The Southland Times PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. Luceo Non Uro. FRIDAY, JUNE 4, 1920. THE PRACTICAL WAY.

Southland Times, Issue 18839, 4 June 1920, Page 4

The Southland Times PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. Luceo Non Uro. FRIDAY, JUNE 4, 1920. THE PRACTICAL WAY.

Oi:r friend ' Iona" contributes, an instalment of what appears to he an exceedingly in(ercsti ng statement upon the mild controversy that has been proceeding between us regarding Mr de V alera’s statements in the United States. Ho docs us an injustice, however, when he suggests that the repetition of the quotation of the “president’s’' remarks was made for any purpose other than that of reminding him of the point upon which he joined issue with us. It will be remembered that all along we have ridiculed the statement that the Irish divisions were given certain duties in the war for the purpose of decimating or utterly destroying them, and we hold no .higher opinion of our correspondent’s suggestion that the British Government under Lord John Russell deliberately attempted in 1547 to murder the Irish people. The famine of that period was a terrible thing and tire blundering of the government of the day is worthy of the sternest condemnation, but (he stupidity of a harassed government does not prove intent to murder a people. An acquaintance with Ganorr O’Rourke’s heartrending story <>f that terrible time docs not shake that view, and we do not think that the “History of the Famine” can support the charge that ’Tona" has made, the charge that we have combated, the charge that the famine of 1847 wtrs “engineered for the purpose of decimating or entirely destroying” the Irish people. Our correspondent has accepted our distinction between the government under Lord John Russell and the people of England in that [>eriod and we ask him to distinguish between that government and the government of the present day, which is nearer to being the government of the people than was the ministry in 1847. It is this fact that makes us deplore the Irishman’s tendency to live in the wrongs of the past, to reply to the Home Rule Bill of 1920 with the argument that Lord John Russell did not do something and that Oliver Cromwell did worse in the years gone by. As to George Creel: we are afraid that "Iona” expects much if he thinks that we will take Mr Creel’s book “Ireland’s Fight for Free-

ilom” as the work of an unbiased witness. Reviewers of it, Americans of the Americans, did not find it so. It is probable that “Iona” is not quite clear about the antecedents of and tiie position hold by Mr Creel. He did not hold “an important position in the fitting out of the American Army,” but was chairman of the Committee of Public Information, an entirely different thing. What Mr Creel says regarding the ignorance of Irish affairs is mostly “buncombe. ’ The world may be ignorant of Ireland; that is not due to acts of the British government, but to the people’s failure to read, and it is safe to say that to-day the average American citizen has less knowledge of English affairs than he has of Irish -one has only to read their newspapers to see to what lengths their ignorance of England can go. In this matter the active proIrish propaganda plays a big part. These points, of course, do not touch the figures quoted by Mr Creel to knock down some "Ulster claims” that he himself uproars. We know that the whole of Ulster is not Unionist and we ourselves quoted the very figures that Mr Creel is using, a few months ago to show the exact position in tnat province, but when all these things arc allowed does it not appear plain to the unbiassed eye that until the Unionist and Protestant portion of Ulster is ready to enter willingly into a scheme for national government the adoption of national Home Rule will perpetuate strife, not merely in Ulster but wherever there arc opponents of Home Rule? It appears to us that the best possible means, the practical way of working to a unified government in Ireland is the “half-loaf,” if we may call it that, which the government is now offering. But this is not what the Sinn F’ein want. Mr Creel and “Iona” speaks as if Sinn Feiners and Nationalists were aiming at the same thing, and yet both know that there is a great gulf between them. The fact that Sinn Fein demands an Independent Republic, that Mr de Valera is the “president” of that republic puls an entirely different complexion on the Irish situation and it must not be ignored. At the present moment the anti-British movement is being conducted chiefly by the Sinn Fein and yet at. the General Election of 191S that party did not. obtain a majority, the total votes being:—-

Sinn Fein .. .. .. .. 484,526 Nationalist 232,909 Unionist 297,437 Others 17,957 Total 1,032,829 As we said before Mr Creel’s arguments do not touch the main issue, which is the accuracy of Mr de Valera’s statements, and they do not. help us to a practical solution of the problem. To our way of thinking the Imperial government’s Home Rule bill offers an opportunity for a big step in the direction of a united self-governing Ireland as a unit of the British Empire. The liveliest opponents of this arc the Sinn Feiners, who want independence (which will not be tolerated by any part of the Empire), and the Nationalist, who will not take less than the whole of a province, the majority of the inhabitants of which are unwilling. The slower process will be the best in the end. The way is open for a march forward along this line and the people who refuse to allow the step to be taken, and who couple their refusal with imputations of murderous motives on the part of the British Government are not really as keen for a united Ireland within the Empire as they try to make out.