floor. This I did.
I had heard that the Governor had said
that if Vanzetti would release his counsel in
the Bridgewater case from their obligation
not to disclose whatw-he had said to them the
public would be satisfied that he was guilty
of that crime, and also of the South Braintree
crime. I therefore, began the interview by
asking one of the two prison guards who, sat
at the other end of the room, about ‘fifteen
feet from where we were, to come to the
front of the cell and listen to the questions
I was about to ask Vanzetti and to his replies. 4
I then asked Vanzetti if he had at any time
said anything to Mr. Vahey or Mr. Graham
which would warrant the»; inference that he
was guilty of either crime. With great
I
emphasis and obvious sincerity he answered
“no.” He then said, what he had often said to
me before, that Messrs. Vahey and Graham
were not his personal choice, but became his ‘
lawyers at the urgent request of friends, who
raised the money to pay them. He then told
me certain things about their, relations to him
and‘ about their conduct of the Bridgewater
case, and what he had in fact told them. This
on the next day I recorded, but will not here
repeat. -
I asked Vanzetti'whether he would authorize
me to waive on his behalf his privilege so far
as Vahey and Graham were. concerned._ He
readily assented to this, but imposed the
condition that they should make whatever’
statement they saw fit to make in the presence
of myself or some other friend, giving his
reasons for, this condition, which I 4 also
recorded. -
The guard then returned to his seat.
I told Vanzetti that although my belief in
his innocence had all. the time been strength-
ened, both by my study of the evidence and
by my increasing knowledge of his personality,
yet there was ,a chance, however remote, that
I might be mistaken; and that I thought he
ought for my sake, in this closing hour of his
life when nothing could save him, to give me
his most solemn ‘ reassurance, both with
respect to himself and with respect to Sacco-‘
' Vanzetti then told me quietly and calmly, and
with a sincerity which I could not doubt, that
I need have no anxiety about this matter;
that both he and Sacco were absolutely in—
nocent of the South Braintree crime, and that
he (Vanzetti) was equally innocent of the
Bridgewater crime; that while, looking back,
he now realizedmoré clearly than he ever had
the grounds of the suspicion against him and;
Sacco, he felt that no allowance had- been
made for his ignorance of American points of
view and habits of thought, or for his fear
as a radical and almost as an outlaw, and
that in reality he was convicted on evidence
which would not have convicted him had -he
not been an anarchist, so that he was in a.
very real sense dyingfor his cause. He said
it was a cause for which he'was prepared to

die. He said it was the cause of the upward
progress of humanity, and the elimination of
force from the world. He spoke with calm-
ness, knowledge, and deep feeling. He said
he was grateful to me for what I had done
for him. He asked to be remembered to my
wife and ‘son. He spoke with emotion of his
sister and of his family. He asked me to do
what I could to clear his name, using the
words ‘clear my name.’ I -
I asked him if he thought it would do any
good for me or any friend to see Boda. He
said he thought it would. He said he did not
know Boda very well, but believed him to be
an honest man, and thought possibly he might
be ‘able to give some evidence which would
help to prove their innocence.
I then told Vanzetti that I hoped he would
issue a public statement advising his friends
against retaliating by violence and reprisal.
-I told him that, as I read history, the truth
had little chance of prevailing when violence
was followed by counter-violence. I said that
as he well knew, I could not subscribe to ‘his
views or to his philosophy‘ of life; but that,
on the other hand, I could not but respect
any man who consistently lived up to altruistic
principles, and was willing to‘ give his life for
them. I said that if I were ‘mistaken, and if
his views were’ true, nothing could retard
their acceptanceby the world more than the
hate and fear that would be stirred up ‘by
violent reprisal. Vanzetti replied that, as I
must well know, he desired no personal
revenge for the cruelties , inflicted upon him;
but he said that. as he read history, every
great cause for the benefit of humanity had
had > to fight for its existence against en-
trenched power and wrong, and that for this
reason he could not give his friends such
sweeping‘ advice as I had urged. He added
that in such struggles he was strongly opposed
to any injury to women and children. He
asked me to remember the cruelty of seven
years of imprisonment, with alternating hopes
and fears. He reminded me of the remarks
attributed to Judge Thayer _by certain wit-
nesses, especially by Professor Richardson,
and asked me what state of mind I thought
such remarks indicated. He asked me how '
any candid man could believe that a judge
capable of referring to men accused before
him as “anarchistic bastards’ could be impar-
tial, and whether I thought that such refine-*
ment of cruelty as had been practised upon
him and upon Sacco ought to go unpunished.
