New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1916-05-03

Won talk of ipnominious defeats and loss OF
prestige and little politicians! Great God.
where would England be to-day without her
list of Kut-el-Amaras and Gallipolis?
>. You say that the French have been
disappointed since the beginning of the war
at what the British army has accomplished
and also because the failure of the British
has cost them terrible losses" A similar
statement has been officially denied over
and over again, and I ask, therefore, where
is your authority?
3 You say that on land wherever Eng
lands armies shave gone TO battle. they have
gone to defeat. ignominious defeat TINS
is an appalling exaggeraton. You then pro
coed to give details Of the Marine, fpres and
Loos. which are gross distortions Of the ON
cial records, without offering any proof what
ever of your variations
A. You say:
"Talk with Australians or Canadians IN
England or on the Continent and you will
get A real and saddening view OF British
conditions These men see, they have SUI
fered, they are ready TO suffer more, but
there is despair in their hearts because
they feel that the British will not see, will
not understand"
Now. I can only describe this absolutely
false and defy you to bring forward par
ticle of evidence in your favor. | lived for
some wears in Australia and know Aus
tralans we'll. Moreover, have received many
letters from them. both from the front and
from England, and have never seen IN any
letter or in any paper the very slightest sug-
gestion of "ssddening view" or despair or
anything of the sort. Moreover, to those
who know Australians, it is ridiculous to
suggest such condition. The average Aus
traian loses a fortune or hangs over a
precipice without turning hair, and so far
as "saddening views" are concerned the feel
ing of Australians is all the other way, and
they would vote to a man for having another
20 at Gallipol, even if the chances were a
thousand to one against success. And my eN-
perience with Canadians is fairly extensive,
and find them to vary little from Aus
tralians in respect to "saddening views
5. You say:
"a whole system has broken down in Eng
land, system of empire, of life, of govern
ment."
Inasmuch as this is news to everybody, 1t
IS clearly your duty to come forward with
your proof or authority.
6. You say:
"The whole atmosphere of London to-day
is an atmosphere of unreality, OF apprehen-
sion and of nation wandering in darkness,
conscious that its leaders are shams, that II
has neither statesmen nor generals"
receive letters from London every week
and see many other Englishmen who receive
letters and I say that nothing more false
than this statement was ever written.
7. You say that Dublin "is in ashes.
while not one-hundredth part of it has been
burned, and you talk of the rebellion demon
strating the fatal folly" of the government
when you know perfectly we'll that the re-
volt YVES engineered in Germany and that
not one-fourth of / per cent of the people
are concerned in It,
g. You describe members of the British
government as little men," "men who fight
among themselves for Office who cling to
salaries" and so on. Now, the leading mem
bers of the government are Asquith, Grey
Balfour Law, Lloyd George, McKenna
Chamberlain, Lord Crewe and Lord Lans-
downe. Which of these "clng to salaries
and to prominence? Which of them are
empty politicians? Which of them IAN
swer each other with words empty as the
ashes of Belgium? And what do you mean
when you say in speaking of the govern
ment:
at lied to the British people over all the
years before the war came. 1t almost lied
the British people out of the war altogether
and left France TO perish alone. 1t has been
lying ever since"
As you are so fond Of using the extreme
word, perhaps you will allow me to say that
your statement IS an unmitigated lie from
beginning to end. Your appalling assertion.
constitute gross libel upon a number OF