New Britain Herald Newspaper, March 20, 1919, Page 5

JEN. LODGE EVADES LOWELL'S QUESTIONS Qualities Replies in Boston Debate on League of Nations March 20. e between of Mas- rtions quest Symphoan el Hail with this Senator ! of which | zens) | ol | of the league »u think j of his | the very middie propounded il said: formulate | tments and ask ndments be adopted #nd the covenant The audience cheered s after b netor Lodge arose to puttal. He too league that against wal civded this league in such form that peace instead of of course I auy d v han =a loud “leag by those who aw them.” He pres- had nof consulted the senate. Gov. Coolidge, who acted as offi- ial timekeeper and chairman, in- trodueing the speakers, said that America desires a peace “made secure by fact and parchment.” He first in- troduced Senator Lodge as a senator pre-eminent {n Massachusetts, ‘“hon- ored here und famous abroad. dent in PRESIDENT LOWELL’S BRIEF FOR LEAGUE dent Lowell spoke in part as ‘Before examining the nature of the plan proposed in the Covenant of Paris, it may be well to consider the minimum essentials of an effective lLieague of Nations to prevent war. Everyone will agree that such feague must forbid a resort to arms befbre submitting the question in dis- pute to a public trial, arbitration or induiry of some kind; and probably it ought also to forbid a resort to arms after an award which is universally believed to be right and just. Such a delay before hostilities will not pre- vent all wars, but it will make them mueh’ less common, and it will wholly prevent a nation from delib- erately planning a war, as Germany did, and seeking the advantage of surprise when its victims are unpre- pared. It is generally assumed that, if (Germany had not possessed that advantage, she would not have gone te war. Obviously, the submission to arbltration must be compulsory, for if net, the condition is nowise different from what it has been hitherto; and the compulsion—the sanction, as the Jawyers say—the punishment for the offender, must be such that no nation would venture to imcur it; for the more sev the more certain, the more immediate the penalty, the less the chance that any bellicose nation would run the risk. The country that goes to war before submitting its case to arbitration must be regarded as a eriminal against mankind, and treat- ed instantly as an outlaw and a com- mon enemy by the rest of the world, or by those nations which bind them- gelves together for the maintenance of order. For this reason, the League to Enforce Peace has always insisted +hat the penalty should not be decreed a council of the league, which would involve delay, possible dis- agreement and inaction, but auto- matically; that is, the members of the league should bind themselves jointly | and severally to resist the aggressor at once. In this way the members would stand together, and an attack on one would be ipso facto an attack on all; and if the league contained, as we expect, by far the greater part of the world, no nation would, for a moment, contemplate war with such coalition, and, therefore, “‘nrs; uld not occur before arbitration. The principle should apply not | ynly to disputes among the members of the league, but also to dissensions hetween other nations not belonging 10 the league, because war, like fire, | has a tendency to spread, and nai one in a community has a right to | start a conflgration which his neigh- »ors have not a right to put out Council Does Not Command. ‘Although the penaily againgt the aggressor Is automatic in the sense | that it does not depend upon the ac- | tion of an international council, | nevertheless such a council for pur- | pores, not of command, but of con- sultation, is highly beneficial. 1t tends to remove friction by enabling | nations to understand one another's | point of view, and to reconcile or ad- | fust differences before they reach an } acute stage. Most plans for a League of Nations have, T believe, proposed two such bodies: one large and com- prehensive, for the discussion of gen- eral problems, with an opportunity tor the presentation of all possible | opinions, but too large for confiden- tial interchange of ideas; the other szaaller, representing maiunly those a ere by | offender 's | How are the leaguel nations to pre | makes a r ! thus adopted by those burden. n would to the the peac small enough out in detail recommendations | submitted to the members of gue for acceptance, modifica- or reiection Tt will, T think by all persons who des League of Nations' that thesc points are the essential minhmum of any league that can be effective in preventing war. Let now how the Cove- hant of Patisicover these points and hat else it covers. Draft of Covenant. is very defective in 1g. Tn places it »<_:uwf;““~*‘f;\";0 : = often inz ate- mmm::\'z cometimes doubtful. casily mis inderstood. and has in fact heen widely misunderstood. To give e example of what must defective drafting, Article XVI provides that if any country resorts o \war, in aisregard of its covenant, nembers of the league shall im- ately prevent all financial, com- | nercial and personal intercourse be- | tween the nationals (that is the citt- of the covenant breaking state of any other state, whether & membe the league or not difficull for members to prevent their own trading with the citi- zens of offending country, but how about the citizens of other coun- ries not members of the league? No doubt the framers of this clause had mind biockad but what if the