I replied that he well knew my own opinion
of these matters, but that his arguments
seemed to me not to meet the point I had
raised, which was whether he did not prefer
the prevalence of his opinions to the infliction
of punishment upon persons, however richly
he might think they deserved it. This led to
a pause in the conversation.
Without directly replying to my question,
Vanzetti then began to speak of the origin,
early struggles, and progress of other great
VANZETTI’S LAST STATE MENT
movements for human betterment. He said
that all great altruistic movements originated
in the brain of some man of genius, but later
became misunderstood and perverted, both
by popular ignorance and by sinister self-
interest. He said that all great movements
which struck at conservative standards, re-
ceived opinions, established institutions, and
human selfishness were at first met with
violence and persecution. He referred to
Socrates, Galileo, Giordano Bruno, ard others
whose names I do not now remember, some
Italian and some Russian. He then referred
to Christianity, and said that it began in
simplicity and sincerity, which were met with
persecution and oppression, but that it later
passed quietly into ecclesiasticism and tyranny.
I said I did not think that the progress of
Christianity had been altogether checked by
convention and ecclesiasticism, but that on the
contrary it still made an appeal to thousands
of simple people, and that the essence of the
appeal was the supreme confidenceishown by
Jesus in the truth of His own views by for-
giving, even when on the Cross, His enemies,
persecutors, and slanderers.
Now, for the first and only time in the
conversation, Vanzetti showed a feeling of
personal resentment against his enemies. He
spoke with eloquence of his sufl’erings, and
asked me whether I thought it possible that
he could forgive those, who had persecuted
and tortured him through seven years ‘of
inexpressible misery. I told him he knew how
deeply I sympathized with him, and that‘ I
had asked him to reflect upon the career of
One infinitely superior to myself and to him.
and upon a force infinitely greater than the
force of hate and revenge. I said that in the
long run the force to which the world would
respond was'the force of ‘love and not of hate.
and that I was suggesting tohim to forgive
his enemies, not for their sakes, but for his
own peace of mind, and also because an
example of such forgiveness would in the end
be more powerful to win adherence to his
cause or to a belief in his innocence than
anything else that could‘ be done.
There was another pause in the conversation.
I arose and we stood gazing at each other for
a minute or two in silence. Vanzetti finally
said that he would think of what I had said.*
I then made a reference to the possibility
of vpersonal immortality, and said that.
although I thought I understood the difli--
culties of a belief in immortality, yet I fell
sure that if there was a personal immortality
he might hope to share it. This remark he
received in silence. -
He then returned to his discussion of the
evil of the present organization of society,
saying that the essence of the wrong was the
opportunity it afl’orded persons who were
powerful because of ability or strategic eco-
nomic position to oppress the simple-minded
and idealistic among their fellow men, and
that he feared that nothing but violent
4
VANZETTI'S LAST STATEMENT
resistance could ever overcome the selfishness
which was the basis of the present organization
of society and made the few willing to perpe-
tuate a system which enabled them to exploit
the many.
I have given only the substance of this
conversation, but I think I have covered every
_ point that was talked about and have pre-
sented a true picture of the general tenor of
Vanzetti’s remarks. Throughout the conversa-
tion, with the few exceptions I have mention—
ed, the thought that was uppermost in his
mind was the truth of the ideas in which he
believed for the betterment of humanity, and
the chance they had of prevailing. I was
impressed by the strength of Vanzetti’s mind,
and by the extent of his reading and know-
ledge. He did not talk like a fanatic.
though intensely convinced of the truth of
his own views, he was still able to listen with
calmness
agree. In this closing scene the impression
of him which vhad been gaining ground
in my mind for three years was deep-
ened and confirmed—that he was a man
of powerful mind, and unselfish disposition,
of seasoned character, and of devotion to high
ideals. There was no sign of"breaking down
or of terror at approaching death. ~At part—
ing he gave me a firm clasp of the hand and
a steady glance, which revealed unmistakably
the depth of his feeling and the firmness of -
his self-control. -
I then turned to Sacco, who lay upon a cot
bed in the adjoining cell and could easily have
heard and undoubtedly did hear my conversa-
tion with Vanzetti. My conversation with
Sacco was very brief. He rose from his cot,
referred feelingly though in a general way to
some points of disagreement between us in the
past, said he hoped that our’ differences of
opinion had not affected our personal rela-
Al- _
and "with understanding to they
- expression of views with which he did ' not
tions, thanked me for what I had done for
him, showed no sign of fear, shook hands with
me firmly, and bade me good-bye. His
manner also was one of absolute sincerity. It
was magnanimous in him not to refer more
specifically to our previous differences of
opinion, because at the root of it all lay his
conviction, often expressed to me, that all
efforts on his behalf, either in court or with
public authorities, would be useless, because
no capitalistic society could afford to accord
him justice. I had taken the contrary view;
but at this last meeting he did not suggest
that the result seemed to justify his view and
not mine.H i
*It is credibly reported that when, a few
hours later, Vanzetti was about to step in the
chair, he paused, shook hands with the War-
den and Deputy Warden and the guards,
thanked them for their kindness to him, and,
turning to the spectators, asked them to
remember that he forgave some of his ene-
mies. ‘
** I afterward talked with the prison guard
to whom I have referred in this paper. He
told me that after he returned to his seat he
heard all that was :said by Vanzetti and my-
self.‘ The room was quiet and no other
persons were talking. I showed the guard
my complete notes of the ‘interview, including
what Vanzetti had told ,‘me about Messrs.
