The Lamar register., 1917-10-17

dSSl5leu III lne election OF 1TGSluCnl
Wilson. Curiously enough, this is not
criticised by those republican leaders
who seek a reputation for breadth by
urging the republican party to dis
solve itself in the face of the fact that
in every election unit in the United
Safes in 1918 the party in power will
have its candidates for local, state
and national offices, and all of these
will have the support of the President,
who is at the same time party leader
and chief executive, regardless of his
attitude on war measures. Supporting
Mr.. wilson as ckicf executive does not
as is suggested, necessitate support of
him as party leader.
A few weeks ago there was a spec
ial election in the sixth Indiana Con-
gressional district. The democratic
nominee was a pacifist, an anti-prc-
paredness advocate, a semi-socialist,
who went about whispering opposition
to the war. AS a member of congress,
defeated in 1916, he had voted against
every measure for the increase of the
army and navy and had denounced all
war preparations as Vaccinations Of
the munition makers and the pluto
Gratis in general. Pitted against him
was a vigorous, red-blooded, patriotic
American, standing upon a platform
calling for support of the govern
ment's war measures from start to
finish. Did President Wilson favor
the candidate who supported the war?
On the contrary, he wrote letter urg-
ing the election of the pacifist dema-
gogue.
Not long ago the issue was squarely
raised in North Dakota between sup
port of the war and opposition to the
war on a congressional election in a
nominally republican district. The
republicans named a candidate who
announced his support of the govern
ment in war time. The non-partisan
socialists, who supported Wilson in
1916 on the kept us out of war" slo-
gan, nominated an ex-Wilson post
master, who made the basis Of his
campaign an attack upon the war, up
on conscription and upon the war pol
icies of the administration in general.
The national administration was in
position to assist in bringing about
the election of a pro-war congress
man by inducing the democrats not
to make a nomination in a district in
which it was evident that they would
to a bad third. A word from the
While House would have sufficed. Was
that done? Not at all. There was
not a syllable of support for a re-
publican congressional nominee
breasting the storm of anti-war OPP
position largely created by the Will
son campaign in the state in 1916. The
anti-war, anti-administration candi-
date was elected over divided oppo-
sition. Since the election he has been
publicly congratulated by Samuel
Gompers, the most potent figure, next
to President Wilson in the democratic
party and the administration today.
IL Is uIlIlttto5diA " ifAbhhb NFi~
dences of partisan use of the war by
the party in power. To oppose this is
not unpatriotic; to commend it is de-
cidedly unpatriotic in the opinion Of
many thoughtful observers. When
Colonel Bryan gleefully suggests in
the current issue of The Commoner
that the use of the word democracy
in connection with the war is going to
help the democratic party, it is un-
necessary for republicans to take the
oath of allegiance to such partisan
perversion of war purposes. When the
highest and best interests of the gov
ernment and the people are sacrificed
in behalf Of socialists propaganda and
democratic party promotion, it is not
the duty of republicans to endorse, but
to expose and criticise such proceed
ings. When there is unnecessary ex-
travagance and waste, when wrong
policies are adopted, when serious
mistakes are made, no mere cry of
"Hurrah for Wilson" will suffice to
stifle the objections Of men who have
at heart the welfare of the nation in
a crisis like this. To say that such
justified criticism and objection is
inconsistent with the most loyal and