Letters
"Carefree Days"
To THE EDITOR: Re your June, 1945, issue, page 46, "The Inauguration of the Mayor of Hanover" sometime in March, 1911—I think it was on or about St. Patrick's day, March 17, if I recall I may be shaky on the date, but will I ever forget the event! Not much!
Now for the "dramatis personae" as shown in the picture.
Ist, at right, in the line of march, is Col. Frank O. Robinson, U. S. A., (whose picture also appears on the previous page). Frank is wearing a Chinese hat and is beating the drum. I recall Frank as one of the quietest and best-liked fellows- in College. (Incidentally 1 met Col. Frank some years ago at Ft. Devens while we were both on service and together we recalled this famous inauguration ceremony, and had a good laugh over it.)
Right behind Frank, with the derby cocked on the side of his head, the extra-long coat, the extra-long green sweater, and skin-tight trousers, is "Doc" D. Basil O'Connor, (Democrat—of course, and how!) the Mayor-Elect, about to be inaugurated.
I cannot identify the ghost-like, Ku Klux Klan-like figure in the white shroud, immediately following, nor the stove-pipe hat just beyond him.
The fellow in the bath-robe and toque is "Hug" Lena, 1912, the Mayor-Elect's personal bodyguard.
I think the fellow in the white hat and suit with the black bands around the trouser knees is Jack Ingersoll, 1911. I cannot recall the others in the picture, but I'm pretty sure of all these whom I have named.
The inaugural procession, with drums beating and colors flying, a-tooting and a-whooping, marched around the campus, into the Main St., door of College Hall, upstairs, and out on to the balcony above it where D. Basil O'Connor was duly inaugurated "Ma—h" (he used the correct political pronunciation of the word "Mayor"—and out of the side of his mouth, as required.) Mayor O'Connor announced his program or platform, which included the firing of the College watchman and abolition of compulsory chapel attendance. (Lusty cheers.)
"Hug" Lena was "usher" for invited guests, including "Rainy" Lines, 1912, who, attired in mortar board cap and gown over sweat-shirt and corduroys, was Special Envoy from La République and gave a speech in Frenchified English.
Connie Snow, of 1912, also spoke,—he was the "Lafayette Mulligan" or social secretary or master of ceremonies for Mayor O'Connor.
At the end of the ceremonies, when the inaugural group took their leave, and turned to go back into College Hall from the balcony, "Hug" Lena brought up the rear, carrying a jug of sweet, cider, and he turned for a moment toward the assembled multitude below and announced, in a well put-on Irish brogue:
"The new administhrayshun will now adjur-r-r-n to a room inside, for a dhrink."
I recall it all as clearly as if it were yesterday. Happy and carefree boyhood days,—those! (Incidentally Mayor O'Connor's administration was prosperous and efficient, and there were no charges of graft or corruption.)
Major, Military Police, USA. Washington, D. C.
A Way to Peace
To THE EDITOR: P. S. M. in his editorial in the May issue states,—"What we are after is insurance of world peace, to the extent that is now possible by international agreement among men as they are—." If he means international agreement through diplomatic channels and international law based in treaty agreements, then there will be no peace. A little farther on he asks—"how many of us are willing to surrender our sovereignty?" It will have to be done—Stalin isn't ready yet. Is anybody else? Here is one who is, and as an American I say who cares whether anyone else is or not. It is Our destiny to lead in this world, not to follow.
One day in December, 1919, I was served notice by "Red" Shaw that I would have to deliver myself of an "oration" if I expected to get by his course in public speaking. I elected to speak, without preparation except 210 days combat service, in favor of the League of Nations. I remember saying that if we did not join it, Article X and all, the world would be at war again in 20 years. War came in September 1939.
At the present writing, we are building for World War Ill. Principally for the reason that all our thinking with respect to a way of lasting peace seems to be carried on from the viewpoint and level of national pride, rather than from that of the individual who fights wars and for whom the peace is theoretically being made.
If we are fighting this war to perpetuate the new form of tyranny that is known as nation or empire, I want none of it.
If we are fighting it for the welfare of the individual citizen of the world, then I am for it.
A way of lasting peace can be found in a basis in law and after three distinct steps have been taken:
(1) Ratification of a great Declaration ofIntent by a United Nations of the World.
