Similarly, Seymour Stedman, summing up for the Socialists on March 5, 1920, not being able to deny the many convictions of leaders and members of the Socialist Party under the Espionage Law, openly attacked the law itself, according to the following account in the "New York Evening Sun" of March 5, 1920: "Albany, March 5.--A bitter attack on the Espionage Act was made by Seymour Stedman in his final summing up for the five suspended Socialists before the Judiciary Committee of the Assembly today. "'Because of that act, you don't know the truth about this war; you cannot know the truth about this war until the Espionage Act is dead,' he asserted.... "Mr. Stedman admitted that the St. Louis war platform of the Socialist Party was drawn 'in lurid language to meet a situation in high flame,' but said no meeting could be called to consider amending it because those who favored it might have been convicted under the Espionage Act.... "Mr. Stedman contended that, of course, the Socialists took their oath to uphold the Constitution of New York State and the United States with the idea that they could interpret for themselves what the Constitution means. "'Each public officer who takes an oath to support the Constitution swears that he will support it as he understands it, and not as it is understood by others.'" According to the "New York World" of March 6, 1920, Stedman, in his speech of the preceding day, justified Eugene V. Debs' lawbreaking with the disgusting remark, "He had no conception of Jesus with a dagger in his teeth;" and justified the lawbreaking for which Rose Pastor Stokes was convicted with the sentence, "She had a right to disagree with the war aims." She, of course, was not convicted for "disagreement" but for wilfully interfering with the "recruiting service" of the United States Government. The "New York World" of March 6, 1920, also gives the following specimen of Stedman's reasoning: "Answering the charge that Socialists generally were guilty of law violations, he exclaimed: 'Go down to the penitentiaries and get the histories of the birds there and you won't find any Socialists. "'We are quite willing to say that if 2,000 Socialists had been arrested during the war, we are guilty.'" It is difficult to follow this logic. After telling us that we wouldn't "find any Socialists" in the penitentiaries, did Stedman suddenly bethink himself of the scores convicted, and then, on the spur of the moment, fix 2,000 as the number of "arrests" necessary to wring from Socialists the confession, "We are guilty"? From a Socialist work, Trachtenberg's Labor Year Book, 1919-1920, page 92, we quote the following figures for Stedman's edification: