The Charlotte News

Wednesday, May 10, 1939

FOUR EDITORIALS

Site Ed. Note: For a further look at conscientious objection to war, via the celebrated 1971 case of Clay, aka Ali v. US, see the note accompanying "No Draft", March 22, 1941, and the cases cited therein, (in many ways better fitted to accompaniment to the editorial below--but maybe not, and since we hadn't the foggiest notion the below editorial existed when we wrote the former note a mere three weeks back, then afterward choosing this month's editorials for recitation by the purest serendipity, or, q.v., (that is, with our publisher's and chief associate editorialist's suggested input firmly in mind in the serendipitous choice), and since we believe it editorially dishonest and disserving of a higher purpose to shift notes about, we leave all the serendipity as is for you to ponder, as well as "Fight Films", May 28, 1939, added some time ago to the site).

The question ultimately posed by the editorial below, philosophically, is: If everyone of able body and proper age or substantial numbers of them pose conscientious objection in time of war necessitating a draft, what would become of the country? Thus, where is the line to be drawn? Only if substantial numbers so proclaim their conscience, should the doctrine be circumscribed more narrowly? A thorny, subjective area of the law for sure, requiring enormous resources and discernment fairly to carry it forth with Due Process, Equal Protection, fairness to all citizens subject to the draft, when such a circumstance arises as it did to some degree in the latter 1960's and early 70's when we last became involved in a draft necessary war.

Which may be all the more reason why we should all be conscientious objectors to any war waged offensively or "pre-emptively", save for a situation such as in Cuba in 1962 where a definite and imminent threat to the security of the country was present, to neutralize someone with weaponry with a definite range and capability and the demonstrated willingness to reach our shores or the borders of our allies. And, of course, conscience and intelligence in that one, in 1962, rather than military might urged by certain generals, ultimately prevailed and prevented what could have been the most calamitous war in history. It is a model of tough restraint for the nuclear age constantly to revisit. To that end, we highly recommend the recent documentary, "Fog of War".

Preventing the acquisition of such offensive weaponry (or the displacing of guerrilla notions into more productive activity, capable of releasing the same emotions more creatively) to the extent possible under international law in the first instance, and then, with intelligent use of economic and, if necessary, military blockade, while knowing thine enemy as they know themselves, to enable the standing down of the weaponry once its presence is known, appears the better course.

Would basketball work in North Korea? There was a time in this country, not that long ago, where few who played the game stood much above six feet, three inches tall... And some of the best still so stand not above it.

In Conscience

Has A Man A Right To Decline Service Once War Comes?

That was a very pointed criticism [Alf?]* Landon made of the social report adopted by the Methodist Uniting Conference at Kansas City yesterday. The report both pledges the support of the church to any of its members who are "conscientious objectors" to war and in the same breath calls for a ban on the shipment of munitions to Japan--an act which, unless it were coupled with a similar ban for China, would certainly be interpreted by the Japanese as a hostile one and move us toward war with her. Said Landon:

"In common decency, if we are going to ask this Government to take an unfriendly step against a sovereign power, we must assume the responsibility of that act."

It seems self-evident.

As for the case of the "conscientious objectors"--there is no doubt of their right, even of their rightness, so long as their objection it is to war per se, either before the fact or after. And as long as their numbers remained small, their exemption might reasonably be granted even once we were in the war. The United States did, as a matter-of-fact, exempt Quakers and others who could establish their good faith in the last war. But if they should develop by wholesale--as they conceivably might among the Methodists, after the Catholics the largest church group in the country--the question would become a very troublesome one. Many of the leading pacifists have confessed that once a nation is at war its life as such is at stake, and that therefore it is very doubtful that anybody has a right to stand on his ordinary personal rights and refuse to help to defend it. And one of them--perhaps C. E. M. Joad, the Englishman--suggested several years ago that all genuine "conscientious objectors" ought to be prepared to commit suicide when war came, says they would not only be weakening the fighting forces, but would be disrupting the national temper and consuming food needed for the national defense. If the "conscientious objectors" were simply unwilling to fight but willing to aid in other ways, the case might be arranged. But if they went all the way--well, it is at least clear that it is easier to lay down hard and fast rules about these things than to fit them to the facts of life.

