In view of the constant pressure upon the present administration to extend diplomatic recognition to the soviet regime in Russia, we think it appropriate to remind our readers of some of the reasons why such an action on the part of our government would be a grievous mistake. The first is that this has been tried, more or less experimentally, and quite recently, in both Great Britain and France, to the complete disillusionment and disappointment of all but the communists themselves. The story is well told in an editorial in the Washington "Post," February 1, 1925, from which we quote as follows: "It was only a short time ago that Mr. Ramsay MacDonald was Prime Minister of England. Before he reached that exalted position he and his party were keen for the recognition of bolshevik Russia. It was exactly what one might expect from a Labor party tinged with communism and shot through with socialism. . . . . . M. Herriot, ... M. Herriot, Prime Minister of France, wanted to help his friend Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, Prime Minister of England, who was having none too easy a time of it. Mr. MacDonald, having the defects of his convictions, proceeded to negotiate a treaty with the Soviets, and asked Parliament to ratify it. M. Herriot also extended the friendly hand to Moscow. They say (probably this time "they" told the truth) that M. Herriot was moved to recognize Russia, hoping

it would help MacDonald at home. According to the pleasant fiction now existing, there are millions and millions to be made out of Russia. These simple-minded and honest bolsheviks are yearning to give away immensely valuable concessions to anyone with whom they have diplomatic relations. The Devil, it will be noted, always gives something for nothing. France must not be allowed to have all the good things.

"It was bad luck for the bolsheviks that after the treaty had been signed, but before it was ratified by Parliament, there was made public a document, coming from Russian sources, advising British communists, for the good of the cause, to tamper with the British army and incite it to mutiny. This document was angrily denounced as a forgery; it may have been, although the British government was satisfield as to its authenticity, but the English accepted it as genuine and went to the polls determined to take no chances. MacDonald and his rabble were turned out, and Mr. Baldwin, backed by a solid Conservative majority, came in. That was a disappointment to M. Herriot, and it left him somewhat in the position of Mahommed's coffin, suspended between heaven and earth. But he had gone too far to retreat, and he recognized the Moscow government, perhaps hoping it might influence Mr. Baldwin.

"That canny statesman is able to see the net when it is spread in the sight of the bird. The MacDonald treaty was stowed away in a pigeon-hole to gather dust, and Mr. Baldwin announced there would be no recognition of the Russians unless they mended their manners and their morals and proved themselves fit to associate with decent people. It is in keeping with the Harding - Coolidge - Hughes policy. Meanwhile M. Herriot had his bolsheviks on his hands. In due time they sent an ambassador to Paris. They had pledged themselves not to indulge in any propaganda or do anything adversely to affect the existing system of government in France. It seems curious that a pledge of this kind should be required from a foreign country supposed to be on friendly terms with a country to which it accredits an ambassador, but that is the condition precedent to intercourse. The bolsheviks of course promised everything, and then proceeded to break their promises. It is their way.

"The first thing that happened after the arrival of the Soviet ambassador was a communist riot. It was the welcome of the anarchists to their new chief. Then the ambassador ran up on the flagstaff of his embassy, not the Russian flag (has Soviet Russia a national flag?) but the red flag, the symbol of bloodshed, disorder, revolution, and robbery. It was an indignity and insult to France. It was an invitation to disregard law and recog

nize anarchy. It was explained by the ambassador that the red flag is the emblem of the Russian Communist International. That makes his offense the greater. The Russian Communist International, more generally known as the Third International, is under the direction of the same men who are known to the world as the Government of Russia, and whose agents in every part of the world are secretly working to overthrow the existing systems of civilization. In the United States, in England, in France, in Japan, everywhere the agents of the Third International are plotting, preaching violence, inciting to rebellion against established against established governments. And the ambassador in Paris, protected by his diplomatic immunity, cannot be arrested. No wonder M. Herriot is somewhat annoyed."

To

Indeed, he might well be annoyed, not to say dismayed. quote from another newspaper: "A rousing reception was given to Leonid Krassin, the first Soviet ambassador to France, upon his arrival in Paris. The demonstrators were communists, seizing upon this opportunity to start an agitation. The procession was formed by some 3,000 enthusiasts, escorting Krassin's car from the railway station to the embassy, singing the 'Internationale' and shouting insulting epithets to people who looked out of their windows. They repeated in even more flagrant avowal of extreme radicalism the demonstration which accompanied the transference to the

Pantheon recently of the body of Jean Jaures, the socialist leader who was assassinated in Paris at the outbreak of the war. Afterwards speeches were made from the communist headquarters, a deputy in Parliament shouting 'the world revolution has reached Paris,' and 'the French revolutionists will now show they are able to do quite as well as their Russian comrades." " As has already been stated, the red flag was ceremoniously hoisted over the embassy building, while a military band played the "Internationale" and the spectators sang the words, and Ambassador Krassin made an address. In fact, the consequent disorders reached such alarming proportions, both in Paris and the provinces, that it was necessary for the government to take severe action, and the revolutionary enthusiasm of the "reds" was not checked until the police had arrested some 300 of their number, some of them marked for deportation. Money from Mscow, however, flows in nourishing streams to all the communist centers and nuclei in France, and the merry work of subversion goes on steadily, though perhaps not quite so openly. Apparently this causes embarrassment to Zinovieff and his fellows in Moscow, since they must keep up at least a pretense of good international behavior in order to secure the generous loans which they expect from France and other countries, even while they are trying to undermine and overthrow the very governments which are to

grant those loans. But this tortuous duplicity of the Soviet crowd is quite familiar to all people who keep themselves informed and who will look at facts as they are, and it does not require expert psychology, but only plain common sense, to fathom it.

