7

1

7

download/literature/watchtower/1919-3.pdf

/../literature/watchtower/1919/3/1919-3-1.html

(18 35) of Sacrifice,’ together with the subject, “The Two Parts of the Harvest,’ I am fully assured, dear brethren, that the Lord is using the same channel in giving the necessary food for the upbuilding of his people. Our prayers have been, and are yet, on your behalf that the dear Lord may continue to guide and direct your work and labors of love to the praise THE WATCH TOWER Pirrspurcu, Pa of the God of all grace. In the Nov. 15th issue the article on “Self-Denial”—in fact, all the articles are exeellent; and we feel that we could not do without the “meat in due season,” “things new and old,” from the storehouse. With love to all at the Watch Tower office, I remain Your brother in Christ, J. C.,—Ohio, BAIL DENIED—APPEAL PENDING Application for bail in the ease of Brother Rutherford and associates was denied by the Circuit Court of Appeals on December 3rd last, probably without a full review of the facts and circumstances by reason of the near date of argument, The case ia expected to be reviewed in the Appellate Court within thirty days, and an early decision is anticipated. NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS REQUESTED The Society would be pleased to receive newspaper clippings bearing upon the subject of genera] Amnesty for political prisoners, and particularly anything in reference to the case of J. F. Rutherford et al. Please mark the name and date of the paper from which the clipping is taken. RESOLUTIONS OF LOVE AND LOYALTY So many resolutions of loyalty to the Society and pledges of co-operation have been received from classes within the past few days that it is impossible to publish them all. We aek that the dear friends accept this as acknowledgment of any such resolution and pledges, with the assurance of our deepest appreciation therefor. Publication of as many as possible will be made from time to time in THE WatTcH Tower columns. A CORRECTION An unfortunate reference to “a Brooklyn sister,” whose name however was not given, appeared in the second paragraph of a circular letter sent out from thia office under date of Dec. 12th. We now learn that our information was inac Vout. XL PITTSBURGH, PA., FEBRUARY 1, 1919 curate; and so far as we are aware no Brooklyn sister is responsible for false reports as described. We are glad, therefore, to make this correction at this time. No. 3 VIEWS FROM THE WATCH TOWER Now that the great war has come to an end and the definite conclusion of peace seems to be a near reality, the year 1919 appears big with possibilities from practically every viewpoint. Men who have been grappling with momentous problems, and who have often been on the verge of complete despair during the four years’ struggle just ended now take new courage as they emerge from the world chaos and look out into the immediate future. Notwithstanding this happy aspect, however, serious-minded stateamen of all nations seem conscious of the fact that the greatest precautions must be taken in the manipulation of the world’s affaira at this juncture, lest there arise international jealousies, suspicions and misunderstandings, and a general discontent on the part of the masses that may lead to grave difficulties in all lands. Bolshevism is a terror to every conservative statesman the world over. Particular concern is being expressed in the public press of England and also of America that delay in dealing liberally with political prisoners now being held in penitentiaries and disciplinary barracks beyond the period of hostilities abroad may breed such wide-spread dissatisfaction as would prove detrimental to the best interests of the state. We quote from The New Republic (N. Y.} of Jan. 11, 1919, as follows: “In England there is already on f6ot a movement for the release of all persons held in prison for conscientious refusal to do military service. It is not a radical movement. Nor is it a sentimental movement. Among the signers of the petitions for amnesty we find such names as those of Viscount Bryce, Viscount Morley, Sir John Simon, Lord Buckmaster, ete. These men have been wholehearted supporters of the war and of the measures necessary to render England’s war policies effective. They would be among the last to urge any action that would be prejudicial to the good order of the state. They recognize that no civil purpose is advanced in the least by further penalties inflicted upon conscientious objectors. Therefore why not set them free? “No free state can possibly make a crime out of refusal to serve in war when such refusal is actuated by sincere conscientious motives. We may consider such an attitude illogical, absurd. ... But we have passed beyond the point of barbarism. To attempt by threats and penalties to force such a man into military service would be tyranny as hideous as that of the Roman proconsul who slew the seven brothers and their mother because they refused to eat swine’s flesh. “The conscientious objectors in disciplinary barracks or in jails represent nothing but a part of our machinery of conscription. That was a hideous bit of machinery to use, but we were at war and did not stick at means. But now the war is over, and we have scrapped the rest of our machinery of conacription, is there the slightest reason why we should keep this least defensible part of our machinery in motion? Is there the least ground for subjecting to further privations and tortures the men who have committed no crime against the state? “No crime? But how does it come that they are serving penitentiary terms of ten, twenty and twenty-five years? That is a result of the infinite stupidity of our war policy, which we ought not to seek to justify, but for which we ought to make amends, “Men have been manacled, confined for outrageous periods in solitary confinement, thrust into a dangerous condition of physical ebility, driven insane. To what end, in God’s name? In order to strike terror into the hearts of draft evaders outside: that was the only plausible reason. But then, why were not these tortures conducted in the open, where they might have exerted their supposed salutary effect? Why did not Mr. Baker’s War Department bulletins run something like this: ‘The Department reports with satisfaction that C. O. John Smith has been so successfully harried that he is now a raving maniac, and the chances are excellent that he will never recover’? “Let us forget it, grant amnesty to ourselves for it; we were only stupid, not depraved. ... Let us not leave it to the radicals, the sentimentalists, the sympathizers with doctrinary pacificism, to make the first move in the matter. This is not a radical issue, but an issue as old and as respectable as political liberty.” From the same publication, under date of Jan. 4, 1919, we quote the following: “The fighting is over. America is asking the nations to consent to a peace resting upon justice. With what possible grace can we appear before the conference table.as a champion of liberty when some 300 conscientious objectors and more than 1,000 prisoners under the Espionage Act are confined in abominable prisons under sentences of five, ten, twenty or thirty years for no other crime than loyalty to conviction? Surely when Americans know the truth they will demand an amnesty as the only possible proof of our sincerity in waging a war for the right of men everywhere ‘to choose their way of life and obedience.’ ” Thus while statesmen and journalists are discussing these matters from the standpoint of expediency as well as of justice, the Lord’s people are in a position to view matters from an additional angle. We are able to see that the present crisis of history is exactly that which was foretold by the prophets of Israel centuries ago. The war and its attendant sufferings have been depicted in the Old Testament writings, [6382]