(*Site Ed. Note: We assume this might have been Alf, the failed Republican candidate for the presidency in 1936, though we cannot be sure. Alf was from Kansas and the locus of the remarks being K.C. brings it close enough geographically to make sense and so we fill the blank left by a tear in the old microfilm of The News. Since we haven't the rest of the newsprint available for that date, we simply don't know. If you discover it was some other Landon, we apologize in advance for the error and duly acknowledge the possibility. Also, so far as we know, Mr. Joad was no ken to Tom. A bit of an extremity in defense of liberty, that concept which he proposed, we posit, though liberty must always be defended, and to the death, as Mr. Henry bravely proclaimed, we agree. Yet, for sure, conscientious objection does not mean that one cannot fight, but in a less literal sense of that term than employed usually in the context of carnal war. By the doctrine of social compact, conscientious objection should never be a picnic for the otherwise able-bodied to cower from proper service to the country. Indeed, most of the sincere conscientious objectors do so fight. Thus, perhaps that is the ultimate test of sincerity in the premises.)

Here We Go!

Senate Shoots A Billion And Nobody Even Looks Up

We tell you, boys and girls, the country is in a bad way. Avarice and apathy have overcome its ancient wisdom and its instinctive respect for frugality. It is plainly money-drunk.

Oh, yes, there isn't a doubt of it. The feelings of the New Deal's continued deliberate extravagance have finally dulled the senses of the people and their representatives in Congress, who hold the power of the purse--overcome them to such an extent that there isn't, really, any use in writing these lines. They will say who begin to read them, "Oh, just something more about politics and money."

But it's more than that. The occasion for it, to be sure, is the run-of-mine little matter of an appropriation bill for the Department of Agriculture. One after another, the Senate voted amendments which increase the amount of the appropriation by $382,075,000--by the wealth of hundreds of thousands of well-to-do people, that is. And this, mind you, on top of an appropriation which the President had fixed at nearly a billion dollars!

As Secretary Morganthau said, with a worried look in his eye, "It is time to begin tapering down Federal deficits," which have gone on for ten years without interruption and without any prospect of abatement. But as Senators Capper and Lucas from the wheat country characteristically reported, "Economy should not begin with the farmer."

And what did all the people of the country say, whose government is manifestly unable to govern its own appetites? Why, they said, as usual, not a word. They never even looked up from whatever they were doing.

Broun Geography

Heywood Gets Pat Mixed Up With Bob

With the sentiments of Heywood Broun concerning the Hon. Robert Rice Reynolds, as set forth in his article today, we are, as all our faithful little readers will know, in essential agreement. But Heywood really should look up his geography. "The marshes and the swamps," indeed. Let the Walrus lay to it, there be some hills down here--including the very highest one east of the Rockies.

And moreover, Heywood better watch himself when he calls Robert "all Tar Heel up and down." Puns aside, we know nobody who less fits the description. "Tar Heel round and about," now, would be pat. But not Bob.

(Further Site Ed. Note: Cash could get a little pleasantly prickly when a Northerner took issue with stereotypical landscapes and accents down heya in Nawth Carlina. "Ca'lina, Indeed!", February 4, 1940, for instance, proves the thing Q.E.D.)

Legal Charley

At Law Blair May Always Stand As The Lost Child

This much is settled: for the time being Charley Ross legally exists. The judge who ruled at Phoenix yesterday that the old carpenter, Gustave Blair, was truly the celebrated lost son of Christian Ross, said that until a higher court overturned the verdict of the jury and himself, that verdict would have the full force of law. And so it probably will. Under the "full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution, the courts in Pennsylvania would perhaps even be bound to hand over a part of the Ross estate to Blair. But that would bring up more argument. And the old man, indicates that he has no intention of pursuing that course but hopes to get his by way of the movies, the radio, etc., etc., etc.

But it is exceedingly doubtful that in fact the identity of Charley Ross has been established. The story told by Blair and his adopted brother, Miller, has a certain remote plausibility, perhaps. But there have been hundreds of others equally as plausible since the day 65 years ago when the little curly-headed boy vanished with the men who were going to get firecrackers for him and his little brother, Walter (who was quickly found). There have been several claimants in North Carolina alone. One up in Lincoln County attracted a great deal of attention in the 1920s and he had quite as plausible a story as Blair.

Nevertheless, it may very well be that Blair will henceforth stand always as the legal Charley. If he makes no attempt to claim the estate, it is unlikely that Walter Ross and the other relatives, who did not contest the action, will make any move to overturn the decision. And so, unless some other claimant comes forward, and carries that dispute to a higher court, the case may stand on its present basis forever.

 


Framed Edition
[Return to Links-Page by Subject] [Return to Links-Page by Date] [Return to News<i><i>--</i></i>Framed Edition]
Links-Date -- Links-Subj.

') } //-->