ADVOCACY

To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

In your report of last night's meeting on the Struik case there is an error which, though apparently trivial, actually completely destroys the meaning of my remarks. You state (as did Mr. Donlon) that Struik was indicted for conspiring to overthrow the government by force. Actually (as I pointed out by reading the indictment) the charge is conspiring to advocate overthrowing the government. From the point of view of freedom of speech the distinction is absolutely essential. The Civil Liberties Union does not recognize any right to overthrow the government by force, or to conspire to do so. It does resolutely defend the right of any man to argue, or to "conspire" with others to argue, in favor of any proposition whatever, including the proposition that the government should be overthrown by force, unless it can be demonstrated that the manner and circumstances of his argument or "conspiracy" were such as to create the probability of an actual and immediate insurrection. There is nothing in the bill of particulars filed by the Commonwealth in its action against Struik to indicate that this was the case. Albert Sprague Coolidge,   Lecturer on Chemistry