PRESIDENT WILSON IN THE" WELCOME HOME" PARADE WASHINGTON

T

HE reign of Bolshevism in Russia is only natural. No other results could have obtained under such conditions. Centuries of tyrannical and autocratic rule in Russia could have produced no other fruitage.

The autocratic power of the state claimed absolute control over the bodies, while the equally autocratic authority of the established church held tyrannical dominance over the souls, of all people in Russia. The individual had no rights which he could call his own. He was a mere tool, or serf, of the Russian state, and was not permitted to follow his conscience except as the Holy Synod of the Russian church directed. The church and the state were absolute in authority in all things, and the individual was nothing, except as he could be utilized to serve some end in behalf of the Russian church or state.

The Russian people had felt the iron heel of oppression on their necks for many years. This kept growing heavier with each passing year, and their love and respect for the church and the state kept growing less and less in proportion as they were being deprived of their civil and religious rights by the political and ecclesiastical autocrats. The whole political and ecclesiastical government of Russia had resolved itself into one of the worst tyrannical and despotic military machines the world ever saw. When once in the grip of this inhuman machine, no man could say his body or his soul was his own. From the highest officers in the state and in the established church, to the lowest lieutenant and priest in the ranks, there was no court of appeal in defense of the com

mon rights of the common people to which any man could resort. The great masses of the people were being ground to powder by the political, military, and religious autocrats, and the common people had no advocate to plead their cause.

They saw, finally, that their only hope of deliverance from their dilemma was to institute a revolution against the old régime of the Russian autocratic form of government at a time when the possibilities of a successful revolution were most promising. In this the Russian people as a mass were a unit. Bolshevism was the natural outgrowth of the despotic and tyrannical rule of civil, military, and religious autocracy in Russia.

The present revolutionary movement in Russia and in other countries where civil and religious autocracy has fallen before the onward march of Bolshevism, should teach an impressive and lasting lesson to the remaining governments of men that have not yet fallen under this disintegrating influence. No government can afford to be tyrannical in dealing with any portion of its citizens, by ignoring civil and religious rights which are God-given and inalienable. Any government that treats its citizens or any portion of them as mere subjects and serfs, having no rights which they can call their own, in either civil or religious concerns, is bound, sooner or later, to reap the harvest of its own seed sowing. If a government sows to the wind of tyranny, it must reap the whirlwind of Bolshevism. It must expect to reap more than it sows. This is an unvarying law of nature.

When an oppressed people are suddenly released from centuries of thraldom, and from the grossest kind of darkness, and are quickly brought into the glorious liberty of the sons of freedom and into the full light of the modern world, their eyes are dazzled and their minds bewildered for the moment, and they are prone to lose the true path leading to the citadel of universal freedom and equality of rights. Their follies and mistakes are due more to errors of judgment and lack of experience than to badness of heart. A people who are liberated in such environment deserve our pity more than our censure.

The Russian people endured oppression until the bonds of tyranny could no longer restrain the desire to be free at any cost or sacrifice. Social welfare and human liberty began to be esteemed of greater value in the hearts of the soldiers, working classes, and peasants than national interests which meant only the strengthening of the hands of their oppressors.

One of the immediate causes which precipitated the Russian revolution and caused the soldiers and workingmen to rise up against their military masters, was the veto given to their appeal requesting the privilege of choosing their own military leaders. Their military masters, appointed by the autocratic power of Russia, did not have one iota of sympathy for the soldiers and workingmen, or interest in their social and material welfare. These men and their dependents were treated by their masters as vassals, with no promise of improved conditions in the future.

The military autocrat trampled with impunity upon every inalienable

czar said he would continue the war until the last muzhik (Russian peasant) was sacrificed No one could question his arbitrary authority without paying the price of his life. No one had a right to interpose his duty to obey his conscience as a paramount obligation upon hir soul, when it conflicted with the command of a military martinet. The abuses of military authority violated every principle of justice and humanity. In order that these abuses might cease, the soldiers and workingmen de sired the privilege of choosing military leaders, who represented the masses more directly. When relief was denied them by the military autocrats, the spirit of unrest and discontent broke all restraint. Will the militarists of the autocratic type in other nations learn a lesson from Russia's experience?

We believe that the leading responsible men holding high offices in the American Army and Navy and in the general Administration, have earnestly endeavored to uphold and maintain the high American ideals of essential justice and true democracy during the great war just concluded. Notwithstanding this, however, certain abuses occurred under subordinate officers which have caused dissatisfaction. Perhaps it was due to our defective military system, which we patterned after an autocratic instead of a democratic scheme.

According to reliable statements, the American Government needs to revise the regulations and laws of the military establishment as at present constituted and administered by some of the martinets in the American Army. We are informed by American jurists that our

Scenes in Russia military régime in its arbitrary exae tions is an exnet reproduction of the autocratic military establishments of medieval Europe, and has been re sponsible for gross abuses and much dissatisfaction.

(Continued on page

F

EW people know the origin of Sunday laws. If the majority knew, they would no longer advocate such statutes, but would demand their repeal. A brief examination of the origin and development of Sunday laws will reveal clearly, not only their original nature, but their present object.

"Let all the judges and townspeople, and the occupation of all trades, rest on the venerable day of the sun; but let those who are situated in the country, freely, and at full liberty, attend to the business of agriculture; because it often happens that no other day is so fit for sowing corn and planting vines; lest the critical moment being let slip, men should lose the commodities granted of heaven."-" History of the Christian Church," Philip Schaff, Vol. II, chap. 3, p. 105.

There is no record anywhere in history that any Sunday laws existed during the first three centuries of the Christian era. Christianity spread rapidly over the Roman Empire. By the beginning of the fourth century the persecutions of Christians had largely ceased. Christianity became popular, and, according to reliable church historians, greatly corrupted. Compromises of all sorts were made with heathen rites and a pagan state. Especially was this true of Mithraism, the new and aggressive Eastern form of paganism, which, being transmitted to the Roman world during the first century B. C., had now largely supplanted the older and more gross heathenism of the West.

Sunday was a day not only held in great reverence by the new paganism, being dedicated to its chief deity, the sun, but by this time it had come to be highly regarded by many Christians also, especially such as were converts from the new heathenism, because of the resurrection of Christ upon that day. Constantine, who was then emperor, seeing an opportunity to please both these parties, issued in the year 321 A. D. the following decree:

This, according to Chambers's Cyclopedia (article, "Sabbath ") is "the first law, ecclesiastical or civil, by which the sabbatical observance of that day is known to have been enjoined." It will be noted that the Roman emperor did not in his decree enjoin the observance of the day for the reason that modern Christians frequently assign to its observance. He did not command it to be observed in honor of the resurrection of Christ, but of the sun deity, and for the heathen worshipers of the sun. Later, this law, with certain modifications, was incorporated into the church ritual by the great councils of the church.

The Church Council of Nicæa, in 325 A. D., legislated for the first time in favor of Sunday observance, by requiring all Christians to observe Easter annually on Sunday, instead of, as previously, on the same day as the Jewish Passover, which, being regulated by the moon, fell upon different days of the week in different