Vahey and Graham. He read the notes
carefully and said that they corresponded
entirely with‘ his memory except that I had
omitted a remark made by Vanzetti about
women and children. I then remembered the
remark and added it to my memorandum.
W. G. T.
(From The Atlantic Monthly)
Psq choloqu and Justice
By JOHN DEIDEI]
Sacco and Vanzetti are dead. No discussion
of their innocence or guilt can restore them
to life. That issue is now merged in a larger
one which in turn is merged in the comprehen-
sive issue of the tone and temper of American
public opinion and sentiment, as they affect
judgment and action in any social question
wherein racial divisions and class interests
are involved These larger issues did not pass
with the execution of these men. Their death
did not, indeed, first raise these momentous
questions. They have been with us for a long
time and in increasing measure since the War.
But the condenmation and death of two
obscure Italians‘ opened a new‘ chapter in the
book of history. - Certain phases of our‘ life
have been thrown into the highest of high
lights. They cannot ‘henceforth be forgotten
or ignored. They‘ lie heavy on‘the conscience
of many, and they will rise in multitudes of
unexpected ways to troublé the emotions and
stir the thoughts of the most thoughtless and
conventional. '
I have no intention ‘of entering into a
discussion at large of the many things which
are revealed in this new‘ chapter. There is one
point to which I confine myself, not, seem-
ingly, very large in itself, but momentous in
its bearings; the psychology of the dominant
cultivated class of the country as revealed in
the report of the Fuller advisory committee.
Without disrespect to the important activities
which are identified with the names of the
men who formed the committee, it is no ex-'
aggeration to say that their .place in the
historic memory, of mankind will be settled
by the document they have written. And in‘
justice to them, the future will recognize
that the document is something more than a
personal expression; that it is typical and
' symbolic, a representation of the state of mind
that must be widespread in the educated
leaders of the American public in the third
decade of the twentieth century. Because my
purpose is limited, I make no attempt to go
outside the record, much less to discuss the
innocence or guilt of Sacco and Vanzetti.
These matters have been dealt with by more
competent hands ‘than mine. The attitude,
the mental disposition, _of the authors of the
report, as exhibited in their report, is my
theme.
In discussing this matter, the statement of
the method followed by the committee in find- '
ing the condemned men guilty gives the base-
line. They say: “As with the Bertillon meas-
urements or with finger-prints, no one meas-
ure or line has by itself much significance,
yet together they may produce a perfect
identification; so a number of circumstances
—no' one of them conclusive—quay together
make a proof beyond reasonable doubt”. In
deciding the men guilty, it is not each item
by itself in isolation which counts, but the
cumulative efl’ect of all in their mutual hear-
ing. I cite this fact, not to question their
statement nor to raise the old controversy
regarding circumstancial evidence, but because
of its significance in connection with the
standard adopted and the method pursued by
the committee in dealing with other questions.
For these other matters are segregated, both
at large and in detail; every item and every
topic is treated as an isolated thing, to be
disposed of by itself without regard to any-
thing else. The cumulative principle is not
only disregarded; it is deliberately departed
from. Why? Men, especially men of disci-
plined and cultivated minds, do no reverse
their/ criterion and procedure ‘without a cause.
