OCR Text |
Show THE CITIZEN 4 renunciation of wrong ambition on the part of the powerful nations with whom we were associated in the war. Did Japan renounce wrong ambition when it rammed the Shantung theft down the Presidents throat and took control of 36,000,00$ Chinese? Did Great Britain renounce wrong ambition when shcr added 800,000 square miles to her territory and many millions of inhabitants to the population of her empire ? Did she renounce wrong ambition when she proclaimed a protectorate over Egypt despite the. terest. If the $3,300,000 were to be expended wisely in a period of low or fact that she had promised time after time for forty years to withwould not find the proposition draw from Egypt? Did she renounce wrong ambition when, while reasonable prices the home-owneso objectionable, but they know that the money will vanish quickly the peace delegates were in session at Versailles, she arrested and at the present level of prices and that they will have an increased imprisoned the Egyptian delegates who were on their way to lay the cause of their country before the conference? Did she renounce burden of taxation without getting a satisfactory water system. wrong ambition when she seized control of Persia and its millions of inhabitants while the peace conference was twaddling about setting MY LEAGUE OR NONE-WILS- ON peoples free? Did she renounce wrong ambition when she divide WILSON takes the view that he is the only one Asia Minor with France and Italy, and kept the Armenians at the PRESIDENT, to nullify the treaty and escape the charge mercy of the Turk? of bad faith. Article X requires us to guarantee the territorial integrity and had limits. such brazen has to seldom Hardly gone Effrontery existing political independence of the British empire, to guarantee to his own threat to withdraw the treaty from the senate died away Great Britain all her domains, including India, Ireland and Canada than he denounced senators for desiring to alter certain articles of even though these dominions might declare their independence and the compact. fight for it. declaration his that stunned still were The European powers by If that article does not absolutely require us to fight to keep he would nullify the whole treaty. if they did not accede to his wishes Egypt and Persia under British control it practically binds us not to regarding Fiume when, in a letter to Senator Hitchcock, he accused interfere with her imperialistic despotism. the senate majority of bad faith because they desire to nullify a part The President sees the force of the objection and so, with an exof the treaty. The president says, I hear of reservationists and mild reserva-tionist- s, cess of casuistry that stirs indignation and disgust, he devotes much but I cannot understand the difference between a nullifier space to an argument that Article X is needed to combat imperialism. The president himself illustrates an obvious He says: and a mild nullifier. difference. He is a nullifier and an opposition senator is a mild are in despair. What with in the last five years. The home-owneincome taxes, luxury taxes on necessities, state, county and city taxes and special taxes, they face the future with profound anxiety. Unless prices fall soon many of them, perhaps hundreds, will lose their homes. Even those who do not lose their homes will be weighed down for years with debts. In the face of this condition the commissioners propose to add an additional debt of $3,300,000 with inrs rs nullifier. If the treaty, as the president goes on to say with his customary air of ethical exaltation, is the hope of the world, why did he threaten to nullify it altogether? His entire letter is saturated with his usual idealistic flubdub about the absolute need of the League of Nations for the welfare of humanity, and yet, only a few days ago, he told the nations that he would withdraw the treaty from the seriate unless they heeded his wishes concerning Fiume. It is unthinkable, he says in his note to Senator Hitchock, alluding to Article X, that America should set the example of ignoring such a solemn moral engagement. It was not unthinkable, however, that he should threaten to destroy the treaty, Article X and every other article. If it is a sin to nullify Article X is it not a greater sin to nullify the whole treaty? Any reservation which seeks to deprive the League of Nations of the force of Article X cuts at the very heart and life of the covenant itself, says the President. And yet he threatened to cut the life out of the treaty if not accorded his way in the Fiume controversy. Any league of nations, he adds, which does not guarantee as a matter of incontestable right the political independence and integrity of each of its members might hardly be more than a futile scrap of paper As soon as the guarantee is made by the United States we agree to maintain every vested wrong. In view of that incontestable fact how abnormal seems the cant of the President as he continues Article X represents the renunciation by Great Britain and Japan, which before the war had begun to have so many interests in common in the Pacillc; by France; by Italy by all the great fighting powers of the world, of the old pretensions of political conquest and territorial aggrandizement. It is a new doctrine in the worlds affairs and must be recognized, or there is no secure basis for the peace which the world so longingly desires and so desperately needs. If Article X is not adopted and acted upon, the governments which reject it will, I think, be guilty of bad faith to their people, whom they induced to make the infinite sacrifices of the war by the peldge that they would be fighting to redeem the world from the old order of force and aggression. They will be acting also in bad faith to the opinion of the world at large, to which they appealed for support in a concerted stand against the aggressions and pretensions of Germany. A little later he says : It must not be forgotten, senator, that this article constitutes a The choice is between two ideals on the one hand, the ideal of democracy, which represents the rights of free peoples everywhere to govern themselves, and, on the other hand, the ideal of imperialism, which seeks to dominate by force and unjust power, an ideal which is by no means dead and which is earnestly held in many quarters still. Every imperialistic influence in Europe vras hostile to the embodiment of Article X in the covenant, and its defeat now would mark complete consummation of their efforts to nullify the treaty. I hold the doctrine of Article X to be the essence of Americanism. We cannot repudiate it or weaken it without repudiating our own principles. The imperialist wants no League of Nations, but if, in response to the universal cry of the masses everywhere, there is to be one, he is interested to secure one suited to his own purposes, one that will permit him to continue the historic game of pawms and peoples the juggling of provinces, the old balances of powder, and the inevitable wrars attendant upon these things. The reservation proposed vrould perpetuate the old order. Does anyone really want to see the old game played again? Can anyone really value to take part in reviving the old order? The enemies of a League of Nations have by every true instinct centered their efforts against Article X, for it is undoubtedly the foundation of the whole structure. It is the bulwark and the only bulwark of the rising democracy of the w'orld against the forces of imperialism and reaction. Washington held that the essence of Americanism was to stay out of entangling alliances with foreign powers. Wilson holds that the essence of Americanism is to join foreign alliances and shed our blood and spend our money in their behalf. Whom shall we accept as the safer guide Washington or Wilson? Does anyone want to perpetuate the old order, asks the Fresifc dent? Is not Shantung the old order? And Egypt? And Persia? Is not the control of the seas by the strongest navy the old order? navy the old order? d Is Great Britain a democracy, or is it an empire dominating of the earths surface and half of the earths inhabitants? Is there anything new about such a world order? But, says the President. Article X will change all this, will rid the world of imperialism. Will it change the old order, will it rid the world of imperialism if the United States, the richest and potentially the strongest military power in the world, guarantees to preserve of the earths Great Britain a third of the earths surface and one-ha- lf inhabitants? one-thir- . Ibanez, the Spanish author, says American husbands should treat their wives rough. There is only one difficulty their wives wont let them. t |