Emma Goldman

Address to the Jury

delivered 9 July 1917, New York

演讲者简介:埃玛·戈尔德曼(英语:Emma Goldman,1869年6月27日-1940年5月14日),美国无政府主义者,以其政治激进主义、著作与演说著称。她在二十世纪前半叶北美与欧洲的无政府政治哲学发展中扮演了关键角色。

戈尔德曼出生于俄罗斯帝国科夫诺(现立陶宛考那斯)的一个犹太家庭,1885年移居至美国纽约市,并投身于当地新兴的无政府主义运动。在干草市场暴乱后,戈尔德曼成了无政府哲学、女权与社会议题等领域的作家及著名演说家,吸引了上千名听众。她与她的爱人——也是她的终身挚友——无政府主义作家亚历山大·贝克曼谋划暗杀亨利·克雷·弗里克,藉以鼓吹无政府主义。刺杀行动终告失败,贝克曼被判处二十二年徒刑。戈尔德曼亦在随后数年间,因“煽动暴乱”及非法散布节育相关资讯而多次入狱。1906年,戈尔德曼创办无政府主义刊物《大地》。

emmagoldmanpublicdomain.jpg

本文暂无音频

Gentlemen of the Jury:

As in the case of my co-defendant, Alexander Berkman, this is also the first time in my life I have ever addressed a jury.  I once had occasion to speak to three judges.

On the day after our arrest it was give out by the U. S. Marshal and the District Attorney’s office that the “big fish” of the No-Conscription activities had been caught, and that there would be no more trouble-makers and disturbers to interfere with the highly democratic effort of the Government to conscript its young manhood for the European slaughter.  What a pity that the faithful servants of the Government, personified in the U. S. Marsha land the District Attorney, should have used such a weak and flimsy net for their big catch.  The moment the anglers pulled their heavily laden net ashore, it broke, and all the labor was so much wasted energy.

The methods employed by Marshal McCarthy and his hosts of heroic warriors were sensational enough to satisfy the famous circus men, Barnum & Baily.  A dozen or more heroes dashing up two flights of stairs, prepared to stake their lives for their country, only to discover the two dangerous disturbers and trouble-makers Alexander Berkman and Emma Goldman, in their separate offices, quietly at work at their desks, wielding not a sword, nor a gun or a bomb, but merely their pens!  Verily, it required courage to catch such big fish.

To be sure, tow officers equipped with a warrant would have sufficed to carry out the business of arresting the defendants Alexander Berkman and Emma Goldman.  Even the police know that neither of them is in the habit of running away or hiding under the bed.  But the farce-comedy had to be properly staged if the Marshal and the District Attorney were to earn immortality.  Hence the sensational arrest; hence, also, the raid upon the offices of THE BLAST, MOTHER EARTH and the No-Conscription League.

In their zeal to save the country from the trouble-makers, the Marshal and his helpers did not even consider it necessary to produce a search warrant.  After all, what matters a mere scrap of paper when one is called upon to raid the offices of Anarchists! Of what consequence is the sanctity of property, the right of privacy, to officials in their dealings with Anarchists!  In our day of military training for battle, and Anarchist office is an appropriate camping ground.  Would the gentlemen who came with Marshal McCarthy have dared to go into the offices of Morgan, of Rockefeller, or of any of those men without a search warrant?  They never showed us the search warrant, although we asked them for it.  Nevertheless, they turned our office into a battlefield, so that when they were through with it, it looked like invaded Belgium, with the only difference that the invaders were not Prussian barbarians but good American patriots bent on making New York safe for democracy.

The stage having been appropriately set for the three-act comedy, and the first act successfully played by carrying off the villains in a madly dashing automobile -- which broke every traffic regulation and barely escaped crushing every one in its way--the second act proved even more ludicrous.  Fifty thousand dollars bail was demanded, and real estate refused when offered by a man whose property is rated at three hundred thousand dollars, and that after the District Attorney had considered and, in fact, promised to accept the property for one of the defendants, Alexander Berkman, thus breaking every right guaranteed even to the most heinous criminal.

Finally the third act, played by the Government in this court during the last week.  The pity of it is that the prosecution knows so little of dramatic construction, else it would have equipped itself with better dramatic material to sustain the continuity of the play.  As it was, the third act fell flat, utterly, and presents the question, Why such a tempest in a teapot?

