New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1916-09-13
PROFESSOR FISHERS TEN REASONS
Materially Weakened by the Admissions in
His Last Statement.

To the Editor Of The Tribune.
Sir: have read Professor Fishers reply IN
your issue of to-day TO my criticism on ms
paper advocating the election of Mr.. wilson
this autumn and giving ten reasons for that
advocacy His reply seems to me to be
liable to the charge that it is plea in con-
fession and avoidance. So far as 1t amph-
fes and particularizes the points on wnicE
he has differed with Mr.. Wilson's policy, 1t
obviously does not strengthen his contention
that he is justified in supporting his candi-
dacv. He cites differences on the Mexican
policy-says his grounds Of difference with
the President have mainly been such as
stated for myself but he does not perceive
wherein Mr.. Hughes, had he been IN Mr.. W IL
sons place, would have done any better
On this | venture a question. Suppose Mr.
Hughes, trained lawyer, had been Presi-
dent; had recognized the improperly or IN
terfering in the internal affairs OF Mexico;
had declined to interfere, and thus had
avoided arousing the hostility of the Next
cans; and suppose further that he had re-
tanned the embargo established by Mr.. Tart
on the importation of arms and ammunition
into the northern section, so that Carranza
and Villa might have been dcbarred from
supplying themselves with the means, so far
as Villa was concerned. Of making effective
and destructive raids across our border; sup
pose all this had been done. instead OF what
WAS done does not Professor Fisher perceive
that the whole of our relations with Mexico
might have been quite different? That the
need for rushing tens of thousands of troops
20 our southern border might have been
avoided. and that what he seems unable TO
comprehend the Importance of was vitality
important; and that a trained lawyer IN the
chair free from the influence Of such con-
fdant and auxiliary as Bryan, recognizing
at least some elementary principles OF inter
national law, would have been likely to avoid
the nextricable muddlo and miXup into which
We have been precipitated?
NV point here is that Professor Fisher, ed-
hitting the premises, runs away from the
inevitable conclusion. He admits the facts
and avoids the memorable inference. ! call
his attention to the significance of this issue.
In agreeing with me in my criticism Of that
part Of Mr.. Wilson's policy which for months
past has been most prominently before the
people, does he not neutralize several of his
supposed ten. Cl0) reasons?
But he is not satisfied with my interprc
tation of the facts concerning Mr. Taft's
Tariff Commission; dwels on the fact that
Notwithstanding that he got one, he could not
thwart the designs Of the extreme protec-
tionists in has party. But some matters
move progressively to ? desirable conclusion.
He got his commission, on whose reported
facts the purpose was to amend the tariff
act, schedule By schedule. and the fact is
indsputable that the Wilson Democracy
found no use for such a non PARTISAN meas
ure; that they starved the commission out
of existence. and refused to avail themselves
Of the facts it had gathered; that there exists
no record to show that the Republicans would
not have taken advantage. If continued in
power. Of the data reported. and made modi-
fcations accordingly Professor Fisher seems
oblivious Of the fact that parties change;
that a party that could authorize such
a commission might have shown itself
loyal to the spirit Of the thing it had author
led, as matter Of simple consistency, even
II actuated by no higher motive.
Professor Fisher dwells on the failure 81
Republicans while in power to respond to the
appeal contained in the Aldrich commissions
report He does not appreciate that time Is
needed for accomplishing great reforms. He
comedies the help of Republicans in passing