New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1916-08-02

declaring that any other course thar
that pursued by the President wouln
have led to war and Intervention
And the one thing above all the nation
wanted was peace.
New Election Issue.
II will be the first time that the
question Of foreign policy as 1t relates
to possible war in the unfolding OF ma,
tionsl rights has ever been submitted
to popular referendum, political OBJ
servers here point out II will be 3
test whether q democracy can control
foreign policies better than the secret
councils Of q President or q Foreign
Once.
Here Is the issue as the Democrats
view It: When tho present war broke
out in Europe 1t was . frequent cry
that il was a "diplomatists' war" that
the people had no voice in the making
Of it, and that had the great demoe-
racies Of France and England had
voice in the determination OF foreign
policies there would have been no "se
cret agreements" to support Russia
against Germany. unless the objects OF
the war were thoroughly understood
and discussed. II was contended thaI
the people would support no war nc
objects of which were merely trade
gains. the extension Of territory and
the invasion of the rights Of other peo-
pie. The November elections offer
test case. The issue is clear cut.
Mr.. Hughes in his speech laid down
the firm doctrine that American ives
and American property in Mexico must
be protected-with force, il necessary,
but they must be protected.
"Had this government, by the use
of both formal and informal opportu-
mites" declared Mr. Hughes, left no
doubt that when we said strict &C
countability' we meant precisely what
we said, and that we should unhesitat-
ingly vindicate that position, l am
confident that there would have been
no destruction OF American lives by
the sinking OF the Lusitania."
Issues Sharply Drawn.
There is nothing more unequivocal
than that, and all the implications II
contains. Yet nothing could be further
from the Democratic HE has kept US
out of war" attitude on the subject OF
Mexico, the Lusitania and the British
blockade.
In both cases the responsibility is
put directly up to the people, the Re-
publicans believing that a great democ-
racy is willing to look at them squarely
and accept them. The Democrats accept
them feeling sure-as they often have
in the past-that the people will shirk
them.
Hughes's acceptance speech was dis
cussed at the Cabinet meeting this
morning, and the Presidents advisers
seemed TO be of one accord that the
Republicans were hard put 10 it for
something on which to make fight
Postmaster General Burleson gave
the first Administration defence OF the
Hughes attack. "The speech is worse
than pussyfooting, he declared, ut is
complete laydown. The people are
tired OF generalities and expect candi-
dates to be specific in their promises:
Mr.. Hughes does not say what he would
have done in Mexico or what he will do
il elected. Generalities are not going
to get votes these days. The speech
suits Democrats all right"
Yet it was the Presidents own gen
eralities that Mr. Hughes was attack
ing. What does it avail to use some
of the strongest words in diplomacy,
he declared, III the words are not to be
taken seriously. II is not words, but
the strength and resolution behind the
words that counts"
Or. as NJ. Hughes might have said. IT
was the strength and resolution Of the
American people, and whether their
government was representative OF them,
that was to count this fall.