Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

Vol. 37 USURPERS HERE CONSPIRE WITH AUTOCRACIES ABROAD TO REVOLUTIONIZE YOUR GOVERNMENT. Watch the developments and remember what has happened, since March 4, 1917. Pay attention to dates! On the 1st of February, 1917, this Adminis¬ tration was unconcerned about the Great Wav. During the latter days of January, 1917, our Ambassador to the German government had borne to the Kaiser the “Olive Branch” message of our President. In a banquet speech, Ambassador Gerard had assured the Berlin Cabinet that the relations be¬ tween their country and ours were never better, and that, so long as sa cabinet remained in pow¬ er, no break would occur between our Govern¬ ment and theirs. This official utterance at an official banquet WAS RETORTED AND PUBLISHED THROUGHOUT CHRIS¬ TENDOM/ and it said to the Kaiser, by necessary implication,— “No matter if you did ravish Belgium, deso¬ late Northern France, shoot Edith Cavell, deport French maidens for the use of brutal soldiers, drive off the cattle of starving Belgians, sink the Lusitania, and massacre whole villages of non combatants because a gun was tired at the invad¬ ers from an attic window.” These things were hideous, but war is war, impliedly said Ambassador Gerard. “7 bring you an olive branch from President "Wilson ,” said our Ambassador, in a face-to-face talk to those Teuton butchers. And the date was January 27, 1917! Hard to believe now, isn't it? Then came the Russian collapse; then came the. Inauguration of our President for a second term; then came Armed Neutrality/ and then came war. Between neutrality in March, and war in April, the difference was as great as between day and night. What caused the sudden and radical change? In last week’s Literary Digest, is published the German view of the case: they say that the .-United States-were pushed into the War to pre¬ vent the loss, to the American bankers, of the enormous sums they had loaned England and France, , Russia having dropped out, the German victory seemed assured; and had the Germans won, it is certain that J. P. Morgan, and his in¬ terlocked international bankers, would have sus¬ tained ruinous losses. And, if we had not gone into the War, the patriotic Packers could not have made one thousand million dollars, clear profit: The Steel Trust could not have earned per cent, dividends: The Powder and Munition Trusts could not have had to build new vaults to put their money in: The Airplane builders would not have made away with $650,000,000: Henry Ford, the vehement pacifist, could not have kept his son out of the War, and, at the same time, heaped up millions of profits on Eagle boats: John D. Rockefeller would not have been able to keep his son out of the War and, at the same time, add a billion or so to the frugal accumula¬ tions of the Standard Oil Company. Do not understand me as endorsing this view, which Senator La Follette, in effect, presented in his famous speech at St. Paul— a speech for which the Senate threatened to expel him, but did not. The British Foreign Secretary, Mr. Arthur J. Balfour,— a Tory of the Tories —came over to this country early in 1917, and had a secret con¬ sultation with President Wilson in the East Room of the White House. The sum and substance of Mr. Balfour’s plea was about what Caesar said to Cassius— 1 '■‘■Help me, Cassius, or / sink." There were no “open covenants openly arriv¬ ed at,’” but we glided into Russia’s vacant place, all the same. And, owing to the valor of the Irish Catholics of New York and Boston, we won the War. Had it not been for the Knights of Columbus, the Catholic chaplains, and the Irish candle-toters of the North and East, the whole of Christendom would have slidden and slithered into the Bottom¬ less Pit. We know this, because we are constantly re¬ minded of it by the Papalized daily papers. The Dixie-land boys did nothing worth notice on the battle-front: the Western troops were equally ineffective: it took the Jrish Catholics of the North and East to rout the Huns. So you would infer, after having been duly doped by the Romanized daily press. Look backward, around you, and ahead of <esj m 3 J o — SsfeH 73 Vi -< /A rz b 4 ^ ■ V t <«* Price $2,00 Per Year EDITORIALS By THOS. E. WATSON. you: what do you see and what do you hear? Discard prejudice, and recognize facts! The jails are crowded with Americans whose crimes consisted of free assemblage and free speech. Either in jail, or