Criticism from a man like Fair Play, whom I know to be a real knight of labor, whether nominally one or not, is always welcome in these columns, and will always deserve and secure my attention. In attending to it in this special case my first business is to repeat what I have said already,—that I misquoted Henry Appleton, that he has never advised newsdealers to join the Knights of Labor, and that he is as much opposed to the principles and purposes of that order as I am.(166 ¶ 4)

I don’t pretend to know very much about the Knights of Labor, but I know enough already to make it needless to know more. I know, for instance, their Declaration of Principles, and my fatal objections to these principles, or most of them, no additional knowledge of the order could possibly obviate or in any way invalidate or weaken. Of them the preamble itself says: Most of the objects herein set forth can only be obtained through legislation, and it is the duty of all to assist in nominating and supporting with their votes only such candidates as will pledge their support to those measures, regardless of party. Does Fair Play mean to tell me that he knows of any real Anarchist who consents to stultify himself by belonging to a society founded on that proposition? If he does, I answer that that man either does not know what Anarchy means, or else is as false to his principles as would be an Infidel who should subscribe to the creed of John Calvin. Anarchy and this position are utterly irreconcilable; and no man who understands both of them (with the possible exception of Stephen Pearl Andrews) would ever attempt to reconcile them.(166 ¶ 5)

But what are these objects which these liberty-loving people expect to realize by that eminently Anarchistic weapon, the ballot? The Declaration goes on to state them. We demand at the hands of the State (think of an Anarchist demanding anything of the State except its death!):(166 ¶ 6)

That all lands now held for speculative purposes be taxed to their full value. How long since taxation became an Anarchistic measure? It is my impression that Anarchists look upon taxation as the bottom tyranny of all.(166 ¶ 7)

The enactment of laws providing for arbitration between employers and employed, and to enforce the decision of the arbitrators. That is, the State must fix the rate of wages and the conditions of the performance of labor. The Anarchist who would indorse that must be a curiosity.(166 ¶ 8)

The prohibition by law of the employment of children under fifteen years of age in workshops, mines, and factories. In other words, a boy of fourteen shall not be allowed to choose his occupation. What Anarchist takes this position?(166 ¶ 9)

That a graduated income tax be levied. How this would lessen the sphere of government!(166 ¶ 10)

The establishment of a national monetary system, in which a circulating medium in necessary quantity shall issue direct to the people without the intervention of banks; that all the national issue shall be full legal tender in payment of all debts, public and private; and that the government shall not guarantee or recognize private banks, or create any banking corporations. If Fair Play knows of any Anarchists who have subscribed to this, I wish he would furnish their addresses. I should like to send them Colonel Greene’s Mutual Banking and the keen and powerful chapter of Lysander Spooner’s Letter to Grover Cleveland which treats of the congressional crime of altering contracts by legal-tender laws. Perhaps they might thus be brought to their senses.(166 ¶ 11)

But need I, as I easily might, extend this list of tyrannical measures to convince Friend Fair Play that, however much I might know about the Knights of Labor, I could not think better of them than I now do?(166 ¶ 12)

The trouble is that Fair Play and reformers generally do not yet know what to make of such a phenomenon in journalism as a radical reform paper which, instead of offering the right hand of fellowship to everything calling itself radical and reformatory, adopts a principle for its compass and steers a straight course by it. They all like it first-rate until its course conflicts with theirs. Then they exclaim in horror. I am sorry to thus shock them, but I cannot help it; I must keep straight on. When I launched this little newspaper craft, I hoisted the flag of Liberty. I hoisted it not as a name merely, but as a vital principle, by which I mean to live and die. With the valued aid of Fair Play and others, added to my own efforts, it has been kept flying steadily at the masthead. It has not been lowered an inch, and, while I have strength to defend it, it never will be. And if any man attempts to pull it down, I care not who he may be, Knight of Capital or Knight of Labor, I propose, at least with mental and moral ammunition, to shoot him on the spot.(166 ¶ 13)