TOLERATION OF TREACHERY.

Otago Witness, Issue 2506, 2 April 1902, Page 14

TOLERATION OF TREACHERY.

TRUCKLING TO TRAITORS. PROTEST BY MR WAKKLYN, M.P. (From Ottk Oivn Correspoxdext.) LONDON, January 31. Last week 1 stated that Mr Wanklyn, M.P. for Bradford, was about to move an amendment to the Adclress-in-Reply having reference to Mr Seddon's denunciation of the pro-Boer traitors who by their disloyal action had done so much to protract the war and injure their country. Subsequently by request he abstained from moving Ms amendment so that he might not in any way embarrass Ministers at this crisis or hamper their hands. I have received to-day from Mr Wanklyn a lonfj; letter setting forth his views on the subject. I observe that he has sent copies of the letter to the principal London daily papers, which publish it in full. I give it in extenso. Mr Wanklya writes: — As my friends and I are unwilling to embarrass the Executive at a time of war, I have consented, after a conference with Ministers, to withdraw the amendment to the Address, dealing with Mr SMdon's protest against pro-Boer utterances, but will you allow me through the Standard to show how strong a precedent there is for action? I offer no apology for trespassing on your spaco, for " the officers and men who are daily and nightly risking their lives on the veldt look for the support of their countrymen." and the views of Abraham Lincoln mu*t be of interest. In 1863 President Lincoln was cursed with a similar "Stop the war" agitation, fomented by we-H-meaning fanatics, and stimulated hy political adventurers, and when he discovered that the utterances of this faction were indeed prolonging the contest lie gave them due warning to " keep their tongues in order." and then, as this was ineffectual, had their leadet, a member of Congre^, arrested. This individual was charged with " publicly expressing sympathy foi those in arms against the Government of the United Statei, and declaring disloyal 'entiment? and opinions for the object and purpose of weakening the power of the j Government in its efforts to suppress an unlawful rebellion." He was found guilty, and finally, as the best way of disposing of him, wa° handed over to the enemy, who j accepted him. I wonder if General Botha would care to accept any of our pro-Boers? The usual " monster meeting " was organised in protest, and the audience, being told that the question was " whether this war is waged to put down rebellion at the South or to destroy free institutions at the North," passed sundry resolutions, and thereupon President Lincoln came down into the arena. To these New York Democrats Mr Lincoln said : '• It is asserted in substance that Mr Vallnndigham was seized and tried ' for no other reason than words addressed to a public mooting in criticisixi^of the course of administration and in condemnation of the military orders of the General.' New, if there ba no iniatake about Ova. if lluo ac;er-

