OCR Text |
Show PUBLISHED EVERY SATURDAY BY GOODWINS WEEKLY PUBLISHING CO INC. F. P. QALLAQHER, Editor and Manager. W. E. CHAMBERLIN, Business Mgr. A 8UB8CRIPTION PRICE: Including postage In the United States, Cansda and Mexico $2.00 per year. Subscriptions to all foreign countries, within the Postal Union, Single copies, 5 cents. for six months. per year. $1.25 $&6D Payment should bo made by Check, Money Order or Registered Letter, payable to The Citizen. Address all communications to The Citizen. Entered as second-clas- s matter, June 21, 1919, at the Postoffice at Salt Lake City, Utah, under the Act of March 3, 1879. Phone Wasatch 5409. 311-12-- 13 Ness Bldg. Salt Lake City, Utah. ALL SHOULD SUPPORT TREATY CHANGES our Democratic brethren can object to the reservations Chairman Hays of the Republican National Committee suggests we cannot understand. These reservations embody just those assurances which the Democrats have been giving us as their interpretations of the League of Nations covenant. The sovereignty of the United States must be safeguarded in every particular, says Chairman Hays. It never was threatened, say the Democrats and other Wilsonites such as Mr. Taft. Well then, if it is not threatened it can do no harm to add the reservation advocated by those who fear the nations sovereignty is limited. By reservation the Monroe Doctrine must be safeguarded beyond the shadow of a doubt, says Chairman Hays. It is not imperiled, say the Democrats. In that case the reservation should be unobjectionable to all concerned. Article X must be eliminated entirely or so modified that our own Congress shall be morally, as well as legally, free, after a specified period, to decide when and where and to what extent our soldiers shall be employed, says the chairman. Whenever those who questioned the perfection of the covenant have invented hypothetical cases the worshippers of Wilson and his compact have grown dersive. Troops cannot be sent in such cases, they said. The covenant does not require it. You are seeing nightmares. If so, why not make the meaning of the covenant more certain by a Senate reservation which, if the Democrats be right, would mount to nothing more than their interpretation. Early in the discussion we pointed out that there would be a moral obligation, an obligation of honor, which would force us into wars if we ratified Article X. The advocates of the league were so eager to show that no such obligations could arise that they interpreted all the vitality out of the league. Membership in it, according to their reasoning, imposed no duties on the United States that amounted to anything. Theirs was the reductio ad absurdum. The logical conclusion from their arguments was that the league had no power and was worthless. The Republicans, however, took the view that Article X implied much more than it said. They saw in it an instrumentality by which The .United States might be compelled to furnish troops to suppress rebellions within nations, for no rebellion can persist nowadays without We might external aid and that amounts to external aggression. be called upon sometime to suppress a rebellion in Shantung aimed at the territorial integrity of the Japanese empire, a rebellion aided by the external aggression of China. HOW The Democrats tried creating difficulties which If their argument be object to the modification to calm our fears by saying that we were did not exist in the article. sound there is no reason why they should proposed by the Republicans. Once again it is simply embodying in the treaty the interpretation to which the Democrats adhere and to which, supposedly, all advocates of the league, here and abroad, adhere. Other reservations suggested by Chairman Hays would safeguard our existing right to retain full control of immigration, tariffs and other domestic policies. The covenant does not seek to limit that control, reply the Democrats. Quite so: then let us all agree to the reservations. Chairman Hays says a reservation. must insure our right to withdraw from the league at any time without hindrance or conditions of any kind, upon giving suitable notice. That is really the intention of the covenant, say the Democrats. Splendid! We agree on every- thing. President Wilson should at once assent to the Republican reservations and begin a tour of the country, not to raise an issue, but to join in the general felicitation. Right here, however, we see an obstacle. The covenant is only a part of the treaty. The President so intertwined the two that they cannot, he tells us, be separated. In the treaty is the Shantung infamy. Must we ratify that? It is true that the supporters of the treaty have tried to show that even the Shantung agreement can be so interpreted as to be inoffensive to Americans. We do not believ it, but such is the contention of the Democrats. But whether their contention be right or wrong the United States should never agree to the enslavement of Shantung and its 40,000,000 inhabitants. Rather, the treaty and the covenant with it should fail altogether. DIRIGIBLES FOR UTAH MOST of us have noted with interest not unmixed with enthusiasm Bambergers propaganda for a railway into the Uinta Basin. Part of the propaganda was a pilgrimage into the basin and the retelling in trumpet tones of Uintas fadeless glories. Naturally such glories cannot fade, for they have nothing to do with poetic sunsets and shady nooks by bosky brooks, but with such hard and prosaic facts as acres and mines, crops and almost unguessable mineral resources of a variety unparalleled in the western world, etc. But propaganda will not remove mountains, except gradually, and |