The Irish standard., 1901-03-09
A REPLY TO AN ENGLrsHMAN.

A REILLY III AN ENULlSHWAN.
An Englishman named G. Bernard
Shaw thinks that Americans have
made a failure of government,
both nationally and municipality, and
that in order to succeed they must
first abolish the American constitution,
which he calls that foolish, obsolete
and obstructive document which de-
stroys life, persecutes liberty and
makes the pursuit Of happiness chase
after other peoples dollars"
Thomas Z. Watson, former member
OF congress from Georgia, replies to
the Englishtnan in very effective
manner and says in part:
England knows how to govern, does
she? When did she learn it? Surely,
since the time when she plundered us
as colonies, for her statutes and meth
DDS then We're such that Mr.. Shaw's
Spaniard might blush once more.
Before England comes to govern us,
had she not better govern Ireland?
For some centuries she has been trying
it, and the work is rather unfinished.
Sire rules Canada--by letting Canada
rule herself. And just in proportion
as she lets her other colonies alone they
arc well governed.
Will we like the English syndicate
better than our own? Is English labor
any less serf, English poverty less
bleak and manifold, British vice less
law-defying, law-eluding than ours?
Compare the two trees, London and
New York. In Gods name, is London
the whittier town? What evil spirit
possesses New York and shuns Lon
don? Have they quit the traffic in
young girls which Mr.. Stead exposed
some years ago?
But the mayor has not such power,
and does not steal. If to get an hon
est mayor, and mayor who is not
autocratic, we must go back to fcudal-
ISM, fetichism, blind abasement before
king, priest and noble, then let the
mayor be an occasional thief, a some
times autocrat. At all events he is
our rascal and our boss We made
him and We'll unmake him. His Of
flee is not hereditary in the family
thank God! The son will not shear us
merely because the father did. We
put the rascal in; we can put the rascal
out.
| Even in aristocratic Europe there
was time when all We're politically
equal. The strongest came forward,
did great deeds, became leaders, mas
ters, protectors. But if the son of
the strong man proved to be weak,
why should he continue in the high
place Won by strength? And if the
son of a wealling proved himself one
of the strong, why should he not go
M into the places of the strong?
Democracy says, keep the way open,
let the worthy go up, let the unworthy
come down. Aristocracy says. 1--WE
were strong, we won the high PAGES,
and these we will keep by hereditary
right, even though we are no longer
worthy. 1t was a happy thing for us
that the door of opportunity was open
in our day; but since we are in we'll
stay in. Shut the door,"
True, we do not know how to gov
ern, nor does England. We are crop
ing in the dark. We may find the
way to the light, and we may not.
but this we do say boldly. those things
which are most destructive to our pros
perity as people are the government
al policies which we have borrowed
| from England. If ever we can spew
them out we shall yet be what the
pioneers who colonized the country i'll
tended, a republic governed by demo-
cratic laws and breathing democratic
spirit.