The Richmond palladium and sun-telegram. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1907-1939, 1916-10-30

Seeing In Mr. Foulke's article "Why
] Shall Vote for Hughes" room for an
honest difference OF opinion, think it
| have for Mr.. Foulke the profoundest
respect and admiration, and, 1t is in
that attitude that write this. How
ever, 1t seems to me that the citizen
ship Of the county rather anticipates
Mr.. Foulke's quadrennial stampede
into the Republican camp.
He states that he was favorable to
Wilson after his election. Before Mr..
Foulke's trip to Europe he sees the
horrors of war and in very fine words
pictures the devastation in Europe.
Mr.. Foulke finds that Mr.. Wilson at
that time was not in favor of extern
sive preparedness. Why should he
have been? The Republican party had
only been out of power about year
and half. What had they done?
Wilson is man of peace, and has
given the nation program of pre-
paredness for peace, not for aggres-
sion. The Republican platform prom
Uses no more.
Mr.. Foulke objects to Wilson on the
grounds that he (Wilson) changed his
mind. In these tumultuous times men
are changing their minds, and if
man finds he is in the wrong and then
changes his mind, he is admirable.
Mr.. Foulke admits that the people
clamored for preparedness. Wilson is
their representative and Is therefore
bound to do their bidding. The fact
OF the matter is, Wilson refused to
become nervous" or excited but
took time to study the question and
finding the people in favor Of reason
able preparedness. gave it to them.
Thus. by facing right about" he con-
tracted Mr.. Foulke's FIRST serious dis
satisfaction" Mr. Foulke changed
his mind when he left the Republican
party and changed it again when he
went back in. Mr. Foulke is noW train
ing with James Watson, James Good
rich, Joe Cannon. Boice Penrose and
their kind in contrast to his position
of 1912; then think Of his criticism of
Wilson for changing his mind!
Mr.. Foulke seems to think that we
could have prevented he sinking of
the Lusitania. England with twice
our navy and as large an army at
tempted to stop Germany from going
through Belgium, but they went
through.
Mr. Foulke states that foreign COM
plications and war could have been
prevented, yet our rights upheld by
Selling all German liners informed in
port until Germany paid indemnities.
Your position on this, Mr.. Foulke,
must not conform to that of Mr.
Hughes, for otherwise, what claim
would he have to the German vote?
Also we could have stopped English
interference with our commerce by
putting an embargo upon all exports
TO England until England stopped in
terfering The question then arises,
would England and Germany stand
for this? We would have to deliver
an ultimatum to each nation. An ul-
timatum means war because a nation
will not humiliate itself by submit
ting to an ultimatum nor will a ma
ton sending 1t humiliate itself by not
backing it up.
The next question Is the "pusillani-
nous" failure Of the United States
In protecting Americans in Mexico.
The most important property in Next
co is ten million acres owned by Will
liam Randolph earst, the copper mines
OF the Guggenheimers. and there are
many other large interests too num-
erous to mention. Maybe Mr.. Foulke
has interests In Mexico. The ques-
ton. is, should the United States pro-
tect property rights in Mexico to the
extent OF an invasion? Would this be
expedient? We could conquer Mexico
but In doing it we would fertilize Will
liam Randolph Hearst the copper mines
acres with the blood of American
youth. This would be repetition of