The Irish standard., 1916-07-15
DID WASHINGTON MEAN
WHAT HE SAID?

ward, evolved from his inner con-
seriousness a brand new religion,
which was to supersede Chris
tianity, says an exchange. Not
satisfied with inviting substitute
for Christianity, he set to work
to devise for the United States
new foreign relations based on a
hard and fast alliance with Eng
land. In public speech he de-
clared that, in case the for
tunes of war went against the
Allies in the present international
armed struggle, it would be the
duty of this country to go to the
assistance of England and her
allies. 1t is true that doing so
would be abandoning the policy
this country has adhered to ever
since Washington in his Farewell
Address, warned his countrymen
against foreign entangling ALI
;inces. But Eliot, who shows so
little reverence for the work of
the Divine Founder Of Christiani-
ty, does not permit the authority
of the Father of his Country to
interfere with his plan for aiding
England, by having the United
States take sides with her in the
greatest of wars.
The President Emeritus OF Har-
ward is not alone in entertaining
the opinion that the time has
come for turning deaf ear to
Washingtons warning words
against America intermeddling i'll
European affairs. The inventor
OF new religion belongs to a CO.
terie of Americans who are work
ing zealously to bring about an
Anglo-American Union. One of
their number, Professor Usher,
writes for the July number of the
North American Review an arti-
Gle for the purpose of showing
that Washington was not opposed
to an alliance such as Charles w.
Eliot advocates.
1T should be clear writes Pro-
lessor Usher. that WASHINGTON
himself explicitly implied i'll the
Farewell Address that the growth
of the country would probably in
validate his counsel regarding en-
tangling alliances within twenty
years. Would he not be the last
to hold that the American people
are today to feel themselves
bound to follow under present
conditions a counsel regarding al
lianccs explicitly based upon the
fundamental problems of small,
weak, disorSanized. debt-ridden
country in which firm constitu-
t'onal government. the public
credit and nationality had yet to
be established beyond the posi-
bility of changer"
The best REPUTATION of this at
tempt to prove that Washington
did not mean what he said. is fur
nished by the following extract
from the Farewell Address:
The great rule of conduct COR
us. in regard to foreign nations,
is. III extending our commercial
relations. to have with them as
little political connection as pos
s'ble Europe has set
OF primary interests which to us
have none or a very remote rela-
ton"
This language is very explicit.
1t declares that Europe has a set
OF primary interests. which to us
have none or very remote rela-
ton The inference is that we
should observe strictly the rule
of conduct laid down by Wash
ington. which would have us
eschew political relations with
European nations. For more than
a hundred years this has been the
unbroken tradition of the United
States. England's friends are
now trying to induce the country
to abandon it. Hence the attempt
to make it appear that Washing
tons Farewell Address did not
mean what it positively asserts.
HETTV cDrrAr