OCR Text |
Show THE CITIZEN 4 the vote for the League of Nations covenant was 9,999 yes and one no. The nominee wished to know whether anything had changed the minds of the voters since that time. There was no opportunity afforded the listeners to make an explanation, nor did the nominee expect any. But it is just as well that an explanation should be made. Thhe circumstances of the Taft meeting are a little dim in the memories of Utah people now. At that time a summary of the covenant had just been issued and Mr. Taft, who had obtained an able lawyers grasp of the subject in a few days study, expounded the covenant with glib facility. Always he drove home his opinion that the covenant provided a true league for peace. When President Grant came to the announcement of the vote flourish than a he made his statement rather as a statement of fact. True, the overwhelming sentiment of the meeting was for the covenant, but there were some hundreds of dissenters. Among them was the editor of this paper and as he did not make any demonstration it is quite certain that he was not the one referred to by the presiding officer of the meeting. From the very first the editor of The Citizen understood that the covenant provided for a military alliance, that it was, at best, simply a league to enforce peace by war and the economic boycott. At the very outset the editor took his position on the covenant and has not swerved since. Mr. Taft had not been two weeks away from Utah when he began to favor changes and we are quite certain that hundreds of those who voted at the tabernacle for a league of peace have changed their minds regarding the covenant while remaining staunch for a genuine League of Nations for peace. That it was absurd for Mr. Cox to ask whether any had changed their mind since the meeting of March, 1919, is shown by the fact that the covenant was amended after that in the conferences at Paris. Even Mr. Wilson, mirabile dictu, changed his mind! The ablest statesmen of our country, including Mr. Taft, if our memory does not fail us, began to suggest amendments. Some of these were accepted, but one of the most vital was rejected. This related to Article X, which had not then revealed itself in all its sinister import even to the keenest minds in our land. Elihu Root saw its perils and suggested that it be adopted for only five years, but inasmuch as it was the heart of the league, the article which created the offensive and defensive military alliance, the conspirators at Paris rejected the amendment. By way of excuse they said that inasmuch as a nation could withdraw on two years notice the amendment was unnecessary. It was not then fully realized that a nation could not withdraw at all until it had fulfilled all of its international obligations, which meant that withdrawal, because it depended on the permission of the members of the league, would be virtually impossible. Article X remained in the covenant and the covenant remained a military compact. It plighted the United States, at the dictation of a foreign council, to go to war whenever the territorial integrity or the existing political independence of a league member was threatened good-humor- ed by external aggression. Another article provided for an economic boycott, which was automatic in its operation. It goes into force just as soon as the The economic boycott is a league declares a nation an outlaw. weapon of modern warfare. It is like the ancient blockade of cities and ports, but immeasurably extended. It is war by starvation. It is aimed at women and babies as well as at soldiers. That was the nature of the covenant even after it had been amended. That is its nature today. It still requires that our boys shall fight the battles of Europe in causes that do not concern them and in which they will have no heart. Of course, Mr. Cox, sentiment in Utah has changed. The people are still for peace, aye even for an association of t nations for peace, but they are oppdsed to a war league. DIXIE POWER DEAL li si The Dixie Power company, a private corporation, which has been financed to the extent of about $45,000 by the Democratic state administration, has been slipping into some publications a statement to the effect that the company agreed in the original contract to buy the state-bui- lt power line at the end of three years. There is no such provision in the contract. The state built the $45,000 power line for this private company without requiring it in binding terms to buy the line. The state simply agrees to sell to the company upon the coThe company agrees to buy mpletion of the proposed state road. upon completion of road way. The contract is drawn with such looseness that the company agrees to nothing. It is not even legally certain that the road way referred to is the road along the power line the state built for the benefit of the Dixie Power company, a company owned, controled and officered by prominent Democrats. The only thing certain in the contract appears to be that the state obligated itself to bujld the power transmission line and give the power company the right to use the line and sell the power. The line has been built and the company is selling the power. And it is not obliged to buy the plant because the state has not coNor does the state intend to build the road way. mpleted the road way. This was a road which was to have been built in conjunction with the government and the government had not agreed to the road when the contract was entered into. The road has been abandoned, but the private company has the power line and has the right to sell the power to consumers. State Auditor Ririe, on September 29, 1919, in a letter to Ira K. Browning, secretary of the state road commission, fully acquainted the members of the, commission with the enormity of the offense they contemplated in their plan to finance a private company. He pointed out, in the first place, that the law required the board to let road work by contract to the lowest responsible bidder if such road work should call for the expenditure of more than $25,000. The plan, as it was then formulated, called for the expenditure of $34,650. being well over the specified limit, but that was not all that the state expended. Up to date the private company has obtained nearly $45,000 in value from the state. And that value will be added to every time the company sells power. In other words, the company obtained a $45,000 power plant from the state for nothing and is entitled to sell the power for its own profit without any recompense to the state Thus did a private company stretch forth greedy hand:, and take the nearly $45,000 out of the state treasury without any return to state. Such is Democratic administration. It is clearlv an ;i dministration of public affairs for private profit and for the private profit of good Democrats who were always willing to contribute to Dem- tl ! . r : it c d c 1 I 1 1 t 1 ocratic campaign funds. Auditor Ririe not only pointed out the illegality but he inadt this striking comparison to show as clearly as might be just wha the road commission was planning : After carefully going into the contract I feel that it is only advancing money for a private corporation and that we arc obligating ourselves to use power that we arc not sure we will ived. cannot see any more reason for this than that WE SHOULD AD VANCE MONEY FOR THE PROMOTION OF ANY OTI1KK ENTERPRISE AND THEN BE PAID BACK IN COMMODITY THEY MAY PRODUCE FOR THE MARKET IN FI I'UKI YEARS. th The auditor was drawing a parallel which pitilessly expo-edeal. Here was the state road commission agreeing to build a private company and agreeing to take the product T tfe: private company in payment, although it was probable tl it th state never would use any of that product. Events have ' that the state has no intention of using the power Th road, which the contract called for along the line d the power company, has not been started. Nor was there ny rca plair-fo- cinon-strate- hard-surfac- ed ) iT l |