The Detroit times. [volume] (Detroit, Mich.) 1903-1920, 1917-09-27
DETROIT, Mich, Sept. p, 1917;

the oath inst.
The one who wrote the editorials you
have in mind still writes the editorials
on The Times.
We gather from the tone Of your let
ter that the fact seems ineonceivable to
you because those editorials before April
s. opposed war-as bitterly as the writer
knew how to oppose it.
The editorials opposed declaration OF
war by the United States against Ger
many--not because it was against Ger
many but because it was DECLARE
TON OF WAR.
The editorials opposed declaration OF
war up to the last name on the roll call
Of congress-they even supported the
"willful twelve" in their efforts to avert
the unsheathing by the United States Of
the sword.
Then the wording Of the editorials
changed, but the PURPOSE Of them did
NOT change, so we are not entitled TO
the premium for versatility which you
mention
They were written to the end of peace
for the United States, for EVERY ma
ton and for the PEOPLE Of every
nation.
They were written with the idea Of
saving the sons of mothers from the
cannon's mouth, from the danger Of the
foul and sinking trenches, from bullet
riddled bodies, from blindness and hope
less futures, from corrupted morals and
diseased bodies.
They were written with the idea of
saving the tears of mothers, of wives, of
daughters, of sisters, of sweethearts;
with the idea of preserving homes and
the happiness of fresides.
But they were written, Brother Sedan.
when the United States was at peace.
They were whitehall of them-be-
fore the writer, before you, Brother
Sedan, before everybody in the United
States awoke one morning and learned
that congress, given that power and
the authority by the people-by the writ
err and by you, too. Brother Soldan-had
found an enemy at our door and had de-
clared war.
That act of congress did not have the
effect of changing our opinion Of war.
AS A GENERAL PROPOSITION,
Brother Sedan We abhor it and hate it
today as much as we ever did, but that
act of congress DID bind us closer TO
the United States in an interest prompted
by love of country, Brother Sedan, and
pointed duty for us and put upon US,
along with every editorial writer in the
nation, a stern and solemn obligation.
1t put that same and solemn duty upon
you, too, Brother Sedan.
You hate and abhor war.
And you have right to hate and abhor
war-even with your country at war.
1t is one of the fundamentals Of the
liberty your citizenship bestows upon you
that you cannot be called upon to desert
or to sacrifice principle That is a part
of your country's democracy.
The real question that confronts you.
now, Brother Sedan, is not what you
think about WAR, but HOW MUCH you
think of your COUNTRY.
1t is AT war. II is IN war. Do you
want it to win or do you want it to lose &?
1t isn't question of what The Times
thinks about WAR.
And the editorial writer no longer
writes from that standpoint.
1t is question NOW with the editorial
writer of whether the United States is TO
win or lose, and his pen is no more versa
tile than that it STILL is put to the pur
pose of peace, to the security Of the sons
Of mothers, to the drying of the tears of
women, to joyful reunions and firesides
again happy, to the preservation and the
scattering of democracy to the peoples
Of all the world, and peace established for
evermore.
The editorial writer, the same as before
April 6, nov writes as earnestly for peace
but for apeace i'm which the United States
shall be permitted to share; not for a
peace that would find US helplessly
shackled and enslaved by bloodthirsty
and bloodletting autocrats with the crime