New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1916-11-02
To the Editor Of The Tribune.

Sir: The Democratic bid for the
wnge-earner's vote is a direct appeal TO
his self-interest- IL is becoming more
and moro a controlling issue OF the
campaign. The wage-earner is always
strongly Influenced By favorable exist
ing conditions, because he is the hrst
10 feel any disturbance OF them. he
Is not unpatriotic, but it Is natural
that the compelling issues should be
those which touch his life most closely.
When he has made his mind up as to
these he is more ready to consider
questions which concern the general
welfare.
The Democratic party asks TO be con-
tinued in power because 1t has kept
the country out Of war, because 1t has
proved itself to be the friend OF labor
and because it has brought about
period Of great prosperity. This is not
its whole case. But its special appeal
TO the wage Garner is: Peace, prosper
ity and friendship for labor.
The claim for credit for keeping US
out of war is not to be confused with
the question whether the President is
70 be held accountable for needless loss
OF American life and a surrender Of ma
tional honor. On that issue ii rests
with those who criticise the President
to prove their case, to show that when
the Falaba was torpedoed, In March,
1915, with loss of American life, threat
to sever diplomatic relations unless the
act was promptly disavowed and repa-
ration made would have prevented the
Lusitania and subsequent disasters, or
that the probabilities at the time were
that such would be the effect of an ul-
timatum.
The question we are considering is
not whether the President adopted the
best plan, but rather whether Mr..
Hughes, il he had been President,
would have been likely TO adopt a
different plan, and in such case wheth-
er his plan would have brought war.
The President can hardly claim special
credit for keeping rs out Of war, if we
would have been kept out anyway. He
may have thought war imminent, but
if. in fact, it was not, then while the
President is within his rights in seek
ing to Justify his course of action as
warranted by the probabilities at the
time, it is different matter to assert
that war would have come otherwise
T The burden rests on the Administra-
tion to prove Its case. How can it
prove that the Presidents plan was
the only way to avert war?
I NJ, 10 ~, al rtof 10
be the friend of labor. 1t is difficult
to account for the Presidents attitude
with respect TO the threatened strike
except on the ground of expediency. To
do otherwise would be to challenge his
intelligence.
The question, vital to democracy, was
whether arbitration as principle shall
be sacrificed in settling disputes at the
dictation of one side to the controversy.
The question for the laboring man to
decide is not merely whether in the
} long run the abandonment of the prin-
/ ciple of arbitration is really an act Of
/ friendship toward him, but whether q
/ President who now submits to dicta-
/ ton on the plea of necessity can be
/ trusted to stand courageously for prin-
/ ciple in the interest of labor, if at some
future time expediency tempts him the
other way.
4 If we have been kept out of war not
because of what the Administration has
done, but in spite of its mistakes, it
/ is much the same with regard to pres
ent prosperity. Mr.. Taft has given US
as good statement Of the case as can
be found, and exposes the arrogance of
! the Administration in claiming the
credit for present prosperity which has
been caused, as he says, "by the pro-
lection that the war has afforded to
our industries by neutralizing the in
furious effect which the Underwood