New Britain herald., 1916-09-01

knew that it meant precisely nothing l They knew that MT. Wilson would either not back up his words by deeds 1 at all or else that he would back ! them up so feebly that by sufficient l show of resistance he could be forced | to abandon his purpose.
 Some of the defenders of MT. Will son, in answer to MT. Hughes merci- i less indictment of MT. Wilson's course
 have sought to justify MT. Wilson by attempting to turn the whole issue on the character of Huerta, who was | the de factO president when MT. Will son became president of the United States. They ask MT. Hughes, Would you have recognized Huerta?' The l answer is that any one of several courses could have been adopted, pro- vided only that the course adopted had been followed with resolution and with full acceptance of the responsi- bility involved. 1 There was much to be said in fa- | vor of the policy of recognizing Hu- erta and avoiding intervention. There 1 was also much to be said in favor of the policy of refusing to recognize 1 Huerta, which was intervention, and | then of fully accepting the respOnsi- bility implied in intervention. But there is nothing to be said in favor of wobbling between the two policies, and neither recognizing Huerta nor accepting the responsibility for the chaos caused by failure to recognize him. Yet this was the course Mr. Wilson followed
 There was no excuse for the rec ognition of Carranza in view of MT. Wilson's apOlogists say that Huerta All the objections to Huerta applied with greater force to Carranza. MT. Wilson's apologists say thata Huerta was the murderer of Mexicans But MT. Wilson himself, as quoted above, has shown that Carranza was the mur- derer of Americans. Therefore MT. Wilson treats the murder of MeXicans as a bar to recognition; but not the murder of both Americans and Mex jeans. And now, having condOned the repeated murders of Americans by the Carranzistas, and having abased him. self before CarranZa, and having aided in placing Carranza in power, what is MT. Wilson's reward, and who pays it? The reward is that MT. Wilson has to place 15O,OO0 troops on the border to partially prevent the raids and murders that his friend Mr. Car ranza will not or can not prevent Mr. Wilson's course has been precise- ly like that of a police commissioner who declined to permit his police- men to use their nightsticks against burglars, and instead insisted that the householders should sit up all night so as to scare the burglars away.
 Tt should be a cardinal rule of con- duct in international as in individual affairs never to hit if hitting can pos sibly be avoided; but never under any circumstances to hit soft MT. Wilson has been engaged in continual hit ting. But he has always hit soft. And whenever his opponent has hit back he has promptly dropped his arms, stopped hitting and taken refuge in platitudes about peace, non-inter- vention and humanity. Where, how ever, his opponent was sufficiently weak, as in the case of Haiti, he has dropped these platitudes, and has (With 'blOOd-s spi1ling) intervened. Haiti did not behave as badly to us as Mexico behaved; but MT. Wilson in tervened, fought the Haitiens, she'd ding their blood and the blood of our troops, took possession and now has
 
 and directing it's government. His course of action in Haiti can be de- tended only if his course of action ill Mexico is unqualifedly condemned; for such action was far more needed in Mexico than in Haiti. But there was a difference in the two cases; and to MT. Wilson it was a, vital diff ference. Haiti was weaker than Mex ioo No of fra nf Holt
 We are told that the mass of the voters, the mass of the American people, will approve the policy of the administration, the policy of drift, the policy of spneless failure to do our duty to ourselves and to others be- cause they believe in safety first Such being the case, it is worth while examining just what safety or safety first means, and how far policy based only on considerations cf safety is materially advantageous and morally justifiable.
 ITO treat safety as an indispen- sable element of any continuous na- tional policy is eminently proper. It is indispensable to wisdom that we shall shape our military policy so as to make ourselves-Our home country, our Canal Zone, all our islands -abso- lutely safe against successful attack by any great European or Asatic mili- trry power To this extent safety ! coincides with duty But this ulti- mate safety in the future is to be ob- l tained not by shirking but by per forming our duty in the present. When President Wilson two years ago assured the American nation that 1 there was no need for preparedness. | TO need for worry about our military | shortcomings, no need for self-sac- 1 rifce and effort in order to make good | these shortcomings, he was sacrificing | our future safety to considerations of l momentary political popularity ob ] tained by pandering to popular de- l sire for the enjoyment of material