The evidence for the sweeping statementf
just made is found, first, in the plan of treat-\
ment adopted in general, the framework of\
the report; second, in the way in which the i
considerations falling within the first two
divisions are broken up and isolated, and third,
in the manner of dealing with a fundamen-
tally important question. _ '
The framework of the report is indicated
by the following: “The inquiry you have asked
the committee to undertake seems to consist
of answering the' three following questions:
(1) In their opinion was the trial fairly con-
ducted? (2) Was the subsequently discovered
evidence such that in their opinion a new trial
ought to have been granted? (3) Are they,
or are they not, convinced beyond reasonable
doubt that Sacco and Vanzetti were guilty
of the murder?” That the first two of these
questions were _ elements in the . issue with
which the committee had to deal, no one will.
question. Opinions will differ as to whether
or not they were called upon ‘to act as a jury
and determine and state their own opinion as
to the men’s guilt or innocence. This differ-
ence will depend upon whether, in the light

PSYCHOLOGY AND JUSTICE
11
of the world-wide interest in the trial and
conviction, men think that the original question
of innocence or guilt had or had not in the
course of events become, for the time being,
secondary to the question of administration
of justice. -
-In any event, the segregation of the first
two questions, the treatment of the matters
of a fair trial and of newly discovered evi-
dence not as elements in the issue, but 'as
independent and isolated issues, accounts for
the fact that the main issue, as it stands
before the world, is not faced. It is not
even mentioned. For that issue is whether,
taking- all considerations .together, there was
or was not reasonable ground for doubt as to
a miscarriage of justice in case of the men’s
immediate execution. The separate treatment
of the questions whether the trial already had
was fair and whether the newly presented
evidence was of value flatly contradicts the
cumulative principle accepted and proclaimed
in pronouncing the accused guilty. The
method fails to face the .fact that the two
questions have a common and integral hear--
ing upon the main issue, namely, that a mis-
carriage of justice was reasonably possible if
the sentence of death were‘ put into effect
forthwith.
, .
The entire procedure was extra-judicial;
the very existence of . the committee is proof
‘of widely held belief. that justice had not,
beyond a peradventure, been‘ done; that,
irrespective of whether the men were guilty
or innocent, there were many circumstances
attending the case which indicated that they
had not been proved guilty. _Moreover, any
action the committee might recommend, any
advice they might give, any conclusions at
which they might arrive, were extra-judicial.
The governor holds an executive oflice; he is
no part of the judicial system. The appoint-
ment of the committee was extra-judicial, and
its function was as extra-judicial as its
appointment. The governor is entrusted with
the task of protecting condemned men against
a reasonable degree of a possibility of mis-
carriage of justice. Hisgis' the power to
excercise clemency either by pardon or com-
mutation of sentence, not' to decide guilt or
reverse the action of courts. The oflice of
the committee was to guide the conscience of
the governor in the excercise of that function.
Why was it, then, that they acted as a jury
and as a court, and in so doing adopted
strictly legalistic methods of reasoning, even
to the point of virtually throwing upon the
defense the burden of showing that there was
a certainty, not a reasonable possibility, of a
miscarriage of justice if the condemned men
were at ‘once executed? ‘
Whatever be the answer to‘ this question,
the answer to ‘the question as to how they ‘
avoided facing the issue is sure. It was done
by splitting the' issue up into separate ques-
tions and disposing‘ of each without any
reference to its connection with the others.
For, with respect to miscarriage of justice,
the question of the old trial and the question
of refusal of a new trial in the light of new
evidence are, most conspicuosly, of a cumula-
tive character. Their net efl’ect, when viewed
together, in relation to each other, defined
the issue. ' Why, then, were they treated in
complete isolation? The answer can be found
only in the attitude with which the issue was
approached.
While that attitude is apparent
frame-work of the report, with its division
into three separate questions, the full force of
the isolation in determining the procedure is
manifest only when we take up details under
the first two heads. By the statement of the
report itself, there are six points under each.
Are the six points treated as having a force
such thatgwhile each by itself is “inconclusive”
when' taken together they have a probative
force as to a reasonable doubt? Such a treat:
ment is not even hinted at. systematically,
each is kept apart from every other, so that
the question of cumulative efiect may not
even arise. The six considerations bearing on
the conduct of the original trial include such
important points as the bias of the judge, the
conduct of the prosecuting attorney in dwell-
ing on the ~radicalism of the accused, the
atmosphere of the court-room, the alleged
intervention. of federal officials. But each one
of these things is taken up'has an isolated item,
and disposed of in its isolation.