tion is the truth and the whole truth, if there was no other reason for the arresfc, then I concede that the arrest was wrong. But the arrest, as I understand, was made for a very different reason. Mr Vallandigham avows his hostility to the war on; the part of tho union. . . . H e wa s nob arrested because ho was damaging the political prospects of the administration or the personal interests of the commanding general, but because ho was damaging the army, upon the existence of which the. life of the nation depends. . . . Must I shoot a simple-minded soldier boy who deserts, while I must not touch a hair of a wily agitator who induces him to desert? . . . If I bo wrong on this question of constitutional power, my error lies in believing that certain proceedings are constitutional when, in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety requires thorn, which would not be constitutional when, in absence of rebellion or invasion, the public safety does not require them — in other words, that the Constitution, "is not in its application in all respects the same in cases of rebellion or invasion involving the public safety, as it is in times of profound peace and public security. The Constitution itself makes a distinction, and I can no more be persuaded that the Government can constitutionally take no strong measures in time of rebellion, because _it can be shown that . the same could not be lawfully taken in times of peace,. , than X can be persuaded that a particular drug is not good medicine for a. sick man because it can be shown to not be good food 'for jw^ well one. Nor am I able to appreciate the danger apprehended by the meeting, that the American people will, by means of military arrests during the rebellion, lose the right of public discussion, the liberty of speech and the press,- the law of evidence, trial by jury, and' Habeas Corpus throughout the indefinite peaceful future which I trust lies before them, any more than I am able to believe that a man could contract so strong an appetite for emetics during temporary illness as to persist in feeding upon them during the remainder of his healthful life. In giving the resolutions that earnest consideration which you request of me, I cannot overlook the fact that the meeting speak as " Democrats.' Nor can I, with full respect for their known intelligence, and the fairly presumed deliberation with which they prepared their resolutions, be permitted to suppose that this occurred by accident, or in any way other than that they preferred to designate themselves 'Democrats ' rather than ' American citizens.' In. this time of national peril I would have preferred to meet you on a level one step higher than any party platform, because I am sure that from such a more elevated position we could do better battle for- the country we all love than we possibly can from those lower ones, where, from the force of habit, the prejudices of the past, and selfish hopes of the future, we are sure to expend much of our ingenuity and strength in finding fault with and aiming blows at each other. '^ . . Of all those Democrats who are Uobly exwsing their lives and shedding their blood on the battlefield, I have learnt - that " many "approve the course taken with -Mr Vallandigham, while I have not heard of a sinjrle one condemning it." To the Ohio Democrats, the President wrote aa follows : " Under a sense of responsibility more weighty and" enduring than any which is merely official, I solemnly declare my belief that this hindrance of the military, including maiming and murder, is due to the course in which Mr Vallandigham has bsen engaged in a greater degree than through any other cause ; and it is due to him personally in a greater degree than to any other ono man. These things have been notoriously known to all, and, .of course, known to Mr Yallandigham. Perhaps I would not be wrong to say they originated with his special friends and adherents. With perfect knowledge of them, he has frequently, if not constantly, made speeches in Congress and before popular assemblies. . . . It is known that the whole burden of his speeches has been to stir up men against the prosecution of tha war." To how many of our pro-Boers will this "hindrance of the military" apply? If I wanted another illustration I would point out that Prince Bismarck used almost identical language in October, 1870, on the arrest of Jacoby : — "In other words," paid Bismarck, "he was one of the forces that increased the difficulty of attaining the object of the war, and had accordin&Jy to he> rendered harmless. . . . Those who wield the power of the State must exercisethe rights and fulfil the duties accorded to and imposed upon them for the purposea of securing the object of the war, without regard to the distanea from the actual scene of warfare of the objects which require removal. They are bound to prevent the occurrence of such incidents as render the attainment of peace less ea=y. We are now carrying on, a war for the purpose of enforcing conditions which will hinder the enemy from attacking us in, future. Our opponents resist these condition*-, and will be greatly encouraged and strengthened in their resistance by a declaration on the part of Germans that these conditions are inexpedient and unjust. The Brunswick working class manifesto and the Konig.sberg resolui tion have been utilised to the utmofct by the ! French prese, and have obviously confirmed the Republicans now holding power in Paris in the idea that they are right in rejecting these conditions. Theie French Republicans measure the influence of their German sympathisers on the Governments of Germany by the standard of their own experience. Tho impression which those demonstrations at Brunswick and Eonigsberg produc2d in Germany was probably little; but the point is: What effect did they have in. Paris? The effect there is such that similar demonstrations must be rendered impossible in future, and their instigator must accordingly be put out of harm's way." Great mind 3 run in the same groove. President Lincoln possibly strained the Constitution, but history admits that he wa» right to set as he did under the circumstances. Mr Scddon. Mr Barton, and statesmen in Canada have protested, .n sending fresh reinforcements, that, but for proBoer utterances, this war would have been over ; and it is a terrible reflection that, as a party, the pro-Boers exist only in the Old' Country. "Oh, let them alone!" is a stock argument. This " let alone" policy may come to be the ruin of Great Britain. Apathy and indifference, and an incapacity for going to the root of things, are the bane of the Old Country in more directions than one, and we have lately been warned, in a memorable speech at the Guildhall, that we have to "wake up." It is abundantly clear that if we are to preserve our self-respect . and the respect of our colonial allies, shortly, to become great nations, we must, indeed', wake up to this sedition in our midst, an' evil which has coat us dear, and I beg your assistance, sir, to diaw attention to tbi9 ui&ent uuesUoa.