out of it on bond, are scores of Americans whose crime consisted in exercising the freedom to print opinions. Private property has been confiscated, or ir¬ reparably damaged, without any legal procedure, because the owners of it refused to bow to Gess ler’s cap. Precedents leading to worse than Tudor tyranny, have been established. Arbitrary arrests, searches, and seizures have aped the methods of the despotic Czars of Russia. Man and women who would have shed their blood for the liberties of this their native land, have been ruthlessly packed off to Siberia, at the imperious behest of Burleson and Gregory and Baker and Woodrow Wilson. A Reign of Terror has been precipitated op¬ Oil us, and the name they give it is “democracy.” At Paris, three men sit behind locked doors, parcelling out the world. Caesar, Pompey, and Crassus, OVER AGAIN. Those three men are Clemeuceau, Lloyd George, and Woodrow Wilson: the Italian, Or¬ lando. is present, but not co-equal. Three men are dividing up the world, and they refuse to let (he world know how they reach certain conclusions. 1! hy is Japan allowed to crush Korea, and slice off the Vast Shantung penisula from China? Why is France given a portion of territory that is purely German, in blood, language, and religion ? Why is a wedge forcibly driven into Prus¬ sia for the sake of Poland? Why is England allowed to rob Belgium of that part of Africa which she won from the Germans? W& don’t know.: tlie Triumvirs decline to tell us. H hy should these United States become responsible for the vast debt of Turkey, and as sume the duties of Trustee for what is left of Mahomet's Empire? We don’t know: the locked-in Triumvirs re¬ fuse to take mankind into their confidence. By what authority, does President Wilson morally bind us to the principle of a League of Nations—in which League we may be reduced to the position that Canada now occupies in the British Empire? By what authority, does the Republican Sen¬ ate assume that it can surrender our national In¬ dependence, and, subordinate the Constitution of the United States to the Constitution of the League? If it be treason in you and me to give aid and comfort to the enemies of our country, what is it, if you and I betray to foreign Kings, powei'8, and potentates, the constitutional liberties and the National Independence of our Country? The U. S. Constitution, emanating from the Sovereign States, and through them from the Sovereign People, declares that it shall be the first Supreme Law of the land, and that, secondar¬ ily, como Treaties made in pursuance thereof. • The proposed League of Nations does not pretend to be a treaty consistent with the Consti¬ tution. On the contrary, it is admitted that the Con¬ stitution of the League will override and partly cancel the Constitution of the United States. Is this the manner in which the President honors the oath he took? Is this the way the Senators honor their oaths? The President swore to “ preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution ”— has he done it? The Senators swore to preserve, protect and defend, the Constitution ”— are they doino so? If the President and the Senate should force this country into an inferior position, in which our Constitution will not, be our Supreme Law, what will be the nature of this revolution? If the President and the Senate yoke us in a team with England, Japan, Spain, Brazil, and France, who will drive? If the “High Contracting Parties” who took those public and solemn oaths to preserve the Con¬ stitution betray it to foreign nations, what will be their crime? The words “preserve, protect, and defend,” imply the possibility of future assaults from those not in office, and not bound by that oath. It never entered the minds of our Fathers that (Continued on Page Two.) Harlem, Ga., Friday, May 30, 1919. f- TO INSULT “THOMAS rs E. WATSON,” THE DEAN OF A COLLEGE GOES FAR OUT OF HIS WAY. Written on the letter-head of Piedmont College, the following letter reaches us by due Course of mail: Piedmont College of the Faculty DEMOREST, GEORGIA Treasurer FRANK E. JENKINS. PR ESIOENT C 1 ROGERS. DEAN GEO, o BURRACE H OS. D.HENSHAW.R EOI STRAW 6 HOX 174 May 19, 1919. The Columbia Sentinel, Harlem, Ga. Gentlemen: Two copies of the Sentinel have just come to me; please send no more, I do not care to see anything written by Thomas E. Watson. It is a disgrace to America that her great men should be attacked in so puerile a manner as they