The contrast with the cumulative method
used in declaring the men guilty becomes more
glaring, the {more the details of vthe two proce-
dures ' are noted. - Under the cumulative
procedure,weight is given to the fact that the
“general appearance” of Sacco is admittedly
“like” that of one of the actual murderers;
that his cap bore “a resemblance in‘ color
and general appearance” to one which be ad-
mittedly owned; and that, when arrested, he
had in his possession a pistol of the “kind”
with which ‘the .murder was admittedly'com-
mitted; that, while experts were opposed as
to whether the bullet must have been fired
from his pistol, the committee are inclined to
believe” those -who testify it must have
been. Try a simple intellectual experiment.
What would have become of these separate
considerations if the committee had dealt with
them- by the method of segregation followed
in the case of the six considerations adduced
to indicate an unfair trial? -
There are also six points with respect to
the bearing-of new evidence upon granting a
new trial. One of them was the evidence
(not given at the trial), of a bystander, Gould,
that the accused men-were not the murderers
he saw—he being so close to the scene that a
bullet passed through his coat lapel. It is
also a matter or record that his evidence was
not known to the defense ‘at the time of trial.
He was known by the prosecution to have
been present at the ‘scene of murder, and yet
was not called. The committee labor to ex-
in the V
“.w
12
culpate the prosecution from the charge of
suppression of evidence unfavorable to their
case. The method pursued is typical: a highly
legalistic argument to whittle down the signif-
icance of the admitted facts. Contrast their
procedure on this point with that in dealing
with a new witness who gave testimony tend-
ing to break down Sacco’s alibi. Here they
remark: “The woman is eccentric, not unim—
peachable in conduct; but the committee
believes that in her case, her testimony is well
worth consideration.” (The italics, naturally,
are not in the original text.) But more signif-
icant is their comment that Gould’s evidence
is “merely cumulative” other eye-witnesses
having also testified that the murders were
not Sacco and Vanzetti! They do not _stop
here. They go on to volunteer the remark
that “there seems to be no reason to think
that the statement of Gould would have any
eflect in changing the mind of the jury”!
Since they can hardly be supposed to mean
that the mind of the jury was impervious to
evidence, this assumption of the role of
jurors is indicative of the committee’s own
attitude, all the more so because the remark
about a former jury is made in the courseo
discussion of granting a trial! .
But this is but one of the six points
adduced. Some of the others were the assert-
ion of Madeirosa that he was with another
gang when it committed the murder; evidence
purporting to show marked prejudice on the
part of the foreman of the old jury; under
two counts; the testimony of one’ of the ex-
perts for the prosecution that, ‘after he had
positively refused to say that the fatal bullet
was fired from ‘Sacco’s pistol, the prosecuting
attorney arranged to have him testify that it
was “consistent” with having been so fired.
The report itself is the most convincing evid-
ence that can be found of the adoption of
the non-cumulative method, as well as of the
whittling down of each point, in its isolation,
to a minimum, together with magnifying to
the utmost all new evidence which fell on the
other side. Thus the evidence that the rent
in the cap which had been employed as part
of its identification with Sacco’s is disposed
of by saying that it is “so trifling a matter
in the evidence in the case that it seems to
the committee by no means a ground for a
new trial”—-as if it had been argued that,
taken by itself alone, it did afford such a
ground. This “trifling” matter ceases to be
trifling when taken as evidence of the reject-
ion of any recognition of the cumulative
principle. Again, when two new experts
testified that the fatal bullet was not fired
from Sacco’s pistol, and two new ones testified
that it was, the committee says that, after
examining the photographs, they are led to
the conclusion “that the latter present the
more convincing evidence”. In other words,
although the question at issue is whether there
was ground for a new trial, with a new jury;
the committee themselves assume the function
PSYCHOLOGY AND JUSTICE
of a jury in dealing with new evidence so as
to deny the new trial. I
The third phase of self-revelation regarding
the antecedent attitude of the committee is
found in their method of dealing with the
radicalism of the condemned men in its
alleged effect upon the jury and judge, a ra-
dicalism the more heinous because those who
professed it were also foreigners. This is the
aspect of the case which loomed largest in
public attention and interest—it is the basic
cause of the committee’s existence. In accept-
‘ing appointment on Governor Fuller’s com-
mittee, Messrs. Lowell, Stratton and Grant
accepted also a responsibility to a public
found in every country of the globe. Their
own record manifests the way in which they
discharged this responsibility. They admit
the radicalism; they admit its prejudicial
efl-‘ect in causing illegal arrests and deport-
action. But they employ these admitted facts
only in order to justify the action of the
prosecuting attorney! For he had subjected
Sacco to a cross-examination “on the subject
of his social and political views [which]
seems at first unnecessarily harsh and design-
ed rather to prejudice the jury than for the
legitimate purpose of testing the sincerity of
his statements thereon.” In excusing him
they deny_that the proof of radicalism did
influence the jury! They also admit the bias
of the judge on the basis of “indiscreet”
conversations out of court, but assert that
his. bias was not a factor in the conduct of
the trial. And the bearing of radicalism up-
on the conduct of the accused when arrested
is ignored. It is next to a psychological com-
monplace that men, especially men of trained
minds, reason in such an inverted fashion only
when influenced by some 'covert factor.