Gentlemen of the jury, my comrade and co-defendant having carefully and thoroughly gone into the evidence presented by the prosecution, and having demonstrated its entire failure to prove the charge of conspiracy or any overt acts to carry out that conspiracy, I shall not impose upon your patience by going over the same ground, except to emphasize a few points.  To charge people with having conspired to do something which they have been engaged in doing most of their lives, namely their campaign against war, militarism and conscription as contrary to the best interests of humanity, is an insult to human intelligence.

And how was that charge proven?  By the fact that MOTHER EARTH and THE BLAST were printed by the same printer and bound in the same bindery.  By the further evidence that the same expressman had delivered to two publications!  An by the still more illuminating fact that on June 2nd MOTHER EARTH and THE BLAST were given to a reporter at his request, if your please, and gratis.

Gentlemen of the jury, you saw the reporter who testified to this overt act.  Did any one of you receive the impression that the man was of conscriptable age, and if not in what possible way is the giving of MOTHER EARTH  to a report for news purposes proof demonstrating the overt act?

It was brought out by our witnesses that the MOTHER EARTH magazine has been published for twelve years; that it was never held up, and that it has always gone through the U. S. mail as second-class mail matter.  It was further proven that the magazine appeared each month about the first or second, and that it was sold or given away at the office to whoever wanted a copy.  Where, then, is the overt act?

Just as the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the charge of conspiracy, so has it also failed to prove the overt act by the flimsy testimony that MOTHER EARTH was given to a reporter.  The same holds good regarding THE BLAST.

Gentlemen of the jury, the District Attorney must have learned from the reporters the gist of the numerous interviews which they had with us.  Why did he not examine them as to whether or not we had counseled young men not to register?  That would have been a more direct way of getting at the facts.  In the case of the reporter from the New York Times, there can be no doubt that the man would have been only too happy to accommodate the District Attorney with the required information.  A man who disregards every principle of decency and ethics of his profession as a newspaper man, by turning material given him as news over to the District Attorney, would have been glad to oblige a friend.  Why did Mr. Content neglect such a golden opportunity?  Was it no because the reporter of the Times, like all the other reporters, must have told the District Attorney that the two defendants stated, on each and every occasion, they would not tell people not to register?

Perhaps the Times reporter refused to go to the extent of perjuring himself.  Patrolmen and detectives are not so timid in such matters.  Hence Mr. Randolph and Mr. Cadell, to rescue the situation.  Imagine employing tenth-rate stenographers to report the very important speeches of dangerous trouble-makers!  What lack of forethought and efficiency on the part of the District Attorney!  But even these two members of the police department failed to prove by their notes that we advised people not to register.  But since they had to produce something incriminating against Anarchists, they conveniently resorted to the old standby, always credited to us, “We believe in violence and we will use violence.”

Assuming, gentlemen of the jury, that his sentence was really used at the meeting of May 18th, it would still fail to prove the indictment which charges conspiracy and overt acts to carry out the conspiracy.  And that is all we are charged with.  Not violence, not Anarchism.  I will go further and say, that had the indictment been for the advocacy of violence, you gentlemen of the jury, would still have to render a verdict of “Not Guilty,” since the mere belief in a thing or even the announcement that you would carry out that belief, can not possibly constitute a crime.

However, I wish to say emphatically that no such expression as “We believe in violence and we will use violence” was uttered at the meeting of May 18th, or at any other meeting.  I could not have employed such a phrase, as there was no occasion for it.  If for no other reason, it is because I want my lectures and speeches to be coherent and logical.  The sentence credited to me is neither.

I have read to you my position toward political violence from a lengthy essay called “The Psychology of Political Violence.”

But to make that a position clearer and simpler, I wish to say that I am a social student.  It is my mission in life to ascertain the cause of our social evils and of our social difficulties.  As a student of social wrongs it is my aim to diagnose a wrong.  To simply condemn the man who has committed an act of political violence, in order to save my skin, would be as unpardonable as it would be on the part of the physician, who is called to diagnose a case, to condemn the patient because the patient has tuberculosis, caner, or some other disease.  The honest, earnest, sincere physician does not only prescribe medicine, he tries to find out the cause of the disease.  And if the patient is at all capable as to means, the doctor will say to him, “Get out of this putrid air, get out of the factory, get out of the place where your lungs are being infected.”  He will not merely give him medicine.  He will tell him the cause of the disease.  And that is precisely my position in regard to acts of violence.  That is what I have said on every platform.  I have attempted to explain the cause and the reason for acts of political violence.