New-York tribune., 1918-09-09


Sir: Your editorial "Snobs and the War"
relating to the letter of "rhe New Repub-
lie" addressed to "Bitter- -Ender" reminds
me that received one of those circular let
ters, and in reply wrote "Thc New Republic"
a letter. of which, as they have not pub
llshcd it, incosc you a copy.
CHARLES STEWART DAWSON.
New York, Sept. 5, 1918
(Copy)
August II, 1918.
Gentlemen: Your circular letter addressed
to "Bittcr-Ender" received and read with
interest. Will you suffer a word of sue-
gcstion, which is certainly at the very least
we'll intended? You do not tell him even
in general terms how the doctrine o, the
divine right of might is in your opinion
to be laid at rest. You pitch into him for
seeing only the primary method-physcal
defeat of its adherents-and tell him that
more IS needed but you do not tell him
(and therefore he suspects you) just how
that more is to be effected without injury
ad interim to that which you agree with
him is the necessary primary stcp-the ap-
plication of military opposition For that
reason he, whoever he is. breads and fears
propaganda and turns his mind to Russia
and the effect there of what he deems Won
stand for. You are not just to him nor TO
the many, many millions whom he repre-
sents, and who are composed of more or
less intelligent men of action and who are
those upon whom we all rely to win this
war You are not helpful to him, and are
therefore only helpful to two classes. those
who see with you eye to eye (the idealists)
and those who desire disruption in America
(the Gcrmans). The first class do not need
help; the second am sure you do not wish
to help Perhaps he sees what Won see
equally clearly with yourselves, but deems
that you ovcrstress tin view Of the exi-
gcncics Of the situation--to the detriment
Of the land
Ihe closing line Of your reply refers to
creative public understanding-but no man
living can tell from the context of what or
about what, or to what end, or in what
manner. If you will re-read your circular
letter you will perceive that it is vague and
intensively unrestful-thcrefore dangerous
Nor does it make for any defined or settled
purpose. nor does 1t advance anything upon
which the average mind may comprehend-
ingly act.
The fault is not all with "Bitter- -Ender.r
1t IS partly with yourselves, and YOU must
not wonder if you are misjudged-f vonr
parable is deemed destructive and not con-
structlve. Frankly there has been this great
dliTlcuty with all those who write and talk
along the lines of "The New Republic" that
they are not constructive They are ideal
lists, and when their ideals produce ruin
they say, This was not what we sought"
and wiring their hands. Yet can they never
see that they left out in their scheme for
humanity the fact that the human being has
frail human characteristics The pity Of it
is that. meaning WELL your views ruin
lands and bring starvation. murder md
imperialism. Moreover, you gentlemen are
not those who have won this land and made
1t and kept 1t and hold it as q trust and a
heritage for others-that is, you are
internatlonalists and not natonalists. and
therefore "Bitter-Ender" does not under
stand you and, as | have said. breads and
fears you and hopes to see you pass before
the firing squad-though he does NOT snv
So fancy that Judge you much more
chartably, but yet cannot say that those
who feel as you do for you trust feeling
rather than reason) have ever ACCOMPLISHED
constructive work, but always destructive
work, so tar as society is concerned
hope that in justice to "Btter-Enderu Won
will publish this apology for his views "a
expressed in his letter. Yours respectfnl,v
CHARLES STEWART DAWSON.