The Tomahawk., 1917-10-11

opponents, and however vital triumph
may be to us and to mankind. These
persons are entitled to precisely the
respect we give any other persons
whose conscience makes them do what
is bad. We have had in this country
some conscientious polygamists. We
now have some conscientious DIRECTORS
to taking part in this war.
III these men are sincere they Will
refuse to interfere (for moral suasion
is not interference) with white-slav-
er who runs off with one Of their
daughters or a black-hander who kid
maps and tortures a little child or
ruffian who slaps the wife or mother
Of one of them In the face. They are
utterly insincere unless they decline
to take advantage of police protection
from burglary or highway robbery. Ot
course if such man is really consc1en-
tious he cannot profit or allow his
family to profit in any way by the
safety secured to him ond them by 9TH
ers, by soldiers, in time of war, by
judges and policemen in time OF
peace; for the receiver is as bad as
the thief. I hold that such an atti,
tude is Infamous; and it is just as
Infamous to refuse to serve the coun-
try in arms during this war. If mans
conscience bids him to act, then his
conscience is fit subject for the stu
dent of morbid pathology.
Respect the conscientious obJec-
tors opinions, but let him abide by
the full consequence Of his opinions.
Universal suffrage can be justified on
ly If it rests on universal service. We
stand against all privilege not based
on the full performance of duty; and
th gro IL No mora contemplate form Of
privilege than the privilege OF existing
in SNUG, self-righteous, peaceful safety
because other, Drawer, more self-sacri-
ficing men give up safety and &c to
war to preserve the nation. Ii a man
is too conscientious to fight, then the
rest of US ought to be too conscien-
tious to let him vote in a democratic
land which can permanently exist only
II the average man is willing in the
last resort to fight for it, and die
for 1t.
For Universal Service.
II wish to see the principle of uni
versal obligatory military service es-
tablished in this country precisely be-
cause it is the only democratic prin-
ciple. We are In the war and we must
do the best we can with the instru-
ments that are at hand. Whether or
not I have disapproved Of the methods
adopted, when once they were adopted
I have Loyalty tried to help them work.
But emphatically protest against the
failure to make permanent provision
by preparedness in advance against
the occurrence of disaster to this
country, and the failure properly to
democratize our army.
What we need is the permanent
establishment in this country OF the
system of universal obligatory mill
tary training for all our young men,
and for making officers out of the best
fitted among these young men, without
the slightest regard to whether they
or their fathers have money or do not
have money.
Under this as a permanent system,
every young man so trained-some-
time between the ages say of 1S or 10
and 81 or 22-will spend one year with
the colors in the field. He would not
be allowed to vote until he had per-
formed this service, no matter where
he was born. The son of the railway
president and the son Of the brake
man, the son of the banker and the
son of the bricklayer, the son of the
lawyer and the son of the farmer will
all live on the same food, sleep in the
same tents, do the same work, go on
the same hikes. This would not only
help from the military standpoint. 1t
would also help to bring about in civil
affairs a realization of what is meant
by democracy and a chance for real
understanding of one another by all
our citizens. 1t would mean the drill
ing into every man of a sense of true
devotion to the flag"