THE CRIME OF FERRER

WHAT was the crime of Ferrer? With reference to the facts which have come to the attention of the Ameri can public, what is to be said of the policy which brought about his execu tion? Xn every country the dissemination of anarchistic views, even by persons whose private lives are irreproachable, should be punishable when those views incite others to acts of violence. The statement has been freely made that Ferrer was a philosophical anarchist. The evidence on this point is not fully accessible. That Ferrer was a so cialist is clear; that his opinions were not only anti-clerical, but anti-Christian, is evident; but it is doubtful whether he was not more a republican than an anarchist. The question in the present case is more specific, being not whether he held anarchistic views but whether the expression of anarchistic views in cited the rioting in Barcelona. This disturbance does not clearly appear to have been different in character from an ordinary revolutionary riot. Such a riot attracts not only anarchists to take part in it, but malcontents of every description—socialists, nihilists, repub licans, all enemies of the monarchical r6gime. As there is not even the prob ability that the Barcelona uprising sought the overthrow of all government, rather than the establishment of a re

public, the offense of Ferrer, if offense there was, is more likely to have been that of rebellion against the lawful gov ernment than of complicity in an anar chistic disturbance. The former offense is the lesser, for unlike the latter it may be merely political. The deposition of the Director of Police at the trial, that Ferrer was an active anarchist, may probably be set down to prejudice. Some of the other testimony pointed to complicity in a republican insurrection. It was said that Ferrer had invited the mayor of Premia to proclaim a republic. It was also testified that he had been seen among the rioters. The evidence of not less than seventy witnesses had been hostile to him at the preliminary hearing. His connection with the riots may therefore have been sufficiently a matter of reasonable belief to serve as a basis for a charge of inciting to rebellion. Ferrer might therefore have been charged with an offense against public order which is punishable in many countries. Whether he could have been convicted, however, in a regular trial is improbable. If he had been tried by the ordinary procedure of courts of law in Spain, and had had the usual rights of an accused person, there is little doubt that he would have been acquitted. If convicted, the sentence could not have been of undue severity. But Ferrer, instead of being tried in the regular way, was tried in a court of