New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1916-10-31
WILSON THE FALTERER
The One Crucial Issue the Presidents Policy of Vaciaon and
Yielding in Face of Plain Duty-From the Lustania
to the Railroad Crisis

, threatened railroad strike presented
precisely such fundamental questions.
Each in its sphere raises the question
of national sovereignty. The Lusitania
sinking raises the question as to
whether a great nation will or will not
guarantee the lives and property of its
citizens. Mr.. Hughes cannot reasona-
bly, be asked to say now what he would
or would not have done at every step
of this painful and humiliating bust
ness from May Z, 1915, to the present
day, because had a proper position
been originally taken and meant the
whole course of events would have been
different. But it is clear that his posi-
ton is virtually this: "On the sinking
of the Lusitania | would have taken
my stand as the patriots took theirs IN
1776; as Jackson took his when South
Carolina threatened notification; as
Lincoln took his in 1861; as Cleveland
took his on the silver bill and the Chi
cago riots. would have said strict
accountability as the Administration
said il, and | would have meant 1t, as
the Administration did not. Foreign
governments would have been made to
know | meant it then and there; per-
baps there would have been no Ancona
or Sussex; but, whether or not, would
have done the right thing, for the issue
was simple and fundamental, and |
would have met the consequences as
they appeared, if appear they did
In the field of domestic politics the
recent threat of railroad tie-up pre-
sents precisely the same situation. A
question of fundamental policy was in
volved. There was no real urgency,
for the law extorted does not even pur-
port to become operative for five
months. Is the Presidency an office
of dignity and strength? Is Congress
a deliberative body? Do we possess
the organs needed for the study and
settlement of problems by orderly
methods? Or must action be extorted
by lynch law in the very halls of gov
eminent? The President surrendered
without a struggle the dignity of the
Office in his keeping; Congress like a
craven coward abdicated under stop
watch. Why? In fear, once more, of
SUUDOstu paul VI W nov
sort of nation is this, what sort OF
government is this, that for fear of the
displeasure of foreign governments
docs not protect the lives Of its citizens
and for fear of interrupting the com
muter's service hands over the law
making power to an organized group of
citizens not acting in the interest of
the whole? Mr.. Hughes's position on
this subject again is clear: he would
have held firm for arbitration, no mat
ter who threatened or what, railroad
leaders or railroad workmen, and would
have met the consequences as they
came. 1t is possible TO yield and COM
promise on matters of daily living, but
he should have scorned to trade away
the integrity of the national govern
ment for fear of industrial disturb
ances or in order to obtain votes.
The fact is that, when by surrender
of fundamental principle, the Admins
tration thinks it keeps us out of war or
out of trouble, it asserts at once too
much and too little: too much, because
it cannot prove that we might not now
be safer from war and safer from
trouble if it had had the courage to do
right; too little because henceforth,
alike in foreign and domestic affairs,
our position is weaker and more dam
gerous. People have been made to
think we do not mean what we say, and
in order in future to be believed we
shall have TO take risks and suffer
losses before we can again control and
consciously direct our national course
risks and losses which would have
been made unnecessary by a course of
action suitable to the great issues pre-
sented. CHARLES p. ROWLAND.
New York, Oct. 80, 1916.