The Irish standard., 1904-05-14

The following communication, which
appeared in the New York Sun under
date of April 26th, is from the pen of
Michael Davitt, the well-known Irish
Nationalist. Addressing the editor of
that Journal he says:
This letter will, necessarily, be my
last in reply to your various corre-
spondents, as must sail for Europe
in few hours. But neither can
American" Mr.. w. G.. Fisher nor can.
other American advances single
fact or rational argument against nv
previous contentious that demands
reasoned answer from me. They offer
your readers liberal abuse of nv
Ignorance and intolerance" This, to-
gether with an equally liberal allow
ance Of knowledge and virtue given to
themselves, is about the worth and
character Of their letters.
can American's'' conclusions in this
respect remind me Of the famous reply
of the London cockney to the question,
"What have you to urge against Home
Rule?" "A1y hobjection to 'Ome Rule"
answered the enlightened Briton, sis
the hignorance of the Hirish!'
can American" gives us glowing
account Of his family history (Which
has, of course, profound bearing up
on the merits of the Far Eastern ques-
tion). but he still denies us the magic
talisman of his name Where he
makes an effort to return to what was
the origin of this controversy, your
correspondent puts his case in this
sentence and sentiment: "a brutal
power like Russia in her contest with
brave, alert little nation only a frac-
tfon Of her size, which she tried to
rob and oppress, and then to intimi-
date" And, according to can Ameri-
can," not alone all Americans, but "a
large majority Of Irish-Americans
hold these views. He again omits to
mention single name.
It was an editorial reference in the
Sun to a similar sentiment to this, as
voiced in an article in the London
Times, which induced me to write you
my first letter as comment upon, not
alone the want Of truth in this whole
sale accusation against Russia, but the
blatant hypocricy of such language in
the mouth Of the leading English paper
within three years of the ending of
England's brigand and brutal war
against the Boer republics. Your cor
respondents came to the rescue of the
position thus assailed, justified this
English view as being that Of call
Americans" likewise, and hence my
"hignorance' in disputing the fairness
of this opinion or the claim thus made
as to its universal prevalence in this
country.
Now, allow me to deal with definite
accusations against Russia, as made in
England and repeated by your corre-
spondents and others over here:
l. Russia is brutal bully" ThlA
is matter Of opinion. But so is Eng
land. She has been brutal in Ireland,
in India, in South Africa and else
where, without evoking the indigna-
tion Of your correspondents. There are
35O,OOO,OO0 Of people in Europe, out
side Of Great Britain, who live much
nearer to Russia than the citizens of
this republic do, and at least 80 per
cent of them believe the Russians to
be less brutal, more truthful, more
Christian and more honorable, both as
nation and as race than the peo-
pie and nation of Great Britain.
2. Japan is brave little nation"
This, again, is matter of opinion. 1
have not disputed their claim to cour-
age.
3. Russia is fighting a nation only
a fraction of her size which she tried
to rob and oppress." Let us look at
the facts: Japan has population of
forty millions of people. Russia has
one hundred and forty millions. This
gives Russia three and half to one.
But Japan has her forty millions quite
close to the theatre of the war, while
the centre Of Russia's power is six