OCR Text |
Show i, THE CITIZEN 6 surrender its sovereign power to levy war and cited as proof the League covenant which compels us to invest a council of European and Asiatic states with power to settle disputes for us, the council to have six months in which to consider any dispute while the United States sits by helpless to levy war against its enemies. That majority believed that under the League we could not even exercise our sovereign power to conclude peace. They pointed out that the council of foreign states could require the United States in military and economic pressure even though congress to and the country might wish to conclude peace. That majority believed that the covenant strictly limited our sovereign power to contract alliances. They believed that all future treaties of alliance or otherwise, must depend for their validity on the other members of the League, inasmuch as no treaty can be entered into by any member nations which conflict with the purposes of the League. That majority believed that even the sovereign power to establish commerce was limited by the League. The covenant provides for international boycotts in which the United States must share if it is to fulfill its obligations to the alliance. The United States must be a party to such a boycott. If the point for which we are 'contending be correct the opinion of the senate majority should have been given more weight at Paris. It was not for President Wilson to say arbitrarily that the opinions were groundless. It was his duty to negotiate the treaty in the light of that opinion, for he was required by the constitution to make the treaty by and with the advice and consent of the senate. His probable alibi will be that the present senate majority can be removed by pressure or by an appeal to the country at the elections. Even should the country reverse that majority after long delay the presidents culpability would remain, for he should have conducted himself at Paris in the spirit of the constitution. Senator Knox, in a recent speech, showed how other presidents had conducted themselves toward the senate in the matter of negotiating treaties. Here are a few of the cases cited by the senator : In 1818, President Monroe asked whether the senate thought he could make an agreement regarding armament on the Great Lakes and in case they thought he could not, he asked them to advise and consent to an agreement ,and they so consented. In 1830, Jackson inquired whether he should sign a proposed treaty with the Indians and the senate advised him not to make or to ratify the treaty. Jackson again approached the senate in 1831 as to protesting against an arbitral award regarding a boundry dispute with Great Britain, and the senate advised the president to communicate to Great Britain that the United States declined to adopt the boundary awarded. In 1864, President Polk submitted a British proposal regarding the Oregon treaty for the senates consideration and advice, stating that he would conform his action to their advice. He likewise in the same year approached the senate regarding peace negotiations with Mexico, suggesting a certain course which the senate stated receives the approbation of the senate. In 1861, President Buchanan submitted to the senate a British proposal to arbitrate our northwest boundaries, with a statement that before accepting this proposition I have thought it wise to take the advice of the senate and asking Will the senate approve a treaty incorporating certain terms specified. Later in the same year President Lincoln repeated Buchanans inquiry regarding this arbitration. In 1862, Lincoln submitted to the senate for its advice a copy of a proposed treaty for a loan to Mexico, upon which the senate resolved that the senate express the opinion that it is not advisable to negotiate a treaty of the kind suggested. In 1873, President Grant submitted a British proposition regarding an adjustment of differences in connection with the Geneva convention of 1873, and requested an expression by the senate of their disposition in regard to advising and consenting to the formal adoption of an article such as is proposed by the British government, the president declaring that he desired counsel in advance in agreeing to the proposal of Great Britain. In 1874, Grant again communicated with the senate, this time regarding a draft reciprocity agreement with Canada. He expressed an earnest wish that 'the senate may be able to consider and determine before the adjournment of congress whether it will give its constitutional concurrence to the conclusion of a treaty with Great Britain for the purposes already named, either in such form as is proposed by the British plenipotentiaries or in such other more acceptable form as the senate may prefer. PERPETUATING INJUSTICE. co-oper- ate Spectator says that America and the allies guarantee THE London territorial integrity of the British Empire and therefore rule out Irish independence under the banner of Sinn Fein. The Spectator is alluding to Article X of the League of Nations covenant and takes the view which we have set forth repeatedly in these columns. That article provides that the member nations shall maintain and preserve the present territorial integrity of all nations, members- of the League. When the covenant was first proposed we expressed the opinion that the provision was for the purpose of preventing subect nationalities from gaining their freedom, except such nationalities as might be constituted free and independent states by the terms of the treaty. We have frequently asserted that the covenant will establish a static world, giving to each empire certain territories which the League guarantees to them in perpetuity. Whatever injustices are condoned by the treaty of peace will be perpetuated by the League of Nations. Forty millions of inhabitants of Shantung are turned over to Japan, which gives an undertaking to restore political sovereignty to China. Political sovereignty will be valueless if Japan owns Shantung body and soul. Korea and Shantung have; become the Irelands of Asia and the League of Nations will be responsible if the League be really established for setting up these new injustices. Article X was framed, we believe, with particular reference to the British empire. It has been argued with much acuteness that the peace conference had no right to take up the Irish question, but ,as a matter of fact, it did take it up when it inserted Article X in the League cove- nant. The congress of the United States, by overwhelming vote, has already given Great Britain warning as to the true condition of sentiment in this country. It is deplorable that Great Britain cannot settle a question which is certain to cause incessant friction among friendly nations. A rectification of the Shantung injustice seems past hoping for at present, but, at least, there is a pledge however frail if be that Shantung shall one day be restored to China. The character of the League as a union of great nations to rule small nations was emphasized a few weeks ago in Paris when trouble arose in the Balkans. Word was sent from the council at Paris that the rights of minorities within the Balkan nations would be regulated by the League. Here was a clear implication that the League, dominated by a few great powers, would control all weaker powers. . St. Louis saloonkeepers proposed to keep open and contest war- time prohibition in the courts. It should be a spirited fight. All kinds of German leaders are writing memoirs. They sound like In Memoriams. Someone claims to have discovered a praying palm in Bengal. Probably a beggar. The Germans want to kill those who made war and those who made peace. The Germans are going to hold a grief week and sing hymns of hate. Somehow1 the Germans dont think it was a good sign. Three beers for President Wilson. & ' |