| OCR Text |
Show TT -- rmil' I THE CITIZEN without destroying wealth, withoitt turning over industry to soviets. Its appeal is to all who revere our form of government, to all who believe that our government can continue to operate without the intervention of revolution, to all who believe in moving from point to point in a sure pathway of progress, to all who think that we should hold fast to the good while we are feeling our way toward the bet-etor all, in a word, who believe that we can. do justice to every class and at the same time maintain the processes of orderly government. r, SINISTER ARTICLE X the very outset FROM crux of the we have maintained that Article X was League of Nations covenant. We have maintained that the agreement to respect and preserve the territory and existing political independence of the member nations gave to the .league a warlike character and that the United States, therefore, bound itself by a moral obligation to fulfill every, requirement which might' devolve upon it as a member of a league for war. The Presidents interpretation of Article X was a matter of doubt until he appeared as a witness before the foreign relations committee of the United States Senate. Some had construed the few allusions he had previously made regarding Article X as an expression of his belief that the United, States was at liberty to use its own discretion after the executive council of the league had given its advice. How far such an interpretation of the article was from his real opinion he made perfectly clear to the senators of the foreign relations committee. He confirmed the contention of those who had interpreted Article X as the keystone of the covenant and did not hesitate to point out the binding nature of the agreement. He declared it to be a compelling moral obligation and wTent further, explaining that, in his opinion, a moral obligation, was more compelling than any legal obligation enforced by specific sanctions of the compact. When I speak of legal obligation, he said, I mean one that specifically binds you to do a particular thing under certain sanctions. Now a moral obligation is, of course, SUPERIOR TO A LEGAL OBLIGATION and, if I may say so, HAS A GREATER BINDING FORCE. In his preliminary remarks the President said : Article X seems to me to constitute the very backbone of the ' covenant. Without it the league wrould be hardly more than an in- -, fluential debating society. In the light of the Presidents owTn interpretation we can see clearly the kind of a league we are asked to enter. It is not a league fundamentally of arbitration and conciliation, but an alliance to enforce the peace treaty and to govern the world by an executive committee. Our obligation to supply money, men and ships to carry out the advice of the executive council is a moral obligation superior to a legal obligation and has greater binding force. The nature of the legal obligations was defined by the President. In reply to Senator Borah, who asked what obligations were imposed in the case of actual invasion, the President said : The legal obligation to apply the automatic punishment of the covenant undoubtedly, but not the legal obligation to go to arms and actually to make war. There might be a very strong moral obliga. tion. the event of actual invasion, therefore, we should be legally required to begin an immediate economic boycott. Our obligation to furnish troops would be a moral obligation superior to a legal obligation and of greater binding force. From this time forward there can be no doubt in anyones mind as to the real character of the League of Nations. If the American people believe that the world should be ruled by and that they should go to war whenever a a moral obligation arises under the terms of Article X they will be in favor of the League of Nations. If they believe that they ought not to bind themselves to fight preserve the territory and existing political independence of all members of the league they will be against the league as constituted by the present covenant. If we want a league for war we shall influence the United States In , super-sovereign- ty . Senate to ratify the treaty without reservations. If we want a league for peace we shall demand reservations pr, a rejection, of the covenant x j. a V THE AFFAIR AT BORDER ,v.'jfl H 5. i. that ever came out of Mexicoastfeat in Carranza admitted that he was unable to protect' Americans because his government was unable to police ONE of the wisest notes out-of-the-w- ay The admission of weakness and defeat was a long time in arriving and it is of value only if Carranza abides by its implications. If the Carranza government cannot protect Americans and 'Other .. foreigners he ought not to object to a little help. The arrogance of Carranz aswell as the palavering of psuedo-patriot- s, has prevented a genuine, understanding with , the ..United States. Each time that one of our cavalry squadrons or troops crosses the border after a gang of the deVils dwn brigands the estimable Venustiano Carranza emits a yelp of wounded pride and despair. On& we would think from the excruciating character of his screams-.thawho was were putting to death the purest of Mexican patriots,-onone the direct road to Mexico City with a bagful of American dollars to bolster up the paper treasury of the proud Carranzista adminis places. . . . t e l tration. It has been said in excuse of Carranza that he could not maintain himself in office and distribute his perfect pills of government if, for one minute, he connived at the invasion of Mexico by American soldiers even though the pursuit were to end the careers of murderous thugs who would as soon cut the throat of a Carranzista as of a Gringo. A good many things have been said in excuse of Carranza, but nothing that makes his government any more respectable than the Bolshevik government of Russia. There seems to be no particular reason why anyone should weep if the Carranza government were to perish utterly. Some who criticise a policy of force still declare that Americans in Mexico should be done bv as the Mexicans wish to do by them. Either that or they should get out of Mexico, it is argued. The difficulty of applying this policy is revealed by the latest affair at the border. The other day two American aviators, whose machine failed to function, were compelled to walk and swim their way back toward civilization. They became confused, landed on the Mexican side of the Rio Grande and were seized by bandits who held them for ransom. They did not even mean to be in Mexico. Nor would the plan proposed by Carranza have been any more effective. He suggested that Americans about to visit remote parts of Mexico apply to the central government for an escort. Our two fliers were in no position to file such an application. The bandits filed their application for a ransom first. Carranzas note admitted that his administration lacked the first essential of a government the power to give adequate protection to all within its jurisdiction. A government that cannot adequately protect its own people and all who are legally under its jurisdiction is no government at all. This is not to say that a government must be able to prevent every case of banditry, kidnaping or murder, but it should be able afford such security as is the rule in civilized countries. To admit that it cannot afford proper protection is to admit that it is not a government in a true sense. And it is in no just position to take offense if its urisdiction is usurped by a maltreated neighboring power which is capable of copingj with the forces of disorder. At best, however, none of the Presidents policies in dealing with Mexico has been successful. They have been in the nature of stopgaps. They have brought relief only for a short time. When we made war on Mexico we stopped short of any substantial goal. We entered Vera Cruz with a magnificent flourish, but failed to force our way to Mexico City and obtain a treaty of peace which would have compelled Mexico to establish a civilized government and an elaboraC machinery for the protection of foreign rights. Americans cannot help contrasting the irresolution of President Wilson with the quick decision and imposing firmness of President Roosevelt. Perdicaris alive or Raisuli dead was an example of a policy - V |
