The Wilmington morning star., 1946-10-14
As Pegler Sees 1t
BY WEsTBROOK PEGLER

~ -
NEW YORK, Oct. 13.-The Quick nasty,
response to Senator Taft's comment on the
Nuremberg sentences by members of his OWL
republican party, among others, IS an example
of the enlistment that honest men must be
brave enough to face when they express un-
popular opinions on sensitive subjects. Mr..
Taft is a strict constitutionalist. He said we
would not teach the German people respect
for American principles Of justice 'by trying
men for chimes which were not crimes when
they were committed, contrary to all the
principles OF our law which outlaws ex post
facto condemnation A few days later he
erred in remarking that It were better 10
have sentenced to life Imprisonment the men
who were condemned to death but that seems
to have been an off-hand response in a debate.
It was not a fatal error, however. for often
in ou- justice we reduce the death sentence
to life so that the convicted person may
live to enjoy the benefit Of a doubt or COM
plete vindicatlon.
Senator Taft expressed no sympathy Tor
the convicted NaZis. He expressed only a strong
devotion to the American system OF justice.
He did not even yield to the temptation to
point out that if the improvised Nuremberg
legal principles and processes were correct,
then Stain, Molotov and the rest OF the Soviet
rulers should have been placed On trial IN
the same dock with the nazis for their I'M
provoked wars of aggression and conquest
against Finland and Poland, the latter invasion
and partition committed in concert with Hitler.
Taft took his stand on the American con-
s~titution and American law against a depart
u-e which, once adopted in our internal JUS
tice, would expose every citizen to the peril
Of punishment, even unto death, fo- thinking
unkindly of the President.
Yet, in New York, Governor Dewey and
Irving M. Ives, republican candidates for gov
ernor and United States senator, Immediately
repudiated Taft, who is Dewey's principal rival
at this moment for the republican presidential
nomination in 1913.
They issued a joint statement in which they
said: mo one can have any sympathy for
these maxi leaders who brought such agony
upon the world"
That was campaign stuff, addressed to
the New York vote and no compliment to
intelligent voters who discriminate between
emotional propaganda and reason. 1t took
no courage in Dewey and Ives to say this
but Taft showed courage for he knew he would
be falsely accused OF pleading Tor the nazls
and condoning their acts.
UltllUQ 1liCIitiOiilliS q VI as
this statement by inuendo, accused him Of
sympathizing with the convicted men.
In the manner of Senator Bilbo, Of Missis-
sippi. the democratic state campaign manager
in New York challenged Taft ito come into
this state and repeat his plea for the lives
of the nazi war criminals"
The suggestion here is that Taft might be
denied a fair hearing or even mobbed it he
were to present to a New York audience a
argument against a group execution
which he regards as a lynching. Again he is
accused of pleading fo- the lives OF the con-
demned nazis when he has expressed no
concern whatever for these individuals but
has stood out, conspicuous and momentarily,
almost alone, for law and justice according
to the American way.
By a freak of the new journalism which
deliberately favors those who speak for groups
hospitable to Stalinism, Jack Knoll, the direc-
tor of the political action committee Of the
CIO, was given space to say that Taft had
defended the "nazi murderers." This was SO
outrageouely false that any desk would have
been justified In spiking the story even If
Knoll had been sufficiently important political
ly to deserve a voice in the chorus.
Herbert Fl. Lehman, the candidate OF the
democrats and the communists, said all right
thinking and fair-minded Americans would
repudiate Taft's views. So they might, but In
doing so they might also abandon their own
right to trial before impartial courts and the
protection Of their liberties which lies behind
the principle that only those acts are criminal
which are forbidden by law at the time OF
their. commission. Mr.. Lehman did not advo-
cate this change in our system of justice, but
it would be as fair to say that he did as it
was on Lehman's own part to say that Taft
and all who agree with him think wrong and
are unfair. He takes great virtue to himself
here.
Mass murder by sovereign governments
within their own boundaries is not a crime
by any mundane law. There never was any
body of law whereby one government o. group
Of nations had authority to try the government
of another for acts of internal administration.
Even in our own country until recently in
some states, a man had a right to beat his
wife with a stick no bigger than his thumb.
Government has violated the privacy Of the
home to abolish this administrative tight, still
highly regarded by some, but the husband
was immune from punishment as long as
the legal right existed, whatever the neighbors
NAV have thought Of the practice. But if
mass murder by a government is recognized
bv other governments as a crime, did that
recognition occur afte- or before the slaughte-
of the moderate Russians by the bolsheviks
and the massacres Of millions by managed
famine?
Taft surely will lose his appeal for OBJ
servance of American legal principles. Those
nazis are doomed and the American concept
comes out of the experience cut and bruised,