| Transcript |
FAITH, a disloyal Party editor, he,
of course, DOES NOT feel himself
under, has no sense of, any such obligation.
SECOND DEFENSE — "The
matter was frequently treated by the
Vorwaerts in such a style that I
could not use the article."-—Quite
possible; every one has his own style
of presenting a thing; one man's
style is often distasteful to another;
that sentiment must be respected.
But a Party editor, with faith in
the Party's future, a loyal editor,
feels in such a case BOUND to use
such facts, presented in a style that
he disapproves of, and take the
trouble himself to write an article
upon them in the style that suits
him. An editor, on the contrary, who
has no such faith, a DISLOYAL
Party editor, HE feels himself under no such obligation; TO HIM,
that would be "too much bother";
HE takes it easy.
THIRD DEFENSE—"I could
not vouch for the facts mentioned
in The People."—Again, this is a
consideration that deserves respect;
the editor of a paper must feel sure
of the facts he publishes; false facts
would rather injure. But a Party
editor, with faith in the Party's future, a LOYAL, conscientious editor, feels BOUND to verify such
facts. An editor, on the contrary,
with no such faith, a DISLOYAL
Party editor, runs away from work;
HE does not fill the office for the
Party's sake; HE ducks his head,
lets the facts slide—and draws his
salary.
But all this is only the "little
end" of the horn, symptomatic
enough of such element, but yet only
the "little end" of the horn in the
development. From not "feeling
bound" to take in everything, from
"not feeling bound" to exert themselves in behalf of the Party, the
element that has no faith in the Party develops disloyaltyward. The
next step is a readiness to give the
enemy "the benefit of the doubt."
You all know the defense of the
Carey-Debs Democracy in the matter of their Armory record, to wit,
that if Carey had not voted for the
$15,000 armory appropriation a
heavy fine would have followed.
How did Schlueter treat the matter? He gave the defense in full
and then, editorially, added that he
was not qualified to judge upon its
correctness — and his supporters
support him in this! Think of it, a
Party editor, within six hours' ride
of Haverhill, "unqualified" to pass
judgment upon so stupidly infamous
and infamously stupid a defense!
The element that HAS faith in the
Party feels its pulse beat with indignation at such a "defense," and
no effort is too much for it to make
in order to confute the rascal Ar-
moryites. The element, on the contrary, that HAS NO FAITH in the
Party, the element and editor that
are on the lookout for a "new
party" to rise, they, of course, find
it in keeping with their sentiments
to "be gentle" with such miscreants,
possibly the expected "new party"
—and thus the irritation is increased while the lines are being
drawn sharper between them.
The element that has no faith in
the Party presently begins to tamper with the Party's principles and
policy, while still pretending fealty
to it. This is happening on the subject of the Party's trade union policy. From Schlueter down, you
have seen them take up and hug to
19
|
