OCR Text |
Show r mmm i THE CITIZEN We are at war with Russia without a declaration of war by Congress and simply on the order of our fighting President. We are sending troops into Silesia to protect a boundary and we have landed marines near Fiume to fight, if necessary, against the soldiers of Italy. The President touched on moral obligations and made a hit when he said: But if you are squeamish about fighting I will tell you that you will not have to fight. The point he avoided was this : The moral obligation of Article X comes into existence without any action of ours. It is automatic and binds our delegate to the council of the league. If, for example, the people of India revolt and the Russians go to their aid we are bound by the treaty to help Great Britain preserve her territories. According to the Presidents view our delegate could block all proceedings by voting not to accept the obligation of the treaty. As Americans we know that our delegate would simply be a rubber stamp in that case. He would bow to the terms of the treaty and vote accordingly. If he did not he would be a treaty-breake- r. Perhaps we can emphasize the point by another homely . illus-tratio- n. Suppose . that Smith hears anarchists plotting to blow up his neighbors factory. At once a moral obligation arises. Smith must do everything he can to save the factory. He must inform the police and help in every way to foil the plot. The choice there is simply one between right and wrong. True, he is at liberty to do wrong, but he has no right to do it. Our delegate at the meeting of the league council has a right to do only what the treaty binds him to do. If he takes the ground that a higher duty commands him to break the treaty, then the treaty is not an obligation at all, moral or otherwise. The Presidents Shantung argument was adroit and seemed to please. He pointed out that Shantung could not be freed by amending the treaty. He went on to declare that while in Paris, he could not require Great Britain and France to break their treaty with Japan. And then he declared that after the league was in operation we could bring up the Shantung case and obtain relief for the oppressed province. He forgot to mention the fact that the treaty would still be in effect, just as much in effect after as before the formation of the league, and that it could not be abrogated without the consent of Japan. The President did not say that Japan would concede any more than she has already promised to concede the restoration of sovereignty over Shantung to China, and that means nothing so long as Japan owns the country. The audience admired the structure of the League of Nations as the President described it, but a critical mind could not help seeing a sinister vision. The Presidents temple seemed to be swept aside and one could see in its place the grim walls of a prison. It is a prison built by a group of nations which seeks to rule the world, to as Germany tried to do, to implace the world in a straight-jacke- t, prison all subject peoples that failed to gain their independence in the recent war and to deny to subject peoples arms and ammunition and to use all the weapons of modern civilization rapid-fir- e guns, tanks, hand grenades and the terrible economic boycott which means slow starvation to keep the world subject to the great powers by war. The President kept iterating, in a fashion that must have been embarrassing' to his supporters, that the great fighting nations of the world would be united in this adventure and, despite his soft pleas for peace, one could not help discerning his vision of the great fighting nations battling and forever battling to maintain their dominion over mankind. He sneered at those who wished to escape the responsibilities of the league as created by Article X and insisted that the guarantees of that article were the heart of the league and that if they were set aside by the Senate the entire league would fall to the ground. What we would gain from such guarantees he did not show except in the negative fashion of declaring that if we did not accept the covenant as at present formulated we would incur the enmity of our former allies and would be relegated to a position beFrench-British-Japane- se side Germany. We are the only nation in the world that they trust, said the President, speaking of our allies, but he did not draw the logical con clusion. If they do not trust themselves it is because they are not to be trusted and if they are not to.be trusted there is excellent rea son why the United States Senate should make sure of protecting the United States before ratifying the treaty. I GRANTS TABERNACLE ADDRESS the course of his remarks at the tabernacle last Sunday after- President Grant deprecated the discourtesy which has marked the League of Nations controversy and added : I have never yet heard a Democrat make a political speech that T felt was fair to the Republicans. Being a Democrat I wont say anything of what I think of the speeches of Republicans regarding Democrats. We have often noted, and as often deplored, the tendency of Democrats to be discourteous and unfair. In fact we have mildly chided B. H. Roberts for his discourtesy toward his opponents and we have condemned the unfairness of the vote which was asked for at4 r one of the meetings addressed by Apostle Ivins. We are surprised that President Grant should even intimate that Republicans are as discourteous and unfair as the Democrats. For his permanent enlightenment we will state that Republicans are never discourteous or unfair. Sometimes, of course, they are firm, but polite yes, always polite. If, therefore, President Grant detects in this article anything which seems to be discourteous we wish to assure him that it is simply firmness for the right. We trust that we shall show toward him that due deference which he besought for Democratic aye, and Republican disputants. There will be a wide difference of opinion as to the propriety of President Grants statement of his personal views. The unthinking will not stop to remark that he indicated rather plainly that he was expressing only his own opinion when he urged the ratification of the league covenant without amendments. They will, not stop to remark that he was not speaking as head of the church, but will believe and maintain that he officially recommended, as head of the church, the ratification, without change, of the League of Nations covenant. They will not even stop to consider that he criticised the covenant and expressed the wish that it could be changed. Those of his followers who think that the church should take a stand on temporal matters and exert temporal power will approve his act and conduct themselves accordingly. The unthinking outside of his church will be indignant, for they, too, will not stop to analyize his remarks and will declare that he has officially indorsed the covenant in the name of the church and they will proclaim this as a fact before all the world. They will tell their friends outside of Utah that President Grant has ordered his followers, Democrats and Repubto submerge their inlicans, Socialists, neutrals and dividual views and, as church members, bow to his edict. Of course, that is far from President Grants purpose. We believe that he still adheres to the policy of the First Presidency, which, when beseeched by the League to Enforce Peace to indorse the t, replied that it had become a political question on which the members of the church would differ and that, therefore, it would be unwise to take any action for or against the covenant. And nothing t that President Grant said in his tabernacle speech seems to us to in- IN t m non-partisan- s, cov-nan- dicate a change of church policy. If we view his statement correctly he spoke officially as the head of his church in only one instance. He was alluding to an illustrated handbill circulated and published in newspapers under the heading: Mormon bible prophecies become issue in opposition to League of Nations. Very properly he wished the position of the church to be understood on a matter relating to the writings of his church and he said : The position of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-da- y Saints is that the standard works of the church are not opposed to thc League of Nations. So far from saying that the standard books of the church are for the League of Nations, he immediately went on to urge the members of the church in all controversy in connection with this great issue, that they express themselves as to their views with due deference to s . |