The Nonpartisan Leader Newspaper, August 5, 1918, Page 8

A WOULD-BE DAVID AND A GOLIATH NOT BIBLICAL Drawn by Charles Curtis Amidon, born December 7, 1895; Died June 21, 1918 SR 3 SRR EADERS of the Leader are familiar with the cartoons. of R C. C. Amidon, which, up until several months ago, were published frequently in the Nonpartisan Leader. Lately Mr. Amidon has been ill and unable to turn out much work. He died June 21, at the outset of what promised to be a brilliant career. This cartoon was his last. His work was beginning to create gen- eral interest and was being published in several magazines besides the Leader. With deep feeling, members of the Nonpartisan league will remember that his last cartoon was drawn in the interest of their cause. This cartoon was drawn before the supreme court of Minnesota finally laid low the contemptible charge of disloyalty against the organized farmers, but at a time when these mean insinuations had already been proven to have missed their mark. . acquaintances he has made through his published cartoons. CHARGE of DISLOYALTY be David, failing to hit the farmers’ giant with the shot from his sling, and about to be run over and crushed by a Goliath—like that of Biblical times only in his strength. The young cartoonist in this cartoon predicted the supreme court decision on the disloyalty charges. Mr. Amidon was a student in southern California at the time of his-death. He had a quiet, unassuming personality, but an intensely active mind. He was a deep student of political and eco- nomic questions and was an intellectual liberal. Had he lived he would have been heard from in no uncertain terms. He died at 23, before his ship had fairly left the shore of the ocean of life, and he is mourned by a wide circle of friends, and a wider circle of The Leader is proud that, with other liberal publications, it gave this Mr. Amidon therefore pictured the League opposition as a would- splendid young American an opportunity to express himself. Keep Borah on Job, Say Nonpartisans Here’s the Story of the Idaho Senator Which Shows Why : He Was s 3 1 o TS [ - wrorees Indorsed by the League Farmers for Another Term . o NDIANA gave him birth, Kan- sas gave him his training, and to lead progressive thought and action-by keeping him in the United States senate since 1907. The man is William E. 5 partisan league of Idaho for re-election to the senate. : Organized farmers nowhere could have found a better champion. His career has been one long open war on monopoly. Standpatters never have succeeded in lining him up. The principle of non- partisanship is his—when he thinks his party is headed in the wrong di- rection, he refuses to follow. One need not go back further than the last few months to understand how this sturdy westerner -towers above the average statesman. The gift of real eloquence is in him, but there are no flowery periods in his | speeches, no dips into the pools of - N, > Idaho made it possible for him . Borah, indorsed by the Non-_ sentiment; his reasoning is all that he cares about, and if that can be made to stand the test, he leaves its veneer to chance. For his attitude on the war, ‘consider his speech last March, which might be . called “American Liberty’s Crucial Hour.” is part of this oration: - THE DOWNFALL OF MILITARISM _“Let us go forward in the belief that it is not possible in the morning of the twentieth century of the Christian civilization for militarism, for brute force, to triumph.. It would be in contra- vention to every law, human. and divine, upon Here Borah on Monopolies “Monopoly is 10,000 times worse than black slavery—it is - thé father of class domination, the moulder of chains both for the body and for the soul, and can not exist-in any form with safety to the people in a republic.” ‘PAGE. EIGHT which rests the happiness and preservation of the human family. It would be to place brute force first in the divine economy of things. It would be to place might over right, and in the last and final struggle that can not be done. ¥ “No; we can not lose. We must win. The only question is whether we shall, through efficiency and concerted and united action, win without unneces- sary loss of life, unnecessary waste of treasure, or whether we shall, through lack of unity in spirit and purpose, win only after fearful and unneces- sary sacrifices. “It has often been said since the war began, Mr. President, that a republic can not make war. I trample the doctrine under my feet. I scorn the faithless creed as the creed of cowards-and traitors. If a republic can not make war, if it can not stand the ordeal of conflict, why in the name of the living God ‘are our boys on the western front? Are they there to suffer and die for a miser- able craft that can only float in the serene breeze of the summer seas and