OCR Text |
Show THE CITIZEN . It was Bryan who assured us that a million men would leap to arms between daylight and dusk. True, more than a million men wanted to leap to arms the day wiar was declared, but they had not the slightest idea in which direction to leap .and, after many months, 'Ivhen arms were thrust into their hands they did not know how to use them and could not learn how within many more months. Bryans responsibility for our unpreparedness, for our unnecessary sacrifices in France, aye for a devastated world, is grave because he was a leader of opinion. His pallid pacifism deluded many a American into a belief that a puling idealism and a peace-lovin- g disposition would save us in the. hour of need. Bryans record of pacifism is deplorable because it was he who persuaded millions of dupes to accept the theory of nonresistance. It was he, or someone like him, who preached that we should await the attack of the Germans at the seashore and hold out to them welcoming hands and preach to them the beauties of peace and loving kindness, his theory being that they would be so won by our policy that they would neglect to shoot and would become as pacifistic as ourselves. Most of us are disgusted and ashamed of those days, but Bryan is proud of his silly record. We do not want militarism in this country, but by this time most of us are persuaded that an American army officer usually is a living guarantee against militarism. There are exceptions, but they are rare among the higher officers of the army. Is it not a trifle early to repudiate military men. Have we forgotten so soon that it was military men that saved the world from Hohenzollern domination? If we follow the consistently mistaken Bryan shall we not be defaming the memory of the marines of Beal-lea- u Wood and the soldiers of Chateau Thierry and the Argonne ? If it comes to a choice between military men and pacifists the American people will not choose pacifists. Fortunately the country will not be limited to such a choice. In the Republican party none of the candidates is the kind of a men and all of pacifist Mr. Bryan is, but all of them are peace-lovin- g them believe in preparedness. red-blood- ed BRANDING THE SOCIALISTS Whether we agree with the majority of the New York assembly judiciary committee that the five Socialist members ought to be excluded we cannot but be entertained by the confusion of thought among the committeemen and edified by the facts which the inquisition revealed. There can be little doubt that the findings of facts are even though the majoritys inferences and conclusions may be somewhat awry. The Socialist party of America, the report declares, is not a loyal American organization, or political party disgraced occasionally by the traitorous act or declaration of a member, but is a disloyal organization composed exclusively of perpetual traitors. Therefore the qgt of a member of that party in subscribing to the constitutional oath of office to support the constitution of the United States and the state of New York should be utterly disregarded as patently sham and a mere cloak- for treachery. So patently a sham was the vocal patriotism of the Socialists during the war that thousands of Americans quit the party. They had beheld with astonishment an organized attempt to handicap the government in its every war move. They had seen their Socialist brethren opposing conscription and war appropriations and actively agitating in behalf of conscientious objectors. They felt that they could no longer support a party which tried to give victory to their couincon-trovertab- le - ntrys foe. 5 A minority of the judiciary committee describes the party policy as purely negative and declares that while the party refused aid and comfort to the government it did not give aid and comfort to the enemy. But the facts cry out against such a conclusion. The Socialists who remained loyal to the party organization were aggressive in their efforts to make conscription a mockery and to help those who openly defied its provisions. 0 There is but one inference, continues the majority report, from the position of the Socialists in relation to naval and military appropriations and war. They would render the country and government helpless against all enemies, so that it would be helpless against them, the enemies of established order. The minority, drawing fine distinctions, found themselves hampered by the facts. They spun an argument to the fineness of a spiders web to demonstrate that the Socialists, despite their partys acts of disloyalty and despite their membership in the party, had a theoretical right to their seats. When it comes to a discussion of theoretical rights most of us get into deep water. The members of the New York assembly have been over their heads from the very beginning of the controversy. Therefore, we need not be surprised to find Maurice Bloch, a Democratic member, evolving this brilliant maxim: Liberty involves the right to think wrong. In a free society it is necessary to tolerate many things and among them one anothers wrong thinking, but it is preposterous to say that anyone has a right to think wrong. The law cannot prevent a man from thinking murder, but it is lunacy to say that a man has a right to such a thought. Unluckly for the Socialists they did not confine themselves to the private luxury of mere wrong thinking ; they openly advocated wrong. The basic principle of their party was, and is, the overthrow of all present forms of government, and during the war they did what they could to overthrow the American government. As Mr. Bloch might say, they considered that liberty involved not only the right to think wrong but to do wrong. We have mild convcition that the New York legislature has been guilty of a lot of wrong thinking, but has done right. - . full-fledg- ed . THE WRATH OF OKUMA Count Okuma, former premier of Japan, has written a magazine article to denounce the United States. Inasmuch as the spokesmen of America, from senators to editors, have been engaged for more than a year in denouncing the motives and ambitions of Japan we cannot take offense at the severe language employed by this celebrated elder statesman. On the contrary, if both sides speak plainly and bluntly, perhaps each side can come to a better understanding of the other and finally to a modus vivendi, which, if not altogether harmonious, nevertheless will be satisfactory. Throughout his article Count Okuma raises the tearful voice of complaint against us because we have not spared the sensibilities of the Nipponese in our criticisms. We have been pitiless in denouncing the Shantung deal and the attempt of Japan to bring the Chinese into subjection. Count Okuma can see only base motives. Because of our triumphs in the recent war and our influence in the counsels of peace we have come to believe that we can run the wrorld, he says. Therefore, we are trying to make Japan bow to our wishes. No American will agree that this is a truthful portrayal of our purposes. We are conscious only of a loyal adherence to American ideals. When we excoriated Japan for appropriating Shantung wre did not fail to place much of the blame on our own President. We accused him of abandoning his fourteen commandments and weakly conceding the Nipponese claims because Japan had hinted that it would wreck the League of Nations unless it obtained what it desired. Nor is it necessary to disguse the fact that we were citing the Shantung case to drive home our other arguments against the treaty. Instead of giving the American people credit for fealty to their principles Count Okuma prefers to fling back at us the charge of Prussianism. Have you not seized Hawaii, the Philippines, Porto Rico and other war prizes? Then why blame Japan for taking Tsing-ta- o and the German isles? And if we reply that wc have promised to turn over the Philippine islands to their people as soon as they are able to govern themselves and protect themselves against external aggression, the count will say that Japan has pledged her word to give Shantung to China. History, however, pleads in our favor and against Japan. We |