THE New Zealand Herald. AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. TUESDAY, JULY 15, 1924. FADING MEMORIES.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXI, Issue 18761, 15 July 1924, Page 6

THE New Zealand Herald. AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. TUESDAY, JULY 15, 1924. FADING MEMORIES.

Many things happened during the war which, it was csaid, would never be forgotten or forgiven. To be lukewarm in the national cause was juniorgivable. To be openly pacifist—which was generally considered to be secretly defeatist—was to be quite beyond the pale in the minds of most people. This was the British standpoint. The French, it was generally assumed, were even more downright in their condemnation of every person not bent upon fighting to the point of annihilation or to ultimate victory. Since the ended that .high tide of national feeling has ebbed far. In Britain men who had been execrated for failure to show sufficient enthusiasm for a victorious peace now sit in Parliament. In some instances they hold high Cabinet rank. France has made a move which is even more significant. Des'pite violent opposition the Chamber of Deputies has made enough progress with an Amnesty Bill to pass the portion rehabilitating M. Caillaux (and M. Malvy. Those two names have fallen far out of sight except in France, where each has been a factor, even if a passive factor, in politics for many months past. It was long ago predicted that if the parties of the Left proved successful at the polls against M. Poincare and his Bloc National, they would speedily grant an amnesty to both these men. The prediction has not had long to wait for fulfilment. Yet it seems a very little -while since both were held up to universal execration as traitors to France and the Allied cause.

The Barnes of M. Malvy and M. Caillaux revive memories of days which were dark for both France and the Allies- A French offensive launched in 1917 at the Chemin des Dames ridge, in the Champagne, proved a disastrous failure. Worse than that, it was followed by signs of serious disaffection among the French troops, some of the best fighting regiments being affected. Rumours began of extensive defeatist propaganda among the soldiers. When the affair moved from rumours to definite charges, it was apparent that certain men, high in public life, must submit to having theif conduct investigated. Chief among them were M. Malvy and M. Caillaux. The proceedings were long and complicated. The notorious and sinister 8010 Pasha, friend of the ex-Khedive of Egypt, and chief agent of Germany in the campaign to gain control of French newspapers, was found guilty of treason and executed in April, 1918. His fall made the outlook black for the two politicians. They were brought to trial. In August, 1918, M. Malvy was found guilty of grave dereliction ; of duty, in that, as Minister for the Interior; he had failed to check enemy and defeatist propaganda. Many witnesses declared that he had not tried to do so, that in fact he had obstructed those who did. He was sentenced to five years of exile, but without civic degradation. Proceedings against M. Caillaux were much more protracted. He was not finally brought to trial until 1920, when, after a lengthy hearing, he was found guilty of having been in relation with enemy agents; with having been in correspondence with the enemy; with having given to the enemy information of value for the conduct of defeatist propaganda. The sentence was three years' imprisonment and 10 years' loss of civic rights. As he had been under arrest for more than three years, he was released, but was forbidden to visit Paris without permission. He was also ordered to pay the costs of the prosecution.

Public feeling in France had lost much of its heat before the trial of M. Caillaux concluded. He had maintained that he acted from policy, a policy of conciliation instead of revenge. Since that time, the fevers of the war time have further abated. Both Malvy and Caillaux have gradually emerged from the seclusion into which each went after condemnation. As indicating the change in ithe public mind, M. Malvy was returned to the Chamber of Deputies at the recent election. All this is symptomatic of the way time blunts the edge of old resentments, and cools passions which have seemed destined to burn forever. Britain has been quoted as showing examples, like in kind, if different in degree. South Africa furnishes others, since a man actively associated with the rebellion of 1914 now holds office in the Cabinet of the Union. These changes of public regard have perhaps been inevitable. Time must bring adjustments until the intense, personal, passionate feeling of the participant in a national drama dies away, to give place eventually to the dispassionate analysis of the historian who pronounces a considered verdict. The process can be seen in operation with unusual clarity now, since the events upon which it is acting were of unusual magnitude. It cannot be stayed, any more than any other process of nature can be. The only danger is that in the general tendency to forget those phases of the war which cannot profitably be kept green in the memory, those things which should be remembered may be lost to sight, The heroism which the war produced, the sacrifices made in the national cause, and the claim to gratitude of those who, careless of self, did their duty without counting the cost should not be allowed to sink from view even if public opinion is inclined to reverse condemnatory verdicts. Above all, the great achievements possible to a nation united in support of a cause deemed worthy should be remembered as an ideal for peace as well as war. Given that, some of the uglier events of the time of travail may be bad© farewell without, regret.