OCR Text |
Show PUBLISHED EVERY SATURDAY BY GOODWINS WEEKLY PUBLISHING CO., INC. W. E. CHAMBERLIN, F. P. GALLAGHER, Editor and Manager. Business Mgr. SUBSCRIPTION PRICE: the United States, Canada and Mexico $2.00 per year, Including postage jkp tor six months. Subscriptions to all foreign countries, within the Postal Union, per year. Single copies, 5 cents. ' In $1.25 $3.50 Entered as second-clas- s matter, June 21, March 3 1879. of Act Utah the under t Qjy Phone Wasatch 5409. 311-12-- 13 1919, Ness Bldg. at tha Postofflce at Salt Lake Salt Lake City, Utah. CLARK POINTS PERILS OF LEAGUE AND TREATY WILSON will not be able to address a greater that which greeted Major J. Reuben Clark, Utahs international law expert, at the Salt Lake tabernacle, for it was filled to overflowing. To say that he shed much new light on the League of Nations covenant and the treaty is to understate his achievement, lie pointed out the perils of the covenant and treaty in a way to make the most enthusiastic covenanter pause and fear for the future of the country. At the conclusion of the address, when all expected to be dismissed in peace, there came a challenge to war. B. H. Roberts arose on the rostrum and announced that he would answer J. Reuben Clark on the whole matter of the covenant in the near future. It was amusing because it was a sort of I challenge the winner act of bravado. One could imagine many in the audience shaking themselves with an uneasy feeling at the moment that they were not in the tabernacle, but at a ringside in Toledo. No one will envy the challenger the titanic task he has volunteered to undertake. Not even former President Taft was able to give such a comprehensive exposition of the covenant as that which Major Clark afforded his hearers, for at the time that Mr. Taft spoke here the covenant had not been revised at Versailles and even the original document was then but imperfectly understood by its champions. It will not have escaped the memory of Utahns that the former President, after leaving Salt Lake, began what tacticians call a docuretrograde movement. He saw that all was not well with the ment which he had pronounced perfect and soon he began urging amendments. The former President, we believe, has expressed himself as content with the Versailles covenant and with- mild reservations. Major Clark declared that, in his opinion, the Versailles amendment left the covenant a more dangerous instrument than before. lie Major Clark modestly stated at the outset that nothing that should say would be new, but everyone who attended the meeting must admit that he discussed illuminatingly points hardly touched lucid explanation of upon hitherto. For example, he gave us a most the labor covenant and showed how it was intertwined with the be used by an unfriendly league covenant and the treaty and might nation to force American domestic questions upon the attention of the league council. his Discussing the provisions of the labor covenant, he startled hearers by demonstrating that the American labor delegation might dobe excluded from the governing body by vote and that when a mestic question, such as Japanese immigration, for example, came, recommendation. up, we might have no voice in the governing bodys PRESIDENT - That body could adopt a convention which would then go to the United States Senate. It the Senate rejected the convention the matter would end there, so far as the labor covenant was concerned, but Japan could then force the question into the council of the League of Nations on the theory that it affected the peace of the world. If the council or the assembly decided that we should negotiate and ratify the convention, then our disobedience would bring us into conflict with the league, which might in the last analysis use its combined force to compel our adherence, said Major Clark. From the outset The Citizen has taken the view that the League of Nations was a league for war and an alliance to rule the world. Major Clark devoted a large part of his address to the demonstration of these two propositions and the audience was particularly impressed with his arguments in this regard. He scouted .the idea that it was a genuine League of Nations and described it as a coalition of powers to rule the world. The controlling powers, he said, would be the Big Five, Great Britain, the United States. France, Italy and wills Japan who would be able, by the league terms, to force their on the whole world. He pointed out that war was legalized in a number of instances and made mandatory in others. He deduced as a corollary that each of these nation must have a big army and navy and compulsory military service. In this connection he said: I warn you that if you put in operation this league we shall have a permanent compulsory military system which will reach into the homes of every one of you, to take off your sons and husbands to fight in battles in which we have no concern, which have no permanent effect upon the history of the world, and in the issues of which we cannot by any stretch of the imagination be ourselves affected. It is not customary to go into a street brawl and risk your life merely for the abstract idea that a light is wrong. Why should we go into an international brawl on any such theory.'' Would it not be wiser to save American life to protect America and her institutions. the Again, if two nations get into a dispute and. pursuant to terms of the treaty, they refer the matter either to arbitration, or to the council, or to the assembly of the league itself, they may under this treaty go legally to war after three months from the lendcring of the decision, if such decision so rendered be not satisfactory to them. Wrhat shall be the alignment of the other powers in such a war so waged is entirely unstipulated in the treaty and we should not know to what lengths a war so sanctioned by the treaty itself might lead us. Further, if after the determination of such a difficulty by the |