THIS THINKING UAYONKT.
Jldilor of the New York Tones :
I am much gratified to see that the
New York Times mny presently share
with myself in the abuse which has been
poured upon mo since the postmaster
general violated the United States mail
and took therefrom eight pamphlets of
mine which have been falsely held to bo
seditious and treasonable. The main
part of these pamphlets consists in sta
tistical reviews and forecasts of the past
and future of the finances of this coun
try , roupled with other tabulations of
the disease and death rates in armies
serving in the tropics. These tables
wore carefully prepared in the hope that
about a thousand copies might be used
with advantage by students of economic
science and by such members of con
gress as really give duo regnrd to the
money and the blood tax of war. Although -
though your own and other papers have
paid mo many hundred dollars , even
thousands if magazines are counted , for
statistical compilations of a very similar
character , I did not believe that in the
existing excited state of the public mind
there would be any general demand for
such data. But the violation of the
mail and the charges of sedition which
have been poured upon me have carried
the circulation of these documents with
many addenda up to 00,000. The de
mand is still active , and I expect to print
and circulate at least 100,000 copies , b -
ing well assured of such continued vol
untary contribution of money as may
enable me to supply the largest demand.
It is a very hopeful sign when great
numbers of people are being led to study
the trial balance of the Nation and to
compute for themselves the cost of the
hell of war both in taxes and in death
and disease.
An article in your paper of June 8 ,
entitled , "The Thinking Bayonet , " gives
me an opportunity to take some notice
of the facts on which false charges of
sedition and treason have been put upon
me. Referring to a debate in the Brit
ish parliament on the proposed tribute
to Lord Kitchener , in an editorial you
say : "Mr. Balfour made one remark
which has a clear and sharp application
on this side of the Atlantic. " He said :
"Those who wished to withhold from a
successful general a merited reward be
cause he has carried out a policy of
which they disapprove were virtually
telling him and his soldiers who had
faced death that they would have not
only to obey orders , but to know whoso
orders they were obeying. " He added
that the country whose army concerned
itself with politics was on the verge of a
military despotism.
To this view of the matter you rightly
take exception. You hold that "these
remarks are the obvious utterances of
mere common sense. Among other
things they constitute a condemnation
of the policy of congress in dt'teruiininp
to fight a foreign war with volunteers.
The citizen soldier does not lose his
rights ns a citizen by becoming a sol
dier. Neither should ho do so when he
is engaged in the only military service
for which a citizen soldiery is fitted.
That is , the defense of his own home
against an invader. "
Is not this seditious ? Are you not
making a dangerous distinction ? Are
you not giving a full warrant to the
volunteers now being immolated in
Manila to think for themselves , and , if
they choose , to claim the discharge to
which they are entitled , so as to get.
away from the ghastly conditions in the
Philippine ) islands as quickly as they
can ? The "thinking bayonet" of the
volunteer is , in your judgment , a differ
ent bayonet from , the unthinking one of
the regular army. I am glad to see
from these remarks that on this point
we are at such an absolute agreement.
You go on to say , "Every foreign war ,
however , is sure to create divisions of
sentiment. " Surely , when that war is
one of criminal aggression. You add ,
"The notion that these divisions of sen
timent should extend to the troops ac
tually engaged in carrying on the war ,
and that they should be invited to vote
upon the question whether the work
they are engaged in is righteous or un
righteous , and to inform themselves by
reading and by attending public meet
ings , so as to cast an intelligent ballot ,
is one that evidently commends itself to
the intelligence of Mr. Atkinson. "
An Intelligent Itnllot.
Can you find an intelligent man in
this country to whom that idea does not
commend itself ? If volunteers cannot
pass upon the questions upon which
they are to vote , how can they vote in
telligently ? If they are to vote intelli
gently , are they not entitled to state
ments , even ex parte , on either side , in
order to enable them to comprehend the
questions ? If that is admitted , by what
right does the cabinet of the United
States violate the United States mail ?
The right of the volunteer soldier to
think did commend itself to my intelli
gence when I learned that volunteers
were held in Manila against their will
and that the telegraphic dispatches of
their relatives begging them not to reenlist -
enlist had been refused transmission by
the military authorities. I hold that
these volunteers were entitled to be in
formed of all the facts. There were
among them a largo number of college
students , professors , and other high
school and college bred men , especially
in the ranks of the soldiers from the
Northwest , who had volunteered in the
cause of liberty to relieve Cuba from
the oppression of Spanish rule , and who
had been forced against their will to
fight for the subjugation of the people
of the Philippine islands. I thought
that such men might comprehend even
the dry statistics and the statements of
the government accounts which were
included in my pamphlets. It is the
right of every citizen in the United
States to give such information to all
volunteer troops , and it will be very
dangerous to any one , official or other
wise , who contests this right nnd who
attempts to deprive any citizen of it.
You , however , go on to remark that
such an act , even with respect to volun
teer troops , "is one which any profes-
siouial soldier , of any army in the
world , would have no hesitation in say
ing is utterly destructive of 'good order
and military discipline. ' One of the
things that a soldier must not discuss
is his orders. If he is encouraged to
discuss these , from those of his immed
iate superiors to those oe the war office
at home , then , as Mr. Balfour well says ,
the road to a military despotism is
open. "
Military Discipline.
In this view of the matter we part
company. If the intelligent volunteer
may not think lest military discipline
should be impaired , then the profession
of a soldier and the military system are
condemned , and rightly condemned.
If good order and military discipline
rest upon unthinking ignorance , it fol
lows that common education and the
common school will condemn regular
armies and the employment of ignor
ant men who must not think for them
selves. We may then trust to the vol
unteer system , which ( as you rightly
say ) may be trusted for defensive war
fare. The volunteer in Manila , held
against his will to fight in the war for
the subjugation of the people of the
Philippine islands , has the right to dis
cuss the orders and acts of the comman
der in chief of the army , even if he be
the president of the United States , and
to resist such orders by vote or by any
rightful method except that of mutiny.
I do not suppose that you would impute
to me or-to any man of common sense
the folly of attempting to induce sol
diers to disobey orders in the field. I
should not even send documents to the
privates in the regular army , whatever
right in law may warrant information
being given , even to them. I should re
frain , not because the regular soldier
may not be taught to think , but because
in his ignorance he may have placed
himself under such conditions as may
exist in the nations of Europe , who are
compelled to maintain great standing
armies , resting upon the ignorance of
the masses. It may be necessary for
the military classes who dominate them
to question the right of the masses to
think. When Mr. Balfour holds that
to encourage them in thinking opens
the road to military despotism we are
brought to a clear comprehension of the
difference between a government of
right by consent of the governed and a
government by privilege without the
consent of the people. It is a very sig-
