Communications

To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

It was recently pointed out in these columns that democratic patriots should think for their country before they fight for it. The Harvard Union for American Neutrality now wishes to suggest some of the issues which must be thought out. For the fact of an overt act does not lead straight to a duty to fight Germany.

Everyone doubtless knows of the man who burned down his house in order to roast his pig. His problem symbolizes some aspects of our war problem. Let the roasting of the pig stand for the object of a war, let the man stand for the American people, and the house for the American civilization which is a-building. Now let us suppose the man is deliberating whether he will roast the pig, and, if so, whether by setting fire to the house. Similarly, the first question for the American people to settle is, "What are the objects of a war?" They may be any of a myriad of things. Assume that the principal object is to defend American lives on the seas. Then we must ask, "Shall we set fire to the American mansion?" An answer depends on the answers given several other questions. Will the pig be roasted by burning the house, or burned to ashes? Is it necessary to burn the house or are there less destructive means of getting the pig roasted? How necessary is it to roast the pig? Is it more or less worth while to roast the pig than to save the other contents of the mansion which the fire will consume or damage?

Now repeat these questions so as to fit the war issue. Will war defend American lives on the seas or destroy them? Are there no alternatives which will more effectively defend American lives on the seas and with less damage to the lives and institutions on land? Suppose there are not. Then are lives on the seas more precious than the lives and activities on land, which would be burned up by war? Against sea rights we must set the rights of those who stay at home to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." We must remember that much of our progress toward more freedom of opportunity and more enjoyment of human rights would be arrested. Such constructive undertakings as the Constitutional Convention in this state would go by the board. The war against poverty and disease and evil would give place to a war against men. The large percentage of American industrial workers who are paid no more than $400 a year, when the living wage is $1,000, would continue the same living death. How can we decently visit such violent wrath upon the Germans, when their wrongs against Americans, are but a drop in the bucket compared with the unrighteous and dishonorable acts perpetrated daily with impunity upon Americans by Americans?

Of course, the foregoing does not begin to dispose of the issue. But it does indicate the scientific method of approach. It is utterly opposed to the swashbuckling code of honor or manliness, which sets up the slab-back policy and the hip-pocket ethics as categorical imperatives under all circumstances. To snub with a sneer the claims of a thousand other considerations is not patriotism; it is treason. CECIL H. SMITH 2L. Chairman.   H. DAVIS '18.   R. H. GARRISON '18.   G. L. HOWE '18.   A. N. McCOMB '18.   W. B. SOUTHWORTH '18.   C. F. ZUKOSKI '19.   B. D. ALLISON '17.