New-York tribune., 1916-07-14
SIR ROGER EASEMENTS LOYALTY
His Conduct Held To Be Right and Per-
fectly Consistent.
To the Editor Of The Tribune.

To the Editor Of The Tribune
SIR To the mind Of anybody familiar with
such documents the letter OF Roger Case
ment to Edward Grey quoted by you in your
editorial of to-day, is not susceptible OF any
such Interpretation as you. put upon it, II
is, in fact, a courteous, conventional and
somewhat ceremonial acknowledgment Of
mark of appreciation for his services to the
British government, and its expressions Of
humble duty can no more be taken literally
than the old subscription, "Your humble and
obedient servant" formerly so familiar in
private correspondence. Before the war
George of England, William of Germany and
Nicholas of Russia were continually ex-
changing expressions and tokens OF fratcr-
nal esteem and affection, and public men OF
European nations were constantly receiving
from the heads Of nations now their enc
mics decorations and titles which they
acknowledged with all the verbal bowling and
scraping that mark Roger Easements letter.
But to European these ceremonial genu-
Aectons mean no more than ones formal
bow to a woman for whom one may entertain
a profound contempt.
Yet. granting that Roger Easements letter
meant literally what it said-though surely
only an American journalist could interpret
with his present attitude. With perfect con-
sistency he could be loyal to the British gov
eminent. whose servant he was, and to Ire
land whose son he is, so long as he did not
feel that his duty to one conhicted with his
duty to the other But when he found that
he had to forswear one the other he stuck
TO his primary duty-to Ireland. Did not
Robert T. Lee one of the noblest characters
in your history, do precisely the same thing
You are again msconstruing his words when
YOU intimate that he spoke of his peers IN
ANYTHING but the legal sense. He was ac-
oused of a crime against his own country
against Ireland He maintained rightly
that his action could be interpreted as a
crime only in so far as it was crime
against ireland. Consequently the only trib-
unal competent TO determine the justice or
otherwise of the charge against him was
tribunal of his own countrymen. But the
british government dare not put his case to
the Judgment of the people of Ireland, no
more than il dare put the question Of irish
autonomy to the vote Of the people OF Ire
land. no more than it dare put the question
of the exclusion Of Ulster to vote OF the
people of Ulster. That is the crux OF the
Irish problem, so called.
The difficulty and complexity OF the irish
problem is a myth that has almost become
creed. But the Irish problem is not difhcult
nor complex; it is very simple British
statesmen have failed to solve 1t after more
than a hundred years of trial. could solve
il within ten years-and ] do not pretend 10
be a statesman. But | am an lr'Shman, ana
that is the essential qualification. You can
not solve even the simplest problem so long
as YOU ignore its fundamental postulate; and
that is what British statesmen have always
done and will always continue to do-hrs'
because they are British, and, secondly De-
cause they are not statesmen.
W. DERMOT DARBY
New York, July IL, 1916.