iand frontiers border upon countries not members of the league? Suppose, for example that the new state of Poland should, contrary to her covenant, attack Czecho-Slovaki on whom breach of rest, a body aun ries of v work chis be the tion he 1ly agreed : us “The traft that the + expressed covenant and the nationals ot. Tt from the cit in a vent the Poles. from trading with the Russians and Germans on the East and West? Apparently something here is wWrong. “The mcaning of the covenant ;ould be made perfectly certain, and e may assume that every effort will be made to effect this, because when people know what they intend, and want the whole world to know what they intend, they are naturally will- inz to make their meaning clear. ‘Let us remember that in its pres- ent shape the covenant is intended only as a draft, subject to correction; for if it were regarded as finished and unchapgeable, it would not have been given out until submitted for ratifization. It is defective as is all unfinished legislation that embodies much of compromise. For the first time we have an cxperiment in open diplomacy, the public being admitted to inspect the process before it is completed. It would certainly be un- fortunate for that experiment if criti- cism of the draft weve purely de- structive; and vet we have so far had no ecriticism of a constructive charac- ter. From those, and they are many. who profess to believe in a League of Nations, but not in this particular plan, we have heard little or nothing of the way this plan could be im- proved to meet their views. Criti- cism- seems to have been left almost wholly to those who object to a TLeazue of Natlons altogether. The Executive Council. us now turn to the functions of the representative organs of ¢he league. The most important of these is the Executive Council, which is to consist of representatives of the United States, the British Bmpire, ‘rance, Italy, Japan and of four ather states that are members of the league, those states being selected by the body of delegates. The Executive Council 8o constituted is given author- ity to formulate plans for the reduc- tion of armaments (Art. VIIL); to advise how the evils of private manu- facture of munitions can be prevent- ed (Art. VIIL); to advise upon the means by which the integrity and in- dependence of the members of the league may be preserved in case of af- gression, or danger thereof (Art. X.); to propose what shall be done if a state fails to carry out the award of an arbitration by which it has agreed to abide (Art. XTIL.); to formulate plans for a permanent court of inter- national justice (Art. XIV.); to in- quire into disputes between states and make recommendations thereon (or refer the matter to the body of dele- gates for inquiry), and to propose measures to give effect to its own unanimous recommendations in suc’ cases (Art. XV.) If a state goes to war contrary to its covenants and thereby draws upon itself the sanc- tion provided in the agreement of thej members, it is the duty of the FExecu- tive Council to recommend what mili- tary or naval forces the members of the league shall severally contribute to protect the covenants of the league (Art. XVI.) The council can further prescribe the conditions upon which | a state not a member of the league shall accept the obligations of mem- berghip for the purpose of a particu- lar dispute, and in case of refusal it may take such action and make such recommendations s will prevent hostilities (Art. XVIL.) “So far the authority of the Execu- tive Council, with regard to the mem- bers of the league, is strictly limited to consultation, and making recom- mendations which the members of the league are under no obligation to accept unless they please. “I can, in fact, find only three cases in which the council i given any power to make any orders, regula- tions or decisions binding upon the| members of the league or limiting| their freedom of action. The first ot these arises When the council acting in a judicial or ‘arbitral capacity commendation which is except for the parties to the dispute. In that case a state is bound not to go to war with any party that complies with the recom- mendation, and to take part in the punishment of any other state that goes to war with a party so comply- ing (Art. XV.) To that extent a unanimous decision of the councii in case of a dispute is binding on the members of the league, and no one would probably desire that it shouid be otherwise. «Another case of a binding decision relates to the reduction of armaments. When the council has determined, for the consideration and actlon of the several governments. why! arma- “Let unanimous, | ML) , Crease its armament | provai i sonable. i population, and the other to prevent ment is fair and reasonable, and the plan is adopted by them, the limity governments annot the afterward be exceeded without permission of the council (Art. In this case the covenant for- a member of the league to in- without the ap- of the council, hut only after the member has specially and volun- v consented to a general plan of reduction. Not Obliged to Accept Mandatory. “The third case is that of a manda- tory for backward people. “The degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the mandatory state’ is to ‘be explicitly defined in cach case by the Executive Council in 2 special act or charter. (Art. XIX.) It has been asserted that a state se- lected as a mandatory (presumably by the Executive Council, although this is not expressly