New-York tribune., 1918-09-18
A Times" Peace

Regretfully The Times accepts the fact
of the Presidents verdict on the enemy's
proposal for secret peace parley. It's
detection is not concealed. "The proposal
is rejected,' it says; 'it remains for the
Allies to carry on the war with the ut
most vigor."
It's own position is unchanged. IT says:
Nevertheless, we had hoped from the
Allied governments a reply that would
have been by no millonth part of hair
less conclusive of our unshakable resolve
to enforce a peace on our own terms,
peace that would secure the just object
for which we are fighting, vet an answer
that would have had the important ad-
vantage of disclosing to us the motive
that prompted the invitaton'
For a clew to the motive we refer The
Times to news that has been more or
less current in the last sixty days. The
Times has boasted Of printing more of it
than any other newspaper, and of how
expensive it was. 1t is the news of the
Allied armies progress toward the
Rhine, and the news from Amsterdam
and other points on the enenys frontier
of what is happening to German morale
It Is the news Of American shells falling
on the great Metz fortress.
Of German fortresses The Times
speaks, but in another way. In its first
amazing editorial it referred to the Aus
trian proposal as q "veritable peace Of
fer" in a form (which the Allies may
honorably accept in the confident belief
that it will lead to the end of the war"
Now, the proposal having been peremp-
torily rejected, it admits that we might
have asked for guarantees of good faith;
that is TO say, 1--WE might have demanded
the right to hold in pledge German fort
resses on the Rhine" as an earnest of the
enemys intention to make the peace con-
ferences fruitful: instantly, however, it
disowns its own thought, saying, "but
that would have been beyond the pale Of
reason, for we have no intention Of seiz-
ing and holding German cities or forts"
Haven't we? Does Tire Times still
think 1t Is an authority on what we In
tend or do not intend to do? Are Ger
man cities and forts sacred, more than
those of Belgium or France? We will, if
necessary, seize German fortresses and
cities all the way from Metz to- Berlin,
and hold them until the enemy uncondi-
tionally surrenders.
At last we know what The Times be-
neves. 1t believes in a peace of "ac-
quiescence,' the latest euphemism Of
paci6sts all over the world for a peace
without victory. 1t says: "The primary
question was whether this proposal was
made in sincerity or in hypocrisy. That
is q question of fact to be best deter
mined by scrutiny Of the terms the
Central Powers would consent to accept"
Would consent to accept
We trust that The Times will learn
from its own readers that the terms of
peace the Central Powers would consent
to accept are no longer of any interest
to US. No peace that the enemy would
consent to accept could satisfy u.s. 1t is
now for Germany to choose between &C
cepting for herself the abject condition
which she would have imposed upon all
conquered people or putting down her
arms and leaving the terms to the con-
science and mercy of the world.
How can The Times reconcile the idea
of a peace the Central Powers would
consent to accept" with the phrase quoted
before--"no millionth part of a hair less
conclusive of our unshakable resolve to
enforce a peace on our own terms"-both
in the same editorial? Obviously. one
saying is meant for those to whom vic
tory is the name of priceless thing, more
precious than ten million lives. and the