Courier-herald. [volume] (Kennewick, Wash.) 1949-1950, 1950-02-04
George e. SokoIsky
No Mercy
For Hiss
The Liar

Like others, I have been read
ing the apologies for Alger Hiss
and Dean Acheson in the New
York Herald Tribune and the
Washington Post and ] find it
increasingly difficult to dis
cover their moral position. They
want us to forgive Hiss with a
sort of boys-will-be-boys slap
on the wrist. They want us to be-
lieve that treason and perjury
are to be determined not by
law, civil or moral, but by the
times in which they were csm-
mitted. Young boys out of the
gutter are sent to prison for
perjury, but if the liar is from
Harvard or Groton, a different
rule applies. That is snob's
law =
Yet, the fact is that Alger Hiss
has been convicted as liar.
Anyone who has read the case,
even if he has some doubts as
to the nature and extent of Hiss
treason, and even il he rejects
Whitaker Chambers, must know
that Hiss is not only a liar but
a continuing one. Further, he
might even reach the conclu-
sion that he has been associated
with other liars, because the
evidence shows lying in the Sec
ond trial by others as well as
by Hiss.
A liar is ipso facto a reprehen-
sible person. He. denounces him
self as untrustwortty. The oppo.
sition to lying in human tradi-
ton is so deeply rooted that an
oath is provided in most instan-
ces, not only to connect the lie
to civil law but to moral law.
The liar is not only punishable
by government, but by God.
And that brings up the issue
of the oath. We swear in public
officials, and we used to do it
by having him place a hand on
the Bible. note that nowadays,
the public servant, in many
places, just raises his right hand
and takes his oath.
When a man swears to God
that he will tell the truth, the
whole truth, and nothing but the
truth, or that he is and will be
loyal to the government of the
United States, or that he will
uphold and maintain the consti-
tuition - he is not only COM
mitting himself to government
but to God. He acknowledges his
obligation to moral law.
But suppose man is a Mar
xist, an Atheist, a Communist,
then he makes no such commit
ment and therefore is not in
volved in the preyings of his
conscience. True, he is a Hypo-
critic for having sworn to God
whom he rejects. True, he has
taken the oath with his fingers
crossed and his tongue in his
cheek. As he hates God and
hurls his fist at Him, the oath
itself is mockery.
Before an oath is sworn, the
person should be asked to state
that he believes in God. He
should be required to make a
public confession of his faith;
otherwise, of what use is it to
swear him in? To him, such an
oath is just joke.
Now, when the New York
Herald Tribune, the Washing
ton Post, and other so-called lib
eral organs seek to ease our con-
sciences concerning Hiss, they
really ask us to condone lying,
to accept the oath as joke, to
renounce moral law. Their po-
sition is that wild oats will be
sown, not only before one knows
right from wrong, but even by
those who are supposed to be so
mature that we entrust to them
the highest responsibilities in
government. When Dean Acheson
quoted Matthew in defense of
Hiss, he might also have quoted
the Commandments: Thou
shalt not take the name of the
Lord thy God in vain; for the
Lord will not hold him guiltless
that taketh His name in vain"
And also, Thou shalt not bear
false. witness against thy neigh
boz"
1t is sweet and gentle to ask for
generosity and forgiveness, but
it is a debasement of morality
to Justify the lie. Too long in
our lives have we permitted our
public officials to be liars, to
get away with the lie, to aouse
us by false witness and by re-
ducing the oath to by-play. The
rejection of moral law reduces
our civilization to savagery.
That is the issue. If these
newspapers, for political reasons,
wish to justify the lie, let them
say so outright without fancy
verbiage.