The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1915-08-06
What Observation-Disclosures Want

what Amef1CzAn-tAEnciFd "N~
Editor Virginian:
Sir,-In reference to your comment
on my article of Monday, allow me TO
say:
If I had had controversy with the
Richmond Virginian l should nave
made that fact plain.
The Richmond Virginian reaches
me In the afternoon of the day OF
publication. BY that time ] have got
ten the news from other sources. l
read always the editorials. do not
always 20 over the news columns.
For this reason l did not note In The
Virginian, either Mr.. Roosevelts OF
Mr.. Bryan's speeches.
Your explanation is good as far as
IL goes. But Is 1t fun explanation
I noted, for example, with great sat
isfaction, that you published Mr.
Bryan's statements in full at the time
of his resignation. / filed those pa
pers for reference
note, also, that The Virginian
alone of all the papers in Richmond.
and we think in Virginia, printed the
three statementes in full" ana that
in spite of the fact that Mr.. Bryan
was careful ito furnish his statements
In full in advance So that the ed
itor can see that the practical expla-
nation offered does not quite cover
the case.
So my criticism was not of The Viz
ginian. II was primarily concrete
illustration of what appeared to the
writer to be a sinister fact In our cur
rent journalistic history: An apparent
disposition to give prominence to the
voices that cry for war and to ig-
more or belittle the voices that plead
for peace. The readers of one paper
only In Virginia, apparently, and that
paper The Richmond Virginian, mad
the opportunity to read Mr.. Bryan's
full statements, and to form an in
dependent Judgment concerning his
action.
Was that an accident? Or was II
tacit agreement--a sort of conspir-
acy of silence to nullify the act of
man who followed his own con-
science out of office and position
rather than follow somebody else 5
conscience in office and position.
Moreover, when "a great public ques-
ton ia to the fore-a question involv-
ing so much, is 1t good newspaper
ethics to follow the line of least re-
sistence and publish only, or for the
most part the matter that comes cas-
lest to hand? We are dependent on
our newspapers lOF out Ahi'i ana e'oii
and largely for our opinions. Is II
not the duty of our press to give us
both sides of great absorbing sub
ject like this2
While our Roosevelts and our Gard
ners are filling the air with their
clamor, Is II not the duty of the press
TO find out and publish the more
modest, though none the less honor
able and intelligent. contentious OF
the men OF peace?
We know what the German Ameri-
cans want: That we slip up and tie
EngIand's right hand behind her, so
that Germany can beat her to death.
We know what the Taft Roosevelt
Americans want: That we load our
selves down with a great army and
navy.
Now let the American Americans
have a full and equal chance to say
what they want: That we keep out
of war by all really honorable means.
that We do not provoke. by unneces-
sary stringency OF demands. those ma
tions whose blood Is already seeth-
ing with the heat of war; and that
we do not enter upon policy of ar
nament that must always be at once
an incentive to war In the minds ~,
our own people and challenge TO
those abroad,
l congratulate The yirginian on its
broad and sane attitude toward all
these great questions where conscience
counts. and morals mean more than
money.
~. Yours truly. TNsrssssrss,