are, particularly President Wilson, in these issues. Why not change your name, to The Bolshevic Sentinel? Yours very truly, J. C. ROGERS. The Dean of the Faculty of Piedmont College is deeply offended because two copies of The Sentinel came to bis address. How they came to do such a thing, L do not know: possibly his name got on a sample copy list—perhaps at the instance of some one who thought better of him than his letter indicates to be his true worth. The two offending copies of the paper did not, cost him anything: their reception by hin did not commit him to anything: they ifi no way bound him to either read or to subscribe. At most, they were civilly directing his attention to the existence of the paper. Off and on, since 1890, I have been closely collected with newspaper work, and never be¬ ll.,re have I known a sample copy to provoke an insult. Dean Jonathan Rogers writes, “I do not care to see anything written by Thomas E. Watson.” What authors are your favorites, Jonathan? What books, papers, and magazines do you peruse? In what school of the proprieties were you taught that it is good manners to repay a civ¬ ility with an insult? Is that the lesson you are teaching to the classes in the College of which you aro Dean? “/ do not care to read anything written by Thomas E. Watson." Of course, Thomas E. should quit writing, sink into the bowels of the earth, and apologizo to Dean Jonathan for ever having dared to write. “I do not care to read anything etc.” What? So sweeping as all that? Surely, Jonathan, you will not harden your heart against all my writings. For instance, I once wrote a booklet, entitled, “Short talks to young men,” whose purpose was to tutor the boys on the elementary practises of gentlemen. Won’t you read that little book, if I send it to you, Jonathan? , You need it. “It is disgrace to America that her great men should be attacked etc.” Jonathan, who are these great men, and of what does their greatness consist? Name the great men, Jonathan, and tell us the deeds that make them great. We want to know, and we are willing to learn—-so much so, that we will read anything written by Dean Jonathan Rogers. > “Attacked in so puerile a manner etc.” The word “puerile” means, “childish,” “trifling,” “weak,” “flat,” “insipid.” If The Sentinel’s attacks on these great men are puerile, why should the Doan of Pied¬ mont College dignify them by his notice? He owes it to his College not to stoop so low as to pay attention to editorials that are in¬ sipid, flat, weak, trifling, childish. If Dean Jonathan goes out of his way to insult every editor who writes pieces that are childish, trifling, weak, insipid, he will soon make quite a few enemies for Piedmont College. We editors can’t please everybody, and wo can seldom gratify Dean Jonathan, but we are doing the best we know how, and it hurts our corns and funny-bones to bo told that our stuff, is juvenile, boyish, no account, and too feeble, to drip off the eaves in the rainy season. , “Particularly President Wilson.” Oh! That's it, is it? All of our “great men” resolve themselves into the Sacred Cow, do they? The King can do no wrong: the Pope is infallible: the Sacred Cow must roceivo adoration on bended knees. Ah, Jonathan, Jonathan! Piedmont College must have been hard up for a Dean when it selected you. Now consider the English language as she is writ by Jonathan Rogers: “It is a disgrace to America that her great men should be attacked in so puerile a manner as they are, particularly President Wilson, in these issues." That’s bad English—awfully bad. This is the way the indignant Dean should have expressed his thought—so far as he hufl any: “It is a disgrace to America that her great men, particularly President Wilson, should be attacked in a manner so puerile.” The words, “as they are,” should be implied: to wedge them in, as the Dean did, is awkward and inharmonious. The words, “in these issues,” are as meaningless ns two tails to a cat would be. “Concerning these issues,” would make sense: “in these issues,” makes none. This is ex¬ plained in “Short talks to young men,” of which I would send the Dean a copy, were I not appre¬ hensive that he might rupture a blood vessel, sue me for damages, or do something else equally unpleasant. “Why not change your name to The Bolshevic Sentinel?" That’s a fair question, Jonathan, and I will answer it by asking you another: Why not change your name to Jackass Rogers? Issued Weekly !\lo. 36.