THE PEOPLE'S COUNCIL OF AMERICA FOR DEMOCRACY AND PEACE
February 25th, [1918]
My dear Dr. Lynch: --
I tried to call on you on Saturday last, in accordance with your wishes, only to find that you were out of the city. I therefore, take the letter route of replying to your note to me, dated February 14th.
The implication of your letter, which, I am glad to note, you write under orders and not from personal volition, is clearly that because I am an officer of the People's Council, certain members of the American Branch of the Central Organization for a Durable Peace object to my membership in the Branch. I suppose they hope that your intimation to me of that fact may prove sufficient to produce my resignation.
Now, I should under ordinary circumstances be only too happy to accommodate them. If my presence has been objectionable to them, theirs has certainly been no less trying to me, for I stand almost alone in the group, while my objectors have the advantage of finding at each of our meetings a majority of like-minded "war patriots". Moreover, while I have no connections with "committees of the Administration" that can be endangered by contamination with a pacifist, and while happily the necessity does not exist in my case to "appear perfectly loyal to the prosecution of the war," yet I have no homely a thing as a conscience which I am trying to keep clear. That conscience, I admit frankly has bothered me somewhat of late. After every recent meeting of the American Group of the Central Organization it has asked me, "Why do you continue with a crowd which is bound at every meeting to introduce resolutions which have nothing whatever to do with the purposes for which you were organized?"
You see, therefore, that my problem is quite as complicated as that of the men who object to my membership. It is further complicated by the fact that technically I owe my appointment not to any American [page 2] source, but to the international officers of the Central Organization at The Hague, to whom I would naturally have to tender my resignation were I to tender it at all.
Let me then, set forth briefly the reasons why I deem it inexpedient to resign: --
First: the question as to whether or not one supports the present war is absolutely irrelevant. The Central Organization has consistently taken the attitude that it is concerned with the principles of a lasting peace, irrespective of a national's point of view regarding his government's participation in the war.
Second: there is abundant precedent in other countries to show that connection with a truly pacifist organization does not militate against membership in the Central Organization. I refer you to the "Expose des Travaux de l'Organisation" by Dr. Chr. Lange, published by the Central Organization in September, 1917. On the executive Committee, as given by Dr. Lange, are, among other, Mgr. Dr. A. Giesswein, Prof. Dr. H. Lammasch, and Prof. Dr. Walter Schucking. None of these, I believe are "loyal to the prosecution of the war." Again, there are such neutrals as J. Scherrer-[Füllemann], Dr. B. De Jong Van Beek en Donk or K. M. Klausen. Each of these stands for a "negotiated peace" such as the People's Council stands for. Or, there is Prof. G. Lowes Dickinson -- a frank critic of the policies of his Government. Again, on the "Conseil International" are such men and women as Eduard Bernstein, Rosa Genoni, Henri Guilbeaux, Dr. N. [Rubakin], Philip Snowden, Otto Volkart (I mention but a very few), all of whom are unalterably opposed to war in the same sense in which members of the People's Council are opposed to it.
Third: the People's Council comes much closer to being a counterpart of some of the organizations identified with the Central Organization than does the American Branch. I refer, for instance, to the activities and program of the Nederlandsche Anti-cerleg Raad, the Bund Neues Vaterland, the Union of Democratic Control, and others, which are strikingly similar to those of the People's Council.
Fourth: from my personal contact with ten of the fourteen members of the International Executive Committee and with many members of the Conseil International, I flatter myself into thinking that I, too, come much closer to representing the ideals of the Central Organization than do the American members who object to my presence. None of the European members have, as far as I know, tried to use their respective groups as vehicles for adopting "loyalty" resolutions, or resolutions favoring annexationist schemes, such as were proposed in recent meetings of our American Branch. None of them have questioned the inter-political views of their associates. Whatever their personal feelings, they have in their activities inside the Central Organization adhered strictly to the promulgation, discussion and study of the "Minimum Program". If in their other activities they have concerned themselves at all with the present war, they have exerted themselves, as I am doing in the People's Council, in the direction of
a. A constant [restatement] of war aims (with which President Wilson evidently agrees, for he is modifying his pronouncements all the time) [page 3]
b. The insistence upon an early, general peace by negotiation (to which President Wilson, if I read his recent utterances, now also subscribes).
c. Popular representation in the coming peace settlement (the Central Organization itself hopes to hold a Congress at the time and place of the peace negotiations in order to bring popular pressure to bear upon the peace negotiations.)
In support of my contentions on this point, I refer to the activities of Dr. De Jong Van Beek en Donk, Eduard Bernstein, J. Scherrer-[Füllemann], Philip Snowden, and others in this direction.
Feeling, therefore, as I do, that I came much closer to being in harmony with the principles and activities of the European members of the Central Organization, than do the distinguished men who have resigned, I ease the conscience to which I referred above, by telling myself that every resignation on the part of American members (on the grounds that I as an officer of the People's Council contaminates them) gives a ray of hope that the vacancy may be filled by someone more in harmony with the spirit of the Central Organization.
[Fifth]: without knowing who the "three foremost men" were who have resigned, I beg respectfully to differ as to whether after all, they are the "foremost men". In the tremendous upheaval caused by this war, who is "foremost"? Has not the whole history of the war shown that the "Foremost men" of today give place to the "Unknowns" tomorrow? Supposing the American Branch were to fill its quota by adding, say, Morris Hillquit, Judah L. Magnes, James H. Maurer, Scott Nearing, Seymour Stedman, or Amos Pinchot? If, as I understand it, the Central Organization is looking into the future, into the time after the war, then certainly it will be picking future "foremost men" by electing the men above suggested to fill vacancies as they occur, and it will find that our present "foremost men" can well be spared.
[Sixth]: much as I regret to hear that Mrs. Andrews is "greatly disturbed" over the present state of things, and much as I should like to accommodate her, for reasons of chivalry and personal esteem, I cannot adhere to the principle that any one person may have a proprietary interest in this movement. When Mrs. Andrews on a previous occasion gave evidence of this proprietary interest by warning the international officers at The Hague not to have anything to do with the Ford Peace Expedition, these officers nevertheless, after informing themselves of the facts of the case permitted the international secretary and several other members, both of the Executive Committee and of the Conseil International, to become members of the Ford Neutral Conference. Moreover, a coordination of effort was affected, official cooperation was established, and a considerable monthly sum set aside from the budget of the Ford Conference as a subsidy to the Central Organization. With all due deference to our exceedingly capable American representative on the International Executive, therefore, I must insist that her discomfiture, while greatly to be regretted, must not enter into the question at issue. [page 4]
Under these circumstances, rather than complying with your polite intimation that I resign, I deem it my duty to forward a copy of this letter as well as yours, together with full literature regarding the People's Council, to the central office at The Hague, and to await instructions. And as I believe thoroughly in "open diplomacy" I shall take the liberty of transmitting a copy of this correspondence to all the members of the American Branch, unless upon reading it you see grave reasons why it should be withheld.
During the interim I shall attend as many meeting of our group as possible, and you will find me, I hope, constructive and helpful so long as no one tries to introduce resolutions foreign to the spirit which originally brought us together, and foreign to the international after-the-war program of the Central Organization.
Believe me,
Very sincerely yours,
Comments