, it is the
Socialist Party of the United States that is on trial before you.'
...

"'I think, perhaps, the most telling point is the charge that the
Socialist Party is unpatriotic and disloyal--at least it has been
emphasized more than any other,' said the lawyer. 'We opposed the
war.... If similar conditions again arise I am sure we will take
the same position.'"

Similarly, Seymour Stedman, summing up for the Socialists on March 5,
1920, not being able to deny the many convictions of leaders and members
of the Socialist Party under the Espionage Law, openly attacked the law
itself, according to the following account in the "New York Evening Sun"
of March 5, 1920:

"Albany, March 5.--A bitter attack on the Espionage Act was made by
Seymour Stedman in his final summing up for the five suspended
Socialists before the Judiciary Committee of the Assembly today.

"'Because of that act, you don't know the truth about this war; you
cannot know the truth about this war until the Espionage Act is
dead,' he asserted....

"Mr. Stedman admitted that the St. Louis war platform of the
Socialist Party was drawn 'in lurid language to meet a situation in
high flame,' but said no meeting could be called to consider
amending it because those who favored it might have been convicted
under the Espionage Act....

"Mr. Stedman contended that, of course, the Socialists took their
oath to uphold the Constitution of New York State and the United
States with the idea that they could interpret for themselves what
the Constitution means.

"'Each public officer who takes an oath to support the Constitution
swears that he will support it as he understands it, and not as it
is understood by others.'"

According to the "New York World" of March 6, 1920, Stedman, in his
speech of the preceding day, justified Eugene V. Debs' lawbreaking with
the disgusting remark, "He had no conception of Jesus with a dagger in
his teeth;" and justified the lawbreaking for which Rose Pastor Stokes
was convicted with the sentence, "She had a right to disagree with the
war aims." She, of course, was not convicted for "disagreement" but for
wilfully interfering with the "recruiting service" of the United States
Government.

The "New York World" of March 6, 1920, also gives the following specimen
of Stedman's reasoning:

"Answering