stated), is un- der an obligation to accept. I can find in the covenant no provision to that effect, expressed or implied; nor would such an obligation appear rea- To suppose that the repre- sentatives of France, Italy, the United tates or any other of the fourteen states on the committee intended that if the council should select their country as mandatory to take chargoe of Russia it would be obliged to ac- cept, seems to me in the highest de- gree improbable, and the same thing is true of less difficult mandates. It is a general principle that in any doc- ument an intention, not expressed and in itself irrational, is not to be im- plied. No doubt a spirit of fairness would prevent a nation, engaged with others in a common cffort for human welfare, from shirking all burdens it has not expressly agreed to assume: but that is a very different thing from an obligation to accept any burden that may be thrust upon it. The mat- ter should, of course, be made per- fectly clear in the final draft. “The principle of mandatories seems to me highly meritorious. It has, I understand, two objects, ene to prevent maltreatment of the native hid is a selfish monopoly of products that may be essentia] to the industry and prosperity of the world. For both these purposes there is clearly a right of collective supervision and control at least by all the nations that have taken part in the conquest of the col- onies and territories concerned. 84 Germany and her allies had not been beaten these possessions would not have been permanently captured; and every nation that helped ta win the war helped to conquer them. There- fore we, as one of those nations that helped to acquire them, have a right, and have no less a duty, to see that they are praperly administered: and there is no need of making a bugbear of it. 2 “The functions of the body gates are still less extensive, consist- ing almost entirely of the discussion of matter within the sphere of action of the league. The only cases—apart from the regulation of its own pro- cedure-—where it is given power to make binding decisions, are the se- lection of the four countries which, in addition to the five chief powers, are to have seats in the executive council; and the case here a mat- ter in dispute between two states is referred to the body for inquir in which case its recommendation has the same effect as if made by the ex- ecutive council. of dele- No Super-Sovereignty. “This analysis of the plan for a league set forth in the Covenant of Paris shows how closely it resembles the sketch of the minimum essentials of such a league in the opening of this address. It shows also that the fear of a super-sovereign body, to which we are asked to sacrifice our independence, is the creation of an overheated imagination. If we assume that the covenant means what it says, and not something wholly different, no organ of the league has any auth- ority to give commands to this coun- try that need give us a moment's anxiety. The only substantial powers that any such body is to possess, be- vond making recommendations which we may follow or not, as we think right, are derived from a unanimous decision in an international dispute, and from the right to forbid an in- crease in armaments or to direct the duties of a mandate in case we first agree to the reduction of armament or to the assumption of the mandate. It is sometimes asked, if the auth- ority of the organs of the league is so insignificant, where is its efficienc in preventing war? The answer is that it lies in the obligations assumed | under the covenant directly by the several members of the league: and this is both the most effective and least adventurous method of prevent- | ing war. | “This misunderstanding of the ture of the league proposed, and of the functions of its orzans, is the | foundation of the most of the objec- | tions raised against the covenant. If! the United States is not subject to the | orders of the executive council, or under any obligation to adopt its rec- ommendations, it is senseless to talk of our being ruled by a body in which we have only one vote out of nine. The opponents of the league set up | an imaginary scarecrow of their own creation, and then fire at it with great satisfaction to themselves. Their shots do not touch the real mark, al- though they may trouble the inno- cent bystander. na- “England’s” Authority. “‘Another bogey of an equally un- | substantial kind is that ‘Ensland’ has in the body of delegates six votes to | our one. If the only functions of this body are to talk, to select the four other states to be represented on the executive council, and to make unan- | imous recommendations after inquiry into a dispute, the number of votes therein is not of much consequence. Moreover, even if the British self- governing colonies are admitted as members of the league, it is by no means certain that Great Britain can always control their votes; and on the other hand—tell it not in Gath-——who but the United States would practi- cally control today the votes of Pan- ama, of Nicaragua, of Haiti and of San Domingo? . “Let us now turn to the particular objections made to the entrance of the United States into this league, or indeed into any league to maintain | ought | that the opponents of the So8 seek for an argument 111§ farewell address. Curiof I have never heard opinions, or practice, Wi | well known, quoted aga tion or some other mode , tions. It is even more | hear Senator Borah urge ity of Washington against & of Nations, but say that if of mankind should revisit:the aund declare for such a lei would nevertheless oppose it.i ordinary man, that senator’s authority in matters of opin perplexing. No sensible ‘man § { for a moment assert that if, |10 a change of conditions in the ern world, he were convinced utility and wisdom oi a dep from the policy of Washington the great statesmen of his days ought nevertheless to vote 3 that departure because of opinion pressed a century ago. B “Senator Lodge has told us # ought to be very cautious 3 abandoning a policy laid down Washington and followed for a Hu dred years, and there is good si in the caution. It does not me that we are to be chained dowmn immobility by the traditions of past regardle we th : of changes in condi- tions. That would be wholly con= | tra to the American spirit, and to the character of Washington himself, Wwho was one of the greatest Innovi tors in history, for the reason that h fixed his vision, not upon the past, b on the facts of his day and the prol lems of #7¢c future. Senator Lodge's caution means only this, that the burden of proof always rests upen those who advocate something new. We accept that burden of proof, ané seek to show, what I believe the great mass of our countrymen feel: That the time has come when the nations should co-operate to put an end to war so far as possible: that from this humane effort the United States should not stand aloof; and that the principles embodied In the Covenant of Paris, with such amendments as can no doubt be obtained provide the best means available for the creation of such a league. This is what we are striving to prove, and I believe that we shall prove it to the satis- faction of theé American people. ‘“As our senior senator, and leader of the republicans in the sen- ate, we have a right to ask Mr. Lodge two questions: first, whether he will, or will not, vote for the of Paris, provided it is amended he wishes: and. second, what amen< ments thereto he desires. “A further objection nant is that it contains no provision for withdrawal from the league. If this is a serious cause of reluctance to its ratification there would prob- ably be no great hesitation in adding draw on giving a reasonable notice— let us say a couple of years—provided all its obligations were fulfilled up to the time it withdrew. | The Monroe Doctrine. [ “Next we come to the greatest bug- lar alarm is most readily by vague denunciation withaut defi- nite explanation. It is the Monroe Doctrine. As one of those who have alw. belicved strongly in this doc- trine, I understand that it means, or is by some persons suppased to mean, several different things. In its origi- nal sense it meant that no foreign na- tion should interfere with the inde- pendence, or seck by force to acquire any part of the territor; try in the American hemisphere. Taken in this sense the cavenant ex tends the doctrine over the whole world, or at least over all that part of it which is covered by the league. | “There is another later and broader | sense in which the doctrine means that no foreign nation shall acquire s, taothold on these continents even with the consent of the country that owns the place. This was the phase of the| doctrine invoked in the case of May dalena Bayv. A Japanese compa proposed to buy from Mexico a tract | af Jand on this bay in Southern Cali- | fornia, ultimately, as we believed, | for the purpose of a Japanese naval station. Our government objected | and the purchase was not made. Such | 1 transaction not forbidden by the! Covenant of Paris, and if we went to | arbitration about it the decision | might be that Mexico had a right to. sell land to Japan or any other power if she wished to do so. The Uniter States would justified in asking. and in my opinfon ought to ask, for a.| clause in the covenant that no foreign power shall hereafter acquire by quest, purchase, or in any oth any possession on the American cal tinents or the islands adjacent ther to. r do I believe that the Euro pean members of the league would object ta such a clause, because they do not want another nation to acquire | military posts naval stations in| the neighborhood of their own! coasts, canals or coaling stations. | There is. however, a third inter-| pretation of the Monroe Doctrine, | rarely asserted, often repudiated. but! nevertheless widely entertained, which | stands on a very different footing. It| is that, while foreign powers are for- | bidden to take territory from Ameri-| can countries, we are at liberty to| treat them as our interests may dic-| tate. According to that view Central| and South America are a game pre-| serve, from Which poachers are ex-| cluded, but where the proprietor| may hunt as he pleases. Naturally | the proprietor is anxious not only to| keep away the poachers, but to oppo: game laws that would interfere with | his own sport. With their professed | rinciples about protecting the integ- vity and independence of small coun- tries, the nations that have d the Covenant of Paris, can consent to a claim of this kind. we to demand it. this is the real meaning of the Monroe Doctrine is the specter that has prevented the freat South Ameri- can states from accepting the doc- trine. This has been the chief obstacle to mutual confidence, and cordial reia- | tions with them, and the sooner it is definitely rejected the better. “This covenant is not perfect, it is a draft published for criticlsm and will receive plenty of .t, and through criticism some improