Dear Sir: You are cordially invited to attend a reception to be
tendered Eugene V. Debs on his release from Woodstock Jail, Friday
evening, November twenty-second, at Battery D, Chicago, by the
liberty-loving citizens of Chicago and vicinity, in testimony of
their sympathy with Mr. Debs and his colleagues in their unjust and
unlawful imprisonment and as an expression of popular aversion to
judicial despotism and devotion to Civil and Constitutional Liberty.
J. D. MAYERS,
Secretary, 405 Thirty-third
St., Chicago, Ill.
J. H. SCHWERZGEN,
Chm. Com. of Arrangements,
133 Rialto Building.
“The Reception Committee will leave this city for Woodstock on a
special train from the Chicago and Northwestern railway depot at
2:30 p. m., Friday, November 22, for the purpose of escorting Mr.
Debs to Chicago. If you desire to accompany the committee, kindly
inform the chairman or secretary. Tickets for the round trip, two
dollars.”
As the time approached when Mr. Debs’ term in prison would expire,
November 22, 1895, great preparations for celebration were made
throughout the country, particularly in Chicago. October 31, 1895, Mr.
Debs wrote from Woodstock Jail the following letter:
WOODSTOCK, ILL., Oct 31.
Thomas J. Elderkin,
President Trade and Labor Assembly,
Chicago, Ill.
_Dear Sir and Brother_: Your favor of the 20th inst. in reference to
the reception to be tendered my colleagues and myself upon my
release and the condition upon which the Trade and Labor Assembly of
Chicago will participate therein has been received and noted.
I quote from your letter as follows: “Some say you advocate the
abolishment of Trade Union theories, while others declare you are
still a friend and strong advocate of Trade Unions. The question of
a demonstration by the Trade and Labor Assembly upon the occasion of
your release from jail November 22, rests upon your position toward
Trade Unions, for if you still believe Trade Unions are adequate for
the emancipation of the workingmen the Trade and Labor Assembly will
cheerfully join in the demonstration.”
Permit me to decline in advance any “demonstration” on the part of
persons whose sentiments are represented in the foregoing
proposition. If the Trade and Labor Assembly of Chicago can afford
to make such a proposition, I cannot afford to consider it. For
twenty-one years I have been defining my “position” in relation to
Trade Unions, and on all proper occasions I have given full, free
and unequivocal expression to my views, but I must respectfully
decline to do so for a consideration, even though that consideration
be in the form of a reception upon my release from a jail in which I
have served a sentence of six months for my fealty to the principles
of the very Trade Unions which now propose to interrogate me as to
my “position” in relation to their interests.
The statement that I am or ever have been hostile to Trade Unions
and that I am advocating or intending to advocate their
“abolishment” is too palpably false and malicious to merit an
instant’s contention. There is, of course, a purpose in having this
question raised at this time, but it is difficult for me to conceive
that it emanates from a Trade and Labor Assembly. If it had its
origin in the General Managers’ Association or some kindred body, it
would be in consonance with the fitness of things and I should
readily understand it.
Permit me to say, therefore, that the proposed reception is in no
sense a personal affair. I understand it to be tendered in
recognition of the principles involved in the illegal and unjust
imprisonment of my colleagues and myself, and as voicing abhorrence
of, and protest against, judicial despotism in the United States,
which constitutional rights are cloven down in the interest of
corporate wealth.
I have not asked for a reception and I am sure I have no ambition to
be the guest of anyone who finds it necessary to place me on the
witness stand and interrogate me as to whether I am his friend or
his enemy, especially after serving six months in jail for
advocating his rights and defending his interests. To make myself
perfectly clear, if there are those who have any doubt as to my
“position,” then, so far as I am concerned, I advise them to take
the safe side and stay away from the intended reception.
The charge that I have “changed my views” in regard to Trades
Unions, which, as I am informed, prompted the action and attitude of
your Assembly, is simply a pretext which will serve the purpose for
which it was designed if it creates dissension, arouses a sentiment
unfavorable to the reception and makes of that occasion a dismal
failure. The reason for this is so apparent that it will readily
suggest itself. I admit that my views are subject to “change,” but
not of the legal tender variety.
I beg to assure you that no discourtesy is intended, although if the
Trade and Labor Assembly had intended a deliberate affront it could
not have adopted a method better calculated to serve that purpose
than by attempting to pillory me in public at this time on the
question of my allegiance to Organized Labor.