Here are the facts as written in .l the report.
There is no doubt left to the committee’s
knowledge of the state of public sentiment at
this time of the trial and of their knowledge
of its actual (not merely possible) effect in
bringing about unjust and illegal action.
“There were wholesale arrests of Reds—
fortunately stopped by Judge Anderson of
the United States Circuit Court—in south-
eastern Massachusetts.” They would hardly
have been stopped by the judge and their
stoppage have been fortunate, unless they
were illegal. Again, “at that time of abnormal
fear and credulity, little evidence was requir-
ed to prove that anyone was a dangerous
radical. Harmless professors and students in
our colleges were accused of dangerous opin-
ions.” The hysteria was so widespread as to
extend beyond foreigners and ignorant labo—
rers to college men, teachers and students.
And the cross—examination of the prosecuting
attorney was of the seemingly harsh and
prejudicial character just cited. And it
affects the men of the committee as such after
a lapse of years in which public opinion has
calmed, men who are highly trained, not just
the average man such as serves on a jury.
. ions.”

PSYCHOLOGY AN D JUSTICE
Nevertheless, the committee hold that it did
not influence the jury living in the midst of
the period of fear and credulity, when little
evidence was required to convict an accused
person of being a Red, and although, instead
of little evidence, these jurymen had the fact
of radicalism clearly proved, and although
they were average men, not trained minds
capable of detecting bias and thus, presum-
ably, discounting it!
How is this remarkable result obtained? By
two methods, one direct, the other indirect,
shifting the isssue. The direct procedure lay
in questioning the jurors (the ten of them
who were accessible) on the subject, and
accepting their assurance that they were not
influenced by the attitude of the judge and
the mode of conduct of the trial. “Each felt
sure that the fact that the accused were for-
eigners and radicals had no efl’ects upon his
opinion.” These men, in other words, are
now sure, an assurance which the committee
fully accepts in the most important phase of
the trial, that they were immune to the pre-
vailing contagion of “fear and credulity” and
immune although they had not “little eviden-
ce” but convincing proof of, “dangerous opin-
Believe it he who can. And disbelief
does not involve doubt as to the good faith
of any juror in making the- statement he
made. If, in such an atmosphere, they had
been aware of the influence of this force up-
on their beliefs, they would have been extra-
ordinary men, even more unusual than the
members of the committee. If they had been
aware of the influence working upon them,
they would have been in a position to dis-
count it. Moreover, their statement is made
after a period of years, during which their
conduct has been the subject of ardent contro-
versy and themselves the object of bitter
criticism, so that all their defense mechan-
isms have been called into action. But the
committee accepts their assurance at full
"alue! The committee’s belief that the ad-
mitted bias of the judge outside the court-
room, was dropped by him in the court-room,
as he might shed'an overcoat when he donned
judicial robes, evinces an equal disregard of
[elementary psychological factors.
More self-revealing still is the committee’s
procedure with reference to the “consciousness
of guilt” alleged by the prosecution to be
proved by the false statements the prisoners
made when arrested. The defense contended
their false statements were due to conscious-
' ness that they were radicals and foreigners
and were due to fear of arrest and deport-
ation. The committee first excuses the seem-
ingly harsh and prejudicial examination of
the prosecuting attorney, on the ground that
it was necessary for him to test the sincerity
of their professed radicalism as explaining‘
their behavior upon arrest. Then not only
are the committee certain that the proof the
defendants sincerely held these views had no
weight with the jury’s opinion, but they turn
13
the proof, not to support the men’s own ex—
planation of their conduct, but as consistent
with, if not actual evidence of, consciousness
of guilt! The method by which this is done
is perhaps the most extraordinary thing in an
extraordinary document.
The argument goes: It was the defendants
themeselves, when on trial, who made clear
their radical views. When they were arrested,
there was “in the case of Sacco, no certainty
that he held any such views. The United
States authorities who were hunting for Reds
had found nothing that would justify deport-
ation or any other proceedings against these
men”. vAlthough there were wholesale arrests,
“these men had not been arrested.”
