New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1918-05-26
Says Burleson's Action
Does Not Help the War


at does not appear, however, that
any steps were taken because of this
article The question, therefore. is as
to the right of 'The Public to print
the editorial in the issue of March
30. The question rs to our be-
| lief or our disbelief in the sound
ness of this editorial has nothing what
ever to do with the case. There are
plenty of the conservative doctrine,
with which I emphatically disagree,
and plenty of radical doctrine. with
which, disagree, and IT it should hap
pen that on either side of the case /
found myself in agreement with Mr..
Burleson should, nevertheless. adhere
to my beliefs. But unless these doc
trines were scditious or represented a
kind of immortality and Indictment to
violence, or other unlawful conduct
which would properly bring them under
the law. would fight as stoutly for the
right of the editor to publish them as
would fight for my own right to publish
articles against them.
"Such action as that Of Mr.. Burle-
son does not help the war; on the con-
trary, it tends to keep people so angry
with the agents of the war that they
become and remain hostile to the war
itself.
"Thcre could be no more striking
example of discrimination than that
furnished by the contrast between the
! treatment Of paper like Mr.. Watson's
and papers like those of Mr.. Hearst.
There was severity of treatment to the
helpless, while the strong were given
complete immunity.
"There is no need to rely upon my
statement that THE Metropolitan has
been a sloyal, pro-war, pro-American
publication. In a letter published by
Mr.. Creel since Mr.. Burleson's state
mcnt was published, he states:
"'We reply to "The metropolitan"
for the very reason that we do not
papers. They are known to be what
they are, but the reputation of "The
Metropolitan" for loyalty gives
weight to its misstatements.'
"This is, as shown by the use of the
word we, a complete and full ac-
acknowledgement on the part of Mr.. Creel
that my statements with regard to the
Administration in this matter are COR
rect. 1t is a complete and full &C
acknowledgement that the Administration
acts against publication whose 10y
the kind of governmental inefficiency
which tells in favor of Germany, al
though at the same time the Admin
istration does not act against the
'anti-war or ant-American papers-so
long, | may add incidentally, as these
papers champion the Administration
and apologize for the inetficiency of it's
actions.f
"Since the Postmaster Generals
challenge to mo was made public, pri
vate citizens have taken against the
Hearst papers the action which the Adj
ministration has refused to take. The
New York American in publishing
President Wilson's Memorial Day proc
lamation omitted that part of the
proclamation which contained the
prayer for victory, although it printed
the part containing the prayer for
peace--a proceeding entirely in con-
sonance with Mr.. Hearst's advocacy of
peace without victory
"In Poughkeepsie, according to a
special dispatch to THE New York
Herald of May 13, a party of Grand
Army veterans protested against such
action by procuring every available
them in the Courthouse Square, the
veterans explaining, through Major
Louis C, Dietz, organizer of the Local
Loyal Service League, that they did
this because they regarded the action
of The New York American as an at
tempt ito fool the people OF this coun-
try by publishing articles that are per-
fectly agreeable to the Kaiser's gov
eminent and to traitors and pro- Ger
mans that arc in this country
cat the same time, according to the
statements in The New York Times
and New York World the Mayor and
Common Council of Mount Vernon, N.
| Y. barred the Hearst papers for the