FREE SPEECH.

The principle of free speech has had almost universal acceptance since a hundren and twenty-five years ago. In countries and localities where it has been applied, "free trade in ideas" has usually resulted in the separation of the good from the bad, and "the power of though to get itself accepted in the competition of the market" has been proved. Governments have found that when attempt is made to clamp down the lid on things they dislike the result has been that the lid has not only been forced open but entirely blown off.

But there are some things which, although carried on under free speech, are only excesses, and in no way promote the purposes for which free speech was instituted and is now supported. Legally, these excesses cannot be prevented without imposing some sort of powerful censorship; and such censorship could not be applied by the government without destroying the liberty which can be so beneficial. Not prohibited by the law, propaganda creeps in and is accepted by many as an almost essential part of freedom of speech. Men may talk on paper-dolls and tin soldiers, but that cannot be set among the successful results of toleration.

No one will deny that members of the University or anyone else has the "right" to hear "facts" about Russia. Nor will anyone deny that those people eager for the knowledge can ask any person they please to tell them about Russia. But an entirely different light is thrown on the matter when a man is invited to speak in a University building who is wholly and entirely unfitted to address a body of students. Here again, no one will deny the "right" to extend the invitation. It is not that Mr. Humphries looks favorably on certain phases of Soviet government. Many of us may see its good points. But the fact is that Mr. Humphries is not the sort of man who should be encouraged to speak in Harvard halls, nor are his methods suited to give his audience a true conception of Russian conditions.

The reaction on the outside public is a matter which should be well considered. The stretch between Wilfred Humphries being allowed to speak at Harvard and encouraged to speak at Harvard is not a long one. We do not wish it thought that the University believes in such tactics as his, for it is not true. We would not object to a sober and intellectual discussion of Russian affairs, both from admirers and critics, but we do object to unbalanced speeches from avowed propagandists.