Evening star., 1922-12-03
Would Eliminate the Word ''If''
In Discussing World Affairs

Since the signing of the treaty
Of Versailles. the old custom OF
royal visits has been reinaugurat-
ed. with a difference: Formerly
the consultation between them
was private. The public could
only guess whether 1t meant
closer or more strained relations.
Now men seem impelled to jour
ney clear across the Atlantic to
give vocal exclamations to what
their "ifs" might have done for the
led to things of a certainty.
Clemenceau. commonly known to
his people as the Tiger" has been
with US. handling those affais of
which he was conspicuously a
part. without gloves, and adding
to the collection of "if this had
not BEEN and 'If this had been"
The end is not yet. From England
comes report that Mr.. Lloyd George
with his trunks packed with Ifs"
When these two great men shall
have unloaded their facts and
theories and suppositions into our
minds we probably shall feel
much like a man hit on the head
with a piece of lead pipe. with
this difference. that instead of
seeing stars, We shall see Ifs.
X X i: X
All this is calculated to furnish
much in the way OF mental gym
nastics for the American mind.
which. in my opinion, is already
nimble enough. THE past is the
eternal past, Lorena." and I make
bold modestly TO suggest that ex-
cept as the actual facts OF the
past may furnish signboards for
the future. We shall get along bet
sideration all hypothetical Ques-
tions. Indeed. believe that
opinions based upon hypothesis.
facts Of which are disputed. tend
only 70 make confusion worse con-
founding. These ifs" in the de-
termination Of great problems
are worse than the answers OF ex-
perts in court to the hypothetical
questions of skilled lawyers. Tn.
experts answer is believed by
those who are convinced Of the
truth of the answer before the
question was asked. while the
doubters remain doubters in spite
of the answer proclaimed as the
truth. being OF the same opinion
still and regarding the expert as a
hired liar. or il not that, certainly
an ignoramous. Answers OF ex-
perts to hypothetical questions
never settled anything.
\ * + ::
! remember only one convinc-
ing answer to hypothetical
question in court. The state of
Indiana. incensed at the high price
Of expert testimony. had passed
an act requiring experts to re-
spond to subpoenas and testify
for the compensation accorded 10
ordinary witnesses. A damage
suit was in progress and a dis
tinguished surgeon had been
brought into the case. He was
outraged at the idea tha. ne
should give Of his knowledge and
experience information and opin-
interrogated he i'll concealed his
disgust. The lawyer examining
him left no point uncovered. 'As.
sumo, Doctor" this, and assume"
further. this and this. until the
question he spun bewildered Judge.
jury and spectators. Only the
surgeon remained passive. Then.
leading up TO his climax. the law
yer. well pleased with the sensa-
tion his almost interminable ques-
tion had produced. asked Eleefully.
"What would be the result?" The
answer was prompt and concise.
"A lawsuit" responded the sur
geon.
These .ifs" which are being pre-
sented to the people result only
in Jaw suits. They do not produce
facts. Honest conclusions do not
fiow from them. The American
people would welcome leader of
thought who would command:
Down with the II 1t had been
and up with the 1T is.'
Copyright 1922 BY Thomas R. Marshall.)