OCR Text |
Show THE CITIZEN I f THE NEW THRALLDOM from out the land of Egypt the other day must have iven many Americans pause. It Mseems impossible that a true American could have read the narrative of Dr. Ellis without wondering whether, ' in these days when we talk so much and so grandly about the new broth-erhop- d of man and the League of Nations, we have not really retreated from the high ground where stand our most ancient and sacred altars. Dr. Ellis pictured to us the horror, amazement and' sorrow of the Egyptians when they learned that the American delegation at the peace confer-ic- e in Paris had officially recognized ie validity of Great Britains dominion over Egypt and ns people. At first they could not believe it, but when the truth was borne in upon them they were shocked and stunned. Could this be the America that freemen all over the world had learned to worship? In every town and hamlet, in every political gatnering, the Egyptians had found inspiration for their cause in the thought that America was standing by its old ideals of liberty and democracy. They heard across the years the noble speech df the Virginian who cried: Give me liberty or give me death. A VOICE , In Egypt, as Dr. Ellis tells us, our prestige is gone. And what was that prestige? It was not the pomp and glory of imperial arms. Jt revived no memories of conquering Rome nor of the Roman governors who, accompanied by a glittering array of servitors, went to the vanquished peoples of the east and set up an imperial government. That, indeed, is the prestige of Great Britain today, but the prestige of America is something different. It is the spiritual significance the world finds in Bunker Hill and Lexington, in Appo-mato- x and in the battles that freed Cuba and Porto Rico and gave to the Filipinos. General Allenby, knowing how much the Egyptian rebels revered the United States and how devotedly, almost pathetically, they looked to American history for the justification of their sanction and cause, a thought that it would be clever and lwilliant coup to obtain from President Wilson and the American delegation in Paris official recognition of the British position in Egypt. By the usual routes of secret diplomacy and in defiance of the rule of open covenants openly arrived at, the recognition was obtained and was published with a flourish of trumpets to the Egyptian insurgents who had deluded themselves with the fond hope that at least America, out of the richness of its own experience and Ideals, understood them and sympathized with heir struggle for freedom. battling for freedom. Well may we ask ourselves whether the covenant of the League of Nations does not contain a direct repudiation of our most cherished ideals, it will not do to beat our breasts unctiously and talk about our common numanity if we indorse despotisms that shame our common humanity. I am perfectly aware that British imperialism can be defended with persuasive arguments. I admit that the British empire is one of the most imposing political structures ever erected by man and he would be lacking in the poetic instinct who would not thrill at the achievements of a worldwide empire beside which the Roman empire sinks almost into trivialty. But while, as Americans, we may be permitted to admire the glory and grandeurs of imperialism and even the barbaric triumphs of an power, just as we admire the military conquests of Caesar, Alexander or Napoleon, we are denying our birthright if we indorse the enslavement of conquered peoples all-conqueri- ng and blazon to the world our abandonment of the Declaration of Independence. If we join the League of Nations at such a sacrifice we are losing our heritage, a heritage that was bequeathed to us by such good Englishmen as George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin. Once they were British subjects and all of them would have been glad to remain loyal subjects had not England attempted to hold the American colonies as slave states. They and their fellow subjects discovered the American spirit, embodied its principles in the Declaration of Independence, and bequeathed to us a free country and ideals of freedom which we shall betray if we so link ourselves to British imperialism as to deny the right of the oppressed to rebel. self-governme- nt We may the well ask ourselves if, comproreactionary mises at Paris, America retains its nation anyprestige as a liberty-lovinwhere in the world where men are after g o It will be argued that in these days of renewed amity among the nations we ought not to speak the words that premote ill will. There is merit to the plea, because we know, that the Huns throughout the world will be glad to take advantage of ill will among the allied and associated peoples, but it should never be considered an instigation of ill will when an American pleads honestly in the cause of liberty. No nation has a right to commit acts of injustice and tyranny, and if there is to be a league of Nations it will be nothing more than an act of the highest friendship to warn our fellow members from time to time against acts that tend to perand disturb the petuate injustice peace of the world. of international politics must necessarily revolve around the acts of the world powers. As never before Great Britain, the United States, France, Japan and Italy will be on trial in the court of humanity. If Americans can help their Much By F. P. Gallagher League members to set their houses in order they should not fail in their duty simply because some desire to fasten upon them the muzzle of silence. Senator Lodge took that position only a few weeks ago when the senate passed a resolution in favor of the cause of Ireland. He candidly stated that if Great Britain, in the new order of international relations, could interfere with reference to our Monroe doctrine, the United States had a right to interfere with reference to Great Britain's internal affairs. And how much greater would be our right to speak words of advice and counsel were we imaed together in a League of Nations! . Sir Edward Carson, the stormy resistance to petrel of Unionist Irish aspirations, told the United States to mind its own business. Now such a rebuke would be all very well if we were to maintain our accustomed isolation, but, if the senate acquiesces we shall soon place our nation in a League or wnich Great Britain is to be, perhaps, the dominant member. According to Article X of the covenant, we bind ourselves to preserve and maintain the existing political independence and territorial integrity of all nations, members of the League. Therefore we take upon ourselves the obligation of preserving India, Egypt and Ireland to Great Britain as against external aggression. We showed what external aggression might accomplish when we sanctioned British ownership and control of Egypt. Had we refused to indorse the subjection of Egypt we would have committed an act of external aggression against the British empire, for we would have lent the power of our prestige to Egyptian independence. How much worthier of American traditions was the action of the senate than the action of President Wilson in giving his sanction to British sovereignty over Egypt. Did the president grant his high sanction to preserve the political independence and territorial integrity of tne British empire, feeling that this was the consistent step to take in view of the proposed Article X? Certainly it was a logical step, but in this case to be logical was to be un-Americ- Article X is the chief stumbling block in the way of the League of Nations because it is inconsistent with American ideals. If there can be no League without the assent of the United States, as the president has assured us, it begins to appear as if Article X must be obliterated, for the United States senate is unwilling to ratify the covenant with that article included. It is an article which binds us not only to guard the British empire in its imperialism, but the Japanese empire in its despotism and atrocities. Only the other day information long denied to us by the Japanese censorship came through from the Presbyterian missionaries in Korea. Nothing that the uerwans did in Belgium exceeded in brutality and barbarity the treatment of the insurgent Koreans by the Japanese. Men were herded into churcnes and killed because they were Christians. Women who indorsed the revolution were regarded as social outcasts and a lustful soldiery given power over them. What the Japanese are doing in Korea they may do in Snau-tung- , a province of 36,000,000 people wrested from China by President Wilson, Lloyd George and Clemenceau and delivered to the pagan mercies of Nippon. fine phrases the presWith ident sought to gloss over these betrayals of American principles.. In his address to the senate he said nothing about any of the acts which have brought his negotiations into disrepute. He avoided every point which, if discussed, required him to explain and defend his actions, lils chief argument for the League of Nations was that it was required to enforce the peace settlements, but, as a matter of fact, various commissions have been established for that purpose. It goes without saying that some instrumentality must enforce the peace, but it was unnecessary for tne president to so intertwine the covenant of the League with the peace treaty that it could not be disentangled. So little satisfied is France wltn the protection of the League, even with Article X in it; so little does Prance believe-tha- t the League can enforce the peace settlements that she demands an alliance of the United mates, Great Britain and herself to ward off German attack. The doubts of France, however, as to the effectiveness of. the League to preserve her political independence and territorial integrity must not blind us to the fact that the covenant attempts to do that much, not only for France, but for Great Britain and Japan, and for every new nation set. up in eastern Europe. It attempts to fetter free America in a compact to preserve enslaved Shantung to Japan. - . And does this not signify that if Japan repeats in Shantung the atroci- ties committed in Korea our govern- ment binds itself not to interfere, or even protest? Would we be true to the compact if we raised our voice against Japan and thus strengthened the resistance against her dominion? Have we not abandoned our ancient principles of liberty by agreeing to uphold nations that practice oppression? Did we not have a foretaste of the operations of the covenant when our peace delegation officially indorsed British rule in Egypt and when it consented to the thralldom of |