To continue our quotations: "France has been lax in immigration rules, and has allowed many Russian communists to enter the country. They have proved to be dangerous agitators. Some of them are experts, schooled at Moscow in all the arts of incendiarism. They have penetrated into the working classes of France and stirred up antagonism between the workers and the government. Threats of a revolution by violence are reported from many places in France. Treasonable pamphlets have been found, and documents of the most inflammatory nature emanating from Moscow have been revealed. What could M. Herriot have expected? As long ago as 1920 he was flirting with the Moscow reds. He went to Russia in 1922, and posed as the spokesman of the French people, expressing sympathy with the Soviet and declaring himself in favor of establishing relations with them. Since becoming premier, through a violent reaction against the Poincare policies, M. Herriot has continued his pro-soviet policy to the point of inducing his cabinet to extend recognition to the Soviet."

In another quarter of Europe, also, the world has lately been fav

ored with an instructive object lesson as to the measure of decency and friendly behavior which may be expected of the Soviet government by those countries which are foolish enough to bid them welcome into the family of nations. This was the spectacular, but disastrous, attempt to "rush" the little Republic of Esthonia. As remarked by one of our newspapers: "The latter country, having a particularly free, orderly, democratic government, and enjoying marked prosperity, is a grievous thorn in the side of the Soviet despotism, whose darkened and desolate provinces of Petrograd and Pskov it immediately adjoins. The contrast between the two countries naturally provokes discontent in Russia, and makes it more difficult to keep the people under the Soviet yoke. A conspiracy was therefore organized in Russia for the forcible overthrow of the Esthonian government and the establishment of soviet rule, which would practically incorporate the country with Russia. Armed bands of Communists, chiefly Russians, and including at least one official agent of the Soviet government, seized some of the public buildings of Reval and attacked the Parliament house, these operations being watched and apparently directed from the Soviet legation. The Esthonian police and troops soon suppressed the outbreak, and 149 of the conspirators were seized, one was shot after a military trial, and 141 others sentenced by a civil tribunal to vary

ing terms of imprisonment. Meanwhile the Soviet press and orators in Russia bitterly denounced the Esthonian government for its resistance to and suppression of the attack upon it, and similar demonstrations were made by soviet sympathizers elsewhere. We cannot say that these things are surprising, since a long time ago the leaders of the Soviet regime in Russia openly declared it to be the purpose of their government to organize conspiracies and foment revolutionary uprisings in all countries of the world where such activities were found possible. Of course the attempt of some to attribute these things to the communist party, or to the Third International, and not to the Soviet government, is a mere impertinence. It is notorious that Trotzky has been exiled for his health' chiefly because he opposed complete identification of the Soviet government with the Third International, and Kameneff, the leader of the movement against him, has openly treated the identity of the Third International, the communist party, and the Soviet government as the veriest commonplace of political fact."

If these European doings seem very remote from the peaceful and prosperous United States, and to give us occasion merely to shake our heads disapprovingly and say "tut, tut!" it will be wholesome for us to remember that there is a communist party in America, that it is working under the direct instigation and control of Moscow, just as in France,

and that it would delightedly attempt just what was attempted in Esthonia if only it had sufficient numerical force or if it could get the United States disarmed. For example, it was only last December that the Supreme Court of Michigan unanimously affirmed the conviction of one Ruthenberg for violation of the Michigan syndicalism law. The arrest and conviction of Ruthenberg followed a raid on a secret convention of the communist party of America at a place in Michigan by federal agents and local officers. The court said: "Ruthenberg was a voluntary vassal of the Third International.

The records show that the communists were not satisfied to await the realization of their hopes by evolution, but intended to accelerate the accomplishment of their aims by revolution. They are under resolve to destroy by force and arms the existing government, national and state, and the supporters thereof who possess the manhood of resistance. They have pledged allegiance to the Third International, and are carrying out its commands in our midst. The defendant was acting under orders from Moscow. Such documents and tactics, formulated in Russia and promulgated here, are without the law. His purpose, under the orders of the Third International, was to further the ends of the underground or illegal party of the communists, whose purpose and ends center upon the destruction of the republican or parliamentary form of government by direct action and criminal force."

We hope no one will be so silly as to accord belief, or even serious attention, to the promises, coming abundantly from Moscow, that if diplomatic recognition be extended to the Soviet crowd, they will recognize the validity and the obligation of at least some part of their foreign debt and repay at least some part of the value of the property of Americans and others which they have confiscated. They have two very effective methods of dealing with such promises after they have been made. The first is to spring upon the astonished creditor a counterclaim, in the form of a bill for damages, grotesquely exaggerated and airily unsubstantial. This was made manifest and indeed was boasted of at the Genoa conference, and should have given warning to all countries. So again, at the opening of the Russo-British conference which led finally to the formation of the ill-omened treaty, Zinovieff, who is probably the most powerful leader of the Moscow regime since the death of Lenin, announced that the monetary claims of Soviet Russia against Britain would exceed the latter's claims against Russia by two billion gold rubles, equivalent to one billion American dollars, and this was a claim for damages caused by the counter-revolutionary activities of Admiral Kolchak! At the same time, in a speech at Leningrad, Zinovieff said: "We are quite sure here that the British extorters will not make us yield. The revolution was a struggle to conquer the bourgeoisie, and if the foreign capitalists have