per, C.
C. Hulbert, H. P. Hunsberger, C. L. Johnson, R. W. Jones, Joe Kelley, F.
Lansing, W. O. Lily, E. McBride, William McGregor, R. Nicholson, David
O'Hern, Harry Parker, J. Ryan, Sam Scott, Mark Skomo, Thomas Smye, and
F. Thorpe.

Altho an inquest had been held over the dead gunmen at such an early
date after the tragedy and with such haste as to seem suspicious,
repeated demands for an inquest over Labor's dead were of no avail. No
such inquest was ever held. Only by strong protest were the bodies kept
from the potter's field.

Thirty-eight charged with unlawful assembly, seventy-four in jail
accused of first degree murder, thirty-two severely wounded and at least
two of these crippled for life, six unaccounted for and probably shot
and drowned, and five known dead in the city morgue,--this was the
answer of the tyrannical timber barons to Labor's demand for free speech
and the right to organize within the confines of the Lumber Kingdom.

FOOTNOTE:

[11] Courtenay Lemon, "Free Speech in the United States." Pearson's
Magazine, December 1916.

CHAPTER V.

BEHIND PRISON BARS

"One of the greatest sources of social unrest and bitterness has been
the attitude of the police toward public speaking. On numerous occasions
in every part of the country the police of cities and towns have, either
arbitrarily or under the cloak of a traffic ordinance, interfered with
or prohibited public speaking, both in the open and in halls, by persons
connected with organizations of which the police or those from whom they
receive their orders did not approve. In many instances such
interference has been carried out with a degree of brutality which would
be incredible if it were not vouched for by reliable witnesses. Bloody
riots frequently have accompanied such interference, and large numbers
of persons have been arrested for acts of which they were innocent or
which were committed under the extreme provocation of brutal treatment
by police or private citizens.

"In some cases this suppression of free speech seems to have been the
result of sheer brutality and wanton mischief, but in the majority of
cases it undoubtedly is the result of a belief by the police or their
superiors that they were 'supporting and defending the Government' by
such invasion of personal rights. There could be no greater error. Such
action strikes at the very foundation of government. It is axiomatic
that a government which can be maintained only