President Wilson requests--or shall we say entreats--his countrymen to support him and give him a vote of confidence by voting for a Democratic Congress--a Democratic majority for Senate and House--in the coming elections.

He says, among other things: "The Republican minority leaders in the present Congress were, without doubt, in favor of the war, but they were against the administration. At every occasion since our entry into the war they have endeavored to take the decisions for a program and the conduct of the war out of my hands and subject them to factors which they themselves have approved." And then he adds: "The election of a Republican Congress would certainly be regarded on the other side of the water as a repudiation of my leadership." He could have continued with: "and as a rejection of my war aims and peace plans".

This appeal of the President is called by the Republicans quite an extraordinary and unjustified procedure, "one of the most lamentable events in the history of the American Presidency". Of course it is quite extraordinary. President Wilson said so himself by declaring: "In ordinary times I would not feel justified in making such an appeal to you. In ordinary times divided opinions can prevail without permanent injury to the country. But these are not ordinary times! If you desire, during these critical days, to support me unanimously, then I ask you to show this in a way that will permit no misunderstanding in our own country or with our Allies on the other side of the ocean. I submit to you my problems and my hopes."

If the President appeals directly to the people during these unusual times--this crisis--we do not find it lamentable but rather gratifying. For this is genuinely democratic, and for what else are we fighting than true democracy, which leaves with the people the decision of great problems? It was not only justified but, under the circumstances, even necessary. The reply of the Republican leaders in Congress (Senators Lodge and Smoot and Representatives Fred N. Gillett and S. D. Fess) prove this sufficiently.

This reply maintains that the Republican minority in Congress showed more willingness in conducting the war and supporting all war measures than the Democratic majority, and closes with the words: "All the world knows that the Republican party will have nothing to do with negotiations or consultations by diplomatic notes to the German government. The Republican party demands unconditional surrender. There is no Republican slogan short enough to omit these two words."

That is the exact truth. All the world knows, or should know, that the Republican party, or its leaders and mouthpieces, pressed for war from the time that it started in Europe; that it espoused the war enthusiastically and, when war finally was at hand, did everything possible to augment it by stirring up the passions. All the world knows, also, that the Republican leaders always did their best to make the government more and more ambitious in regard to war aims and to make it advocate more severe peace terms. No one would dare to doubt the war spirit of the Republican leaders and the big interests which they represent; everybody will be convinced that a Republican Congress 4should be elected on November 4 in order to prevent a so-called premature peace and that America's best interests will be served by carrying on the war to the bitter end: War is to be waged for the attainment of the war aims of the European Entente Powers as a whole and for the satisfaction of any possible ambition that each of the Allies might have!

But that is not the case. That could not be to America's best interests. America can and will conduct war only to accomplish America's war aims as they were formulated by President Wilson, that is, until autocracy and military rule in Germany have been destroyed and democracy made safe--until a permanent peace, based on absolute justice toward friend and foe, is assured.

With a peace of this kind the Republican leaders apparently will have nothing to do. If they could be induced to agree to such a peace (which the overwhelming majority of the people eagerly desire), they certainly would not want the Democratic administration and party to get the honor and glory of having concluded such a peace, but are rather determined, if it is at all possible, to 5secure the glory for themselves and the Republican party of having brought peace to the American people. Consequently, their victory in the coming elections would mean at best a prolongation of this horrible war; it would mean that the blessings of peace were denied us for many months, or perhaps for years.

We hope that all citizens will study the President's appeal closely, that they will reflect carefully and then ponder the war aims and the peace program of the President. They will then realize that in the next Congressional elections the question is not Republican or Democratic, or how the war shall be conducted and won, but rather: Shall the people back up the President's war aims and peace program; or shall these be rejected and all peace negotiations terminated, the war aims of the European Entente Powers to become authoritative for America's war and peace policy?

All who desire a just and lasting peace will vote for the Democratic candidates for Senate and Congress who are pledged to support the President's war and peace 6aims. But those who would like to see the war aims and ambitions of the Entente Powers made the basis for America's policy, or would like to see the war prolonged, should vote for the Republican candidates for Congress, who, if elected, will be under the leadership of the Lodges, Smoots, and Roosevelts.