OCR Text |
Show COMING AND GOING. The now peace covenant is not meet-ir.f; meet-ir.f; with uiuininio'.is approval on either side of the Atlantic ocean. While Senator Sen-ator Cummins of Iowa declares that if the published reports of amendments to the league of nations draft are accurate l-.e will vote for ratification in the senate, sen-ate, Toindexter of Washington savs the proposed constitution is still a ''supreme ''su-preme sacrifice'' for the United States. Toindcxier is opposed not only to "the leane-'' but to "a league.'' Therefore it is impossible to satisfy him. The London papers do not exhibit the least enthusiasm over the covenant as amended. Some of them believe it less satisl'acotry than the first draft. The Post, which has opposed the league idea from the first and has been unsparing in its criticism of President Wilson, calls it '-the new Garden of Eden." The Monroe doctrine is to take the place of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, 'the fruits of the western hemisphere hem-isphere being forever forbidden to signatories sig-natories of the league." The Post blames President Wilson personally for the features of the draft to which it obiects, and declares that posterity will place him with Metternieh and Castle-res;:!! Castle-res;:!! as one. who has "worked for the confusion of other nations and the greatness of his own." So we find Senator Poindexter accusing ac-cusing the president of . sacrificing the interests of the United States and the Morning Post declaring that Mr. Wilson Wil-son is endeavoring to exalt his own country at the expense of all the other nations. Both of these opinions represent repre-sent extreme views, and they are interesting inter-esting chiefly on account of this fact. They cannot be reconciled, for the United States will not be making any "supreme sacrifice" if the president secures the "confusion of other nations na-tions and the greatness of his own." Some of the objections to the original draft of the covenant w-ere undoubtedly well founded, and aa earnest effort has been made to cure the defects. Constructive Con-structive criticism should always be welcome at the council table. Destructive Destruc-tive criticism, however, is quite another matter, and those who use it always seek to hinder rather than to help. |