Hence the justificationi of the prosecuting
attorney in a seemingly harsh and prejudicial
manner of prosecution—which,nevertheless,
did not prp'udice men at a time of fear and
credulity. oreover, while establishment of
the fact that they were radicals, and were
arrested at a time of wholesale illegal arrests
and depor-tations, justifies the prosecuting
attorney, it has no weight in contravention of
the theory of ‘_‘consciousness of guilt” as dis—
played upon arrest. The implication is that,
instead. of acting upon their knowledge that
they were obnoxious radicals, they should
have acted upon the lack of certain know-
ledge on- the part of the authorities! .
i In comparison with the force of elementary
psychological considerations, it may seem to
weaken the case to refer to another incident-
al fact. The committee’s sole reference to
the conduct - of Mr. Thompson is that, upon
occasion, his conduct indicated that “the case
of the defense must be rather desperate” for
him to resort to the tactics attributed to him.
Well, events, in which the committee had their
share,‘ indicate that the plight of the defend-
ants was indeed desperate; and Mr. Thomp—
son, above all others, had occasion to realize
how tragically desperate. But, quite apart
from the committe'e’s own conviction of the
guilt of the accused, it was known to them
that Mr. Thompson was equally convinced of
their innocence; that he was conservative in
his social and political views; that, at great
sacrifice of time, of social and professional
standing, he had made a gallant fight for the
accused out of jealous zeal for the repute of
his own state for even-handed justice. Yet
their sole reference to him is by way of a slur.
I see but one explanation of such lack of
simple and seemingly imperative generosity of
mind.
One is profoundly humiliated at the reve-
lation of an attitude which, it is submitted,
the record amply sets forth, the record
placed before the bar of history. The sense
of humiliation is akin to that of guilt, as if
for a share in permitting such a state of
mind as is exhibited in the record to develop
in a country that professes respect for justice
and devotion to equality and fraternity.
(From The New Republic)
Q
"The Marturs of Massachusetts
By c. 1. CLAFLtN
The case of Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo
Vanzetti has, I understand, been too fully
reported in the British Press to call for any
comprehensive review in the pages of The Free
Catholic. ‘Vere such a review indicated, I am
not equipped to supply it; for my know-
ledge of the case is only that which was open
to ‘anyone who happened to be in Greater
Boston during the spring and summer of the
year 1927. ‘My point of view is that of a
Free Catholic of mingled ,sympathies who is
Massachusetts born of old Massachusetts
stock, but whose life has been .passed partly
outside the State. It is for whatever interest
there may be in such a bystander’s imprese
sions of the social forces which-the case epit-
omizes that this "slight study is presented.
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts—for
that, not State, is its official title—is one of
the most conservative of American States.
True, its private philanthropyis perhaps the
most highly developed in the world, and has
reacted favourably on the quality of its public
welfare work; but no community is more
thoroughly committed to the support of exist-
ing institutions. This holds (individual ex-
ceptions apart) not only of its old blue-
blooded aristocracy—as conscious and acknow-
ledge an aristocracy as exists anywhere—
and of such wealthy newcomers as, like the
present Governor, have obtained entrance to
that class’s jealously guarded ranks; it holds‘
equally of the citizens of Colonial descent
who make up the bulk of its middle class.
The foreigners who, in successive waves, have I
. inundated its labour market, comprise many
many different elements, of which only one,
the earliest, has yet established itself on a
footing of anything like political and social
equality with the native stock. That element
is the Irish, often called simply “the Catholics’.’
I'n resisting their advance the native stock
has developed an attitude of “Belfast” type
—the attitude of a garrison on its defence—
and the later immigrations have encountered
this attitude already fixed. The Irish, on their
side, have not been .eager to share their hard-
won advantages with later comers, and these
have in large measure remained outside the
arena of traditional party politics—in close
touch with their‘ motherlands, and tinder to
the sparks of “radical” ideas.
Into this situation, tense with antagonisms,
came the passions of the war and the panic
engendered by the Russian Revolution. This
panic, sedulously fostered, still continues, and
seems to dominate popular thinking. In such
an atmosphere, aliens who were avowed
anarchists, who had evaded conscription, and
who were disseminating seditious propaganda,
were half convicted already of any crime that
might be) charged against them. That it is
possible to be in fierce revolt against a social
system, and yet, in personal relations, the
gentlest and-most upright of mankind; that
the crime charged in this case had no political
aspect, but was a sordid act of robbery and
murder, committed on two wage-earners one
of Whom was himself an Italian; that a man
who had it in him to commit such a crime
would be the last person to invite police
surveillance by seditious activities—consid—
erations' like these were and are too subtle
to penetrate minds constantly deafened by the
outcry of an almost altogether hostile press.
