New-York tribune., 1918-03-09
Ludicrous Power

SO long as the governments power
ever criticism of its acts, policies and
personnel consists in propaganda and is
exercised by adroit and insidious means,
there is reason to be uneasy. But when
it is bold and begins to be exercised in a
ruthless German manner there is moth
ing more to fear. 1t will presently de-
stroy itself There will be too many
candidates for the role of Macmillan
Harden.
That would be perhaps enough to say
about the Administrations misadventure
with "The Metropolitan" except that
much permissible curiosity in that par
ticular case remains TO be satisfied.
"The Metropolitan" is an important
magazine. Theodore Roosevelt is one Of
its regular contributors. It's attitude on
the war has been robustly American. 1t
is what Mr.. Hearst would call war
maniac" The only sins we had thought
it might be indicted for at Washington
were:
1) That it advocates less static in
tellectualism and more fighting velocity
in the conduct of the war, and,
(2) That it is anti-Administration.
If the cause Of it's March number run
ming afoul of the government was the
article by William Hard, as is supposed,
then there would appear to be, in the
eyes of the Administration, third sim,
namely, satire or lack of reverence.
This we cannot believe. Surely the
power of the government over criticism
does not extend to questions of taste.
But that leaves the question still open.
Why did the government lay it's hands
on 'The Metropolitan?
We have no defence for Mr.. William
Hard's article. We are rather indiffer-
ent about it. We might even grant that
the tone and temper Of the satire were
in somewhat questionable taste.
But what we have to ask is: Was this
simply pretext to suppress much more
serious criticism?
The sequence of facts is interesting.
Mr.. William Hard has for some time
been contributing to "The New Repub-
lie" series Of articles laying bare the
headlessness and planlessness which have
prevailed in Washington on the side of
the business conduct of the war.
The "New Republic" articles did much
to open the eyes of the American people
to the weakness of Mr.. Baker and the
lack of coordination in the various bu-
reaus.
For months they pleaded for larger
shipping plan, for speed, for business
organization to lay out a we'll considered
map that all departments might follow.
To no avail. The Hard broadsides in
'The New Republic" fell upon unheeding
ears. We know the result:
The railway tie-up.
The idle ships.
The coal famine.
And Garfield.
We feel that these articles ought not
to have gone unnoticed.
If they were untrue they were insid-
ious and seditious.
For printing them, if they were un-
true, "The New Republic" ought to have
been suppressed, it's editors tried for
sedition.
But "The New Republic" for many
reasons is immune from the attentions of
the Postoffice Department. Is this i'm
munity withdrawn from Mr.. Hard when
he writes in Republican magazine? Or
was it Hard alone?
His article in "The Metropolitan" was
not the only criticism of the President
which appeared in that issue. We re-
print in an adjacent column portions of
the editors own article on the Presidents s
responsibility.
In the weekly Independent" Mr.
Creel makes for the government saw
age attack On the editor Of "The Metro
Dolitan" for having attacked Garfield's
handling of the fuel situation.
Was the real purpose to weaken and
discredit all criticism Of the bunelinp
Garfield?
And to weaken and discredit the othe,
criticisms of Mr.. Hard in "The New
Republic?
VIII Mr.. Burleson please say where
he stands in the matter Of political criti
cism, which according to his order wa:
never to be touched?
Will the government say positively
what "The Metropoltan'g" real or nom
inal offence was, in order that we may
I'll be On guard?
Up to the Senate
What has become Of that painstakinp