Evening public ledger. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1914-1942, 1918-10-26

| is grudgine when It Is followed BY the
rebuke that they have been "anti-
Administration" Have they?
Last August the National Security
League prepared chart showing how
the members of the Senate and House
had voted on the eight principal war bills
or motions leading UP to the declaration
of war, all of them implicitly involved in
the "acid test" which the President him
self laid down in his letter opposing the
reelection of Representative Slayden,
of Texas. 1t established beyond shadow
| of doubt that the Democrats voting
wrong-or disloyal-outnumbere the
Republicans several to one. Indeed that
has been something like the proportion
prevailing throughout the legislation
since. The most persistent opponents Of
the war and of the Administration
policies were among the members Of the
Presidents own party. Did not the Ad-
mnistration have to intrust the passage
of the various selective draft bills-the
most dangerous legislation from the poll
ticians' point Of view---to Representative
Kahn, a Republican, rather than to the
chairman Of the House Military Affairs
Committee, Dent? Yet the stigma of
"anti- Administration" is the Republican
reward. How about the chairman of the
most important committee in the Sen
ate7-Foreign Relations-the late Sena-
tor Stone, of Missouri, who even voted
against the declaration Of war? Many
important war measures could not have
been passed but for the Republicans.
Yet the President wants 20 make believe
that the Democrats are his only hone Of
salvation. Is it fair? lie wants to con-
vince the voters--even those "credulous"
ones, as he sneeringly calls them-that
only Democratic victory will hearten
our allies and distress Germany, when
the truth is that Germany has had more
friends on the Democratic side of the
House and Senate than the Republican.
Is it sincere?
The President speaks of divided
leadership. Here his fears are better
grounded. This must mean that he does
not wish to share leadership, such as
peacemaking, with the Senate, which by
the Constitution holds the treaty making
power. He wants Senate which will
be entirely amenable to his desires.
Worse things might happen to the coun-
try. The public has generously approved
the Presidents course in foreign rela-
tions. But if he is so sure that he is
right and that the public believes he is
right, what should there be to fear in
submitting his program for real examina-
tion to the body constituted by law to
pass upon it? Would any Senate, Re-
publican or Democratic, have the
temerity to oppose just peace, even
though it might indulge its prerogative
of talking about it while, holding it up
to the light and examining it from all
sides? What harm would come from
that? Wouldn't it rather be beneficial?
The peace treaty will be the most impor-
tant in history. 1t will bind this nation
long time after Woodrow Wilson has
ceased to be President. Has he so much
confidence in his own judgment that he
will not brook advice and consent even
from the Senate?
We are sorry the President has made
this step. 1t will hurt his prestige with
multitude of persons who believed that
from the time when he got rid of the
man who more largely than any other
single individual made him President he
had slowly been eliminating from his
mind the idea that only observing
Democrats" could be trusted in patriot
ism. 1t will stir up bad temper and
jealousy that will not disappear after the
election. But, above all, it will give the
Huns the pretext to say--which they could
not truthfully say before yesterday
that if by chance the people elect Re-
publican Congress he has been rebuked
for his war policies. They will condemn
him out of his own mouth. We are truly
sorry.