OCR Text |
Show distinction between public and private property. The state administration builds a $40,000 transmission line for a private corporation or a viaduct for a railroad, although it was the rule for viars that the railways should construct at their own expense all structures destined for their protection. The city commissioners have been guilty of brazen and shameless misuse of the taxpayers property. A Democratic city official, who had been a public plunderer for years, had the audacity to enter tlii- race for mayor and to say that he ran His on his record. record was the theft of more than $12,000 from the city. That mayor belonged to a machine which was able to control machine. the politics of the city.- It was the It is the machine that elected Bock and Green and Corless. It is the machine that elected all of the Democratic city commissioners except Mr. Barnes. The Democratic commissioners who had no more reason to trust in themselves than, had the public, insisted on selecting a Democrat to administer the public safety department, and under his administration, up to date, the vice and crime conditions have been as bad as at any period in the citys history. Yet the commissioners trusted once more as a sort of forlorn hope, perhaps that a Democrat could give the public an efficient administration of a municipal department. This is not to say that the Democrats have no men in their ranks capable of making efficient administrators. It is to say, however, that neither in city nor state campaigns have they chosen the right men. Nor have they, in any wise, changed their conduct lately. The Citizen believes that it is stating only the truth when it says that the people of Utah are weary of Democratic administration, that they seek a change and that, as rapidly as may be. they will return to Republican administrators. of making a - - Grejen-Bock-Corle- ss COX CHILDISH ON LEAGUE In his speeches Governor Cox shows that he paid little attention to the senatorial oligarchy when it was discussing the obligations of the league covenant. Consequently he is all at sea when he attempts to argue with Senator Harding. In one of his addresses Senator Harding referred to the moral obligation of the covenant, a phase of the question which was discussed fully in the senate debates but which Governor Cox, being immersed in Ohio gang politics, evidently did not hear of until he became candidate for president. Senator Harding assumed rightly that the moral obligation of the treaty, when ratified, would exist ab initio, from the very beginning. and would necessarily control the action of congress. It would be a contract which congress would consider, so to speak, a debt of honor. It would be a sacred contract, to make war if the league council unanimously decreed war. Then Senator Hard-- ing added: The American people never would permit a repudiation of a lebt of honor. No congress would ever dare to make this country appear as a welcher, as it would appear and would be in such an event before the eyes of the world. Bv way of retort Governor Cox says: Answer this, Senator Harding, yes or no. Do you mean that vnu arc opposed to jour assuming a moral obligation to our international relations? Disregarding the atrocious English which the candidate cm-- 1 ploys when excited, it is proper to state that lie rises not a hairs breadth above the measure and manner of a pettifogging lawyer. Would Governor Cox favor moral obligations that would betray lc country into the hands of a foreign power? wc might ask if "c wished to mimic his methods. Certainly Senator Harding can answer, yes, if it be a question ()f assuming moral obligations, ab iifitio, that will take away con-- ; guess's freedom of action and make of congress merely a rubber stamp to put into effect the decision of a foreign Does the putting of teeth into the Hague tribunal (a suggestion wade by Senator Harding) mean the assuming of an obligation to -- ; i i i : 1 . . super-sovereignt- y. exert moral or physical force or both? asks the Democratic nomi- nee. No doubt, in certain circumstances, congress would be willing to declare war to uphold a decision of the Hague tribunal, but congress would not be bound by a treaty contract specifying that it must declare war. In Article X this nation binds itself to preserve the territories and existing political independence of the member nations. If the supreme council unanimously declared for war, then, as Senator Harding aptly put it, congress would be a welcher if it tried to break the contract. The American people never would permit such repudiation and would enter the war however unwillingly. If the league were founded on the Hague tribunal congress would retain its freedom of action. Nor would it be a welcher if it refused to wage war at the suggestion of the Hague tribunal, for it would give notice in advance that it did not bind itself by a contract to fight at the dictation of a foreign council. Governor Cox might ask, How can you put teeth into a tribunal, whose judgments you uphold only when you so desire? That would be an honest question. No tribunal, whether it be a League of Nations or Hague tribunal, can succeed unless it has the willing support of the member nations. Governor Cox says the Hague tribunal failed because it did not prevent the world war. The League of Nations failed because it did not prevent the Polish war. And. Lloyd George admitted the failure and declared that it was due to a lack of unanimity. In other words, - Great Britain and France had a disagreement over their national affairs and would not permit the league council to function. Either the league never could obtain unanimity in which case it would be worthless orj if it did act with unanimity, the member nations would be bound by contract to wage war at its dictation. Senator Harding realizes that the only basis of peace is an international agreement to use peaceful methods. He sees that the threat of war and of economic baycotts can never preserve peace. The league can preserve boundaries by war, but it never can preserve peace. Ignoring or perhaps ignorant of the sweep of world events about him, Governor Cox says that no nation would dare to face an economic boycott. Russia has faced an economic baycott by. the allies for three years and has been making war on the allies all that time. Governor Cox should be asked these questions : Would you support a covenant which, in case Great Britain were attacked by Russia, would bind the United States to preserve by means of war India to Great Britain, Egypt to Great Britain, Ireland to Great Britain or Canada to Great Britain? If we should join the league under the present covenant we would assume the legal and the moral obligation to fight just such a war. And, in reality, such a war is already on. Russia is attacking Great Britain and all the British colonies we have named, except Canada, arc in revolt. If we refused to support Great Britain we would be wclchers. Wc would break our war contract. It is to escape moral and legal obligations of this kind that Senator Harding would establish an association of nations to preserve peace rather than to preserve boundaries and empires or to hold subject peoples in thralldom. . WHAT HAS WELLING DONE? Perhaps Mr. Welling will pause in the course of his campaign to tell us what he has done to entitle him to a seat in the senate. For some years he has been a congressman and his people have heard of him occasionally. But our memories are short and we are prone to forget what our great statesmen have done for us in Washington. Take the case of Mr. Welling. His supporters say that he - |