In Japan's golden age of political assassination, the cause way to discredit an opponent was to take gun in Ford land shoot him. A miss was as good as a bull's-eye, for such was the popular temper that any attack created a presumption against the victim. To have inspired such a desperate attempt was held the surest proof that a politician had lost the confidence of the people.

One by one, in the period from 1932-35, Premier Inukaita Finance Minister, a War Office General, and Baron Dan all appeared, posthumously, to have lost the confidence of the public. As time went on, the rules of the game became better established, so that it was no longer necessary actually to hit the offending statesmen. By public acceptance, of the sort that makes such practices as the evil eye and sticking pins in dolls so effective, it became sufficient to pick out some representative of the opposition and fire a few shots in his direction.

Thus, a group of officers in 1936 sent soldiers to express their lack of confidence in Premier Okada; by mistake they shot instead the Premier's brother, who resembled him. Needless to say, the act did not pass unnoticed. Okada's political life was over.

An interesting Western parallel is shaping up in United States character assassinations. McCarthy's ritualistic assault on Philip Jessup, for example, was denounced by Senator Guy Gillette as a "warped and distorted picture," created by deletions and "unjustified associations of quotations." In other words, trigger-man McCarthy had been caught firing blanks; why, then, did Jessup fall? Why did Gillette himself join with Republicans last week in voting against the nomination for U.N. delegate, despite his own conviction of Ambassador Jessup's loyalty?

Gillette's explanation, in his released statement, has that old, inscrutable look. Because of "the concerted campaign of unfair and unprincipled attacks made on him," it says, there is reason to believe "...there is a considerable segment of our people who lack confidence in Dr. Jessup."