(2) Ratification of a great Bill of Rights for all men, to implement the Declaration of Intent.
(3) Ratification of the legislative, executive and judicial procedure necessary to enact, administer and interpret the StatuteLaw needed to secure delivery of the Bill of Rights to all men.
Our Declaration of Intent should very simply declare our gratitude for the means of life, our willingness to accept them as the property of all people,, and our determination to see to it that we shall be good trustees of them for the welfare of all.
Our Bill of Rights should cover only those things determined to be within the area of common understanding between all peoples. Basically these are food, clothing and shelter. Thereafter should be guaranteed the right to share in the use of the means of life to improve our standard of living according to our varying and changing capacities. Other rights, such as freedom of worship, of expression, of governing ourselves as nations as we may ourselves determine in our national legislatures, and others might be found of common agreement, but forever let us establish those rights inherent in our creation to live in a world which also provides the means to continue life.
Our legislative, executive and judicial system should be designed to secure the delivery of the Bill of Rights, under law.
This is the principle of World Trusteeshipof Life and the Means of Life. Wars, modern world wars most especially, arise out of the abuse of the use of the means of life. If we can, even in small measure, begin to create the ways and means of controlling these abuses, we will be on the high road to peace. And not until then.
It will have to come through the will of the people to have it, and note I insist upon ratification of each step. This insures that the cornerstone and foundation of our structure for peace will be based in law, fundamental, common and statute law, and not in that illusion of law which we know as international law, having its basis in diplomatic agreements.
This is a union of 50 or more sovereign nations in much the same manner as we are a union of 48 sovereign states and some territories.
For almost exactly 338 years, we have worked to accomplish this sort of a way of life here. It is our heritage.
It is our destiny to carry it out into the world from which our ancestors came. It is our destiny to lead, not to follow.
If we do not wish to make this choice, the only alternative is to proceed to become the very thing we are fighting against,—proud, greedy nations, bent on acquiring all the earth's resources we can control for our own transitory comfort, and what a lovely future that holds out for us.
I would much prefer that the remainder of my lifetime be given over to the working out of a union of all the peoples of the world working toward the end of accepting the ownership of the means given to us to live, leasing them back to each nation to have and to hold under law designed to give forever to all men the rights to which we were created.
Rutland, Vt.
Sovereignty Not Lost
To THE EDITOR: In using the plural of the word people when mentioning nations we frequently miss the difference between governments and people. It is well to keep in mind that governmental contacts are not the only contacts between the people of the various nations.
Those who are in contact with only a small number of the voluntary international nonpolitical organizations devoted to various good works are aware of the fact that there are in practically all nations people civilized enough to realize the necessity of World Organization.
Had such organizations been stronger in the United States after the last war, the story of the interval between the wars might have been much different. It was these salutary international movements among the plain people that the totalitarians first attacked within the nations over which they gained control. The supporters of these international movements formed the backbone of the democratic "undergrounds" that aided in blocking and turning back the Axis forces. Had these organizations been stronger where they were first suppressed, there might not have been a Second World War by this time.
With these democratic people it is hot a question of giving up their sovereignty. It is one of making sovereignty over their own lives secure by reorganizing it locally, nationally and internationally. They lost sovereignty to the Axis power. They now would regain it and so distribute it among local, national and international governments that they may make it fully secure.
With us in the United States, it is not a question of surrendering sovereignty. It is a matter of applying the sovereignty each of us has to international affairs in much the same manner in which we already have applied our sovereignty in interstate affairs..
For instance, the people of New Hampshire did not lose any sovereignty when they transferred part of it from their state government to our federal government. They acquired sovereignty in the same degree over the other twelve original states and the territory between the Appalachians and the Mississippi River. Later their sovereignty was extended to the Pacific and across it to the Philippine Islands.
Only when we renounce our sovereignty over the Philippines will we lose any sovereignty. We need not lose that, if we join in a world organization of the people in the interest of freedom and security against aggression.
By removing from a group of politicians who might make trouble for us part or all of their authority to do so and transferring to other politicians pledged and authorized to stop trouble enough of our sovereignty to make them effective for that purpose, we do not lose any sovereignty. We make a salutary use of the sovereignty we possess and propose to keep.
Harvard, Mass.
