the interview takes place."

Did Sinn Fein plan immediate revolution? The president ran a fountain pen
under the small, finely written lines as he remarked in an aside that he
was not a writer but a mathematician. No. The sudden set of the president's
jaw indicated that this man who had fought in the 1916 rebellion till even
his enemies had praised him, was the man who had decided there would be no
reception at the bridge. No. There would be no armed revolt till all
peaceable methods had failed.

If Sinn Fein succeeded in getting separation, would it establish a
bolshevistic government? DeValera returned that he was not sure what
bolshevism is. As far as he understood bolshevism, Sinn Fein was not
bolshevistic. But perhaps, by the way, bolshevism had been as
misrepresented in the American press as Sinn Fein. Right there, I took
exception and said that from his own point of view I did not see what good
slurring the American press would do his cause. Immediately he answered as
if only the principal phase of the matter had occurred to him: "But it's
true." Then he continued: The worker is unfairly treated. Whether it is
bolshevistic or not, Sinn Fein hopes to bring about a government in which
there will be juster conditions for the laboring classes.



CAUSE AND REMEDY OF SOCIAL CONDITIONS.

The empire does not consider the cause of revolt.[1] But the republic is
interested not only in the cause but also in the remedy.

Relief, the republic has said, must come through Sinn Fein--ourselves.