No deeper impression was made even by the
concrete and admitted facts that the defend-
ants had. worked steadily, before and after
the crime, at honest occupations, and that the
large sum of money stolen had never been
,even/presumptively traced in their possession
or that of anyone however distantly connected
with them.
-This state of what seems to me mental
obfuscation should not be attributed solely to
political and economic prejudices. Crimes of
violence are apparently somewhat on the
increase in the United States.
cation of the automobile facilitates them;
other factors are no doubt involved. The
newspapers “feature” news of this type, and
“the crime wave” has become a. byword. There
is widespread dissatisfaction with the frequent
failure of the machinery of justice to find,
convict, and severely punish malefactors, and .
a popular demand has arisen—not, as .one
might hope, for more intelligence applied to.
the prevention and cure of crime—but for
swifter and more drastic retribution. Again,
the legal tradition of Massachusetts, as em-
bodied both in enactment and in custom, is
conservative: it reposes great confidence in, the
judiciary—who are appointed for life, not, as
in most of our States, elected—closely limits
the power of the Supreme Court in passing
on appeals, and gives little encouragement to
The multipli— .
THE MARTYRS OF MASSACHUSETTS
executive clemency. In this case, indeed, the
Supreme Court put .a startingly narrow inter-
pretation on its own functions; but I stress
not so much the letter as the spirit of our
law, which certainly tends to make appeal
difficult—and this tendency, inherited from a
stern elder age, the temper of our present.
times has done more to re—enforce than to
counteract. '
The violence or threatened violence asso-
ciated with many of the protest on behalf of
the defendants has been cited as an injury to
their cause. It might have alienated public
sympathy from them, if there had been any
to alienate. As the matter stood, I doubt
whether this factor weighed appreciably in
determining the outcome. The protests from
abroad, and from the rest of the United
States, which were addressed to reason and
humanity instead of to fear, would have had
an influence if it had not been counteracted by
the stronger influence of pride. Massachusetts
is' far less important—economically, culturally,
politically—than she once was.v The fact is
undeniable, but it galls. A chance to show
that ,after all, she is still a sovereign State,
accountable to no one, was alluring; and the
thought of owning before the whole world
that her administration of justice had gone
wrong was hard to face. .
Against such a background the tragedy
player itself out. The courts 'and com—
mittee who sat on the case ‘were drawn
mainly, if not wholly, from what I have called
the native stock; they included no one of
other than conservative opinions, and no
representative of the later immigration. Yet
the make-up of those particular bodies seems
to me less important than the general senti-
ment of the Commonwealth. It was to that
authority that thereal appeal lay, and before
that tribunal that—for some such-reasons as
I have suggested—it failed. The one claim
of Italians on Irish sympathies—a common
Catholicism—the defendant had forfeited by
declaring themselves atheists. No other bond
* 15
with the arbiters of their fate remained to
themf They were outside the pale.
Yet a word should be said for the except-
ions. On the defence committee, as counsel,
and as unoflicial advocates served with bound-
less devotion, citizens whose title to represent
Massachusetts, cannot be impeached. Justice
Holmes of the national Supreme Court, though
denying, on strong constitutional grounds, the
applications made to him, gave his reply with
a gravity and courtesy that shone conspicuous.
Our Cardinal Archbishop kept a. speaking
silence, and manifested a gracious compassion.
Toward the last, freedom of speech and
assembly were almost wholly suspended by
the police. Boston resembled an armed camp
——and yet the funeral procession was oflicially
estimated to number seven thousand. *
To one, at least, the experience has brought
nearer the events of an April week in Jeru-
salem nineteen hundred years ago. “They
were instant with loud voices, requiring that
he might be crucified. And the voices of
them and of the chief priests prevailed. And
Pilate gave sentence that it should be as they
required.” Words like these ring with a new
reality. When, among the crimson flowers, I
looked on "the faces of the dead, and bent
the knee by their bier, I felt the essence of
martyrdom broader than technical definitions
——as broad as our Lords’ own “Inasmuch.”
Dying, our martyrs forgaye us. Living, may
they be our intercessors. Forgiveness we
needed: and God alone knows our need of
prayers.
(From’ The Free Catholic)
BIRMINGHAM, ENGLAND
* Police admitted that at the start of the
funeral on Hanover Street there were more
than 50,000 people in the procession. Mounted
troopers rode into the procession as it turned
into Tremont Street and cut it to pieces.
Ji... .
.
av .: