Freedom of speech and of the press is capable of many definitions, both moral as well as legal; and there are times when an individual or an organization may, at the same time, keep within the technical limits set by the courts and far overstep the bounds of morality and common decency. A good illustration of such a case is the set of resolutions drawn up by the American Association for the Recognition of the Irish Republic at its first annual convention in Boston. The convention, after expressing its sympathy for Ireland and the cause of the "Irish Republic", proceeded to demand the court-martial of Admiral Sims because of "his abuse of official position and misrepresentation of the Irish cause"; to agree upon a boycott of English goods in America; to insist that Sir Auckland Geddes, British Ambassador, be recalled for attempting to "dictate the policy and government of our people"; and to demand full payment of England's war debt to the United States.

Sympathy with the Irish cause as it stands at present may or may not be acceptable, according to the scruples of each individual as to the motives and characters of the leaders he chooses to follow. But the convention has apparently forgotten that when Admiral Sims wrote his book on the war, in which he expressed his views of the Irish people as he had learned to know them, he was but utilizing that same freedom of speech which the Irish in America have so long insisted upon. Besides, Admiral Sims has been in a position to know the facts in the case; his base of operations for the last two years has been mainly situated in Ireland--a position which can be matched by very few of the Irish sympathizers in this country. Further, what he spoke and wrote was done in defense of a friendly nation and military ally; while the convention, in the same breath with which it damned him for too free a tongue, turned loose its own oratory in vilification of that same ally. In other words, the convention, in calling Admiral Sims to account for straining his right to freedom of speech, has gone further, and has laid itself open to the same charge on far more serious grounds.

It is well recognized by the various elements of which this country's population is composed, that everyone has a right to his own opinion, and may legitimately express that opinion, so long as it in no way interferes with or embarasses the government in its national policies or foreign relations. Admiral Sims has always stayed well within these bounds; the convention has overstepped them by its references to the British war debt and Sir Auckland Geddes. Aside from these considerations, the convention has apparently forgotten the minor detail that Admiral Sims did not make his observations upon Ireland in an official capacity, and hence cannot by any chance be court martialed. Indeed, it is very doubtful if the Admiral will suffer from this denunciation in any way. A great man is never without enemies; and the concerted efforts of the Irish sympathizers to belittle Admiral Sims only prove the more conclusively the true greatness of the man.

Another resolution drawn up by the convention embodied a vote of "appreciation and congratulation" to those newspapers that have advocated "the rights of human liberty, especially Ireland." The convention was jully justified in voting as it did. Without the consistent aid and startling publicity afforded the Irish question by some of our daily journals, especially those owned by William Randolph Hearst, the cause of Ireland in America would have died a natural death. But as the case stands, these journals by their cheap sensational appeal to an impulsive and easily influenced class of people, have encouraged Irish sympathizers to acts and attitudes which amount to a moral disloyalty.

Propaganda in favor of the "Irish Republic" has been a daily feature of these journals but the effectiveness of such propaganda is markedly lessened by the realization that it is motivated not so much by a constructive desire for Irish freedom as by a smarting hatred of England: It may be the natural desire of the pot to call the kettle black that shapes the policies of these anti-British journals, but the effect upon their over-credulous readers is deplorable. If the Irish cause is ever to succeed it must at least be voiced by those who are sincere in their efforts.

Sensationalism and garish appeals to the hyphenate have been tolerated too long in our newspapers. Weeds will not die as long as they are nourished; all attempts at assimilating our foreign population will be in vain until the roots of hyphenism are loosened from the daily press.