We have reason to congratulate ourselves that this sound view has widely prevailed rallying almost as units great nations,--our own one of them--previously much divided in political thoughts and aspirations, for the noble and patriotic purpose of winning a disastrous war they were forced to wage, in spite of their most determined efforts to prevent it. Public men, nations rulers, like all others are human and liable to fail or to be found wanting. Unconscious inefficiency, however desirable to remove, cannot be fairly classed on the same footing as guilty failures. The first may, more or less, injure the bright prospects of a country; the second stains her honour which an exemplary punishment can alone redeem. But it is said with much truth that there are always exceptions to a general rule. That of the human heart to be fallible in public life, as well as in other callings, has met with only one solitary exception in Canada: the saintly Nationalist leader who will never have his equal, "nature having destroyed the mould when she cast him." Considering the outrageous language he thrusted at the Canadians of the three British races and at our heroic volunteers, it is not to be supposed that he was so tender-hearted as to spare the public men, not only of Canada, but of all the Allied Nations. When he affirmed that the real and only cause of the war had been, and was still, the voracious greed of capitalist speculators, especially of the two leading belligerents, Great Britain and Germany, united together to profit to the tune of hundreds of millions out of the production of warship building and materials of all sorts, was he not charging all the statesmen and leading politicians of all the peoples at war, of having bowed either consciously to the dictates of traitors to their countries, or of having been stupidly blind to the guilty manipulations of financial banditti? It would take many pages only to make a summary of the injurious words he has addressed to the Canadian public men of all shades of opinion--with the only exception of the Nationalist--on account of the support they have given, in one way or another, to the Dominion's participation in the war. He qualified as a _Revolution_ the policy by which we willingly decided to take part in the wars of the Empire whenever we came to the conclusion that England was fighting for a just cause. On the 23rd of April, 1917, he wrote as follows:-- "_Very often we have shown the evident revolutionary character of the Canadian intervention in the European conflict._" After repeating his absolutely absurd pretention, according to the sound principles of Constitutional Law, that Canada could have intervened in the war as a "_nation_" he found fault with all and every one because "_we are fighting to defend the Empire_." He went on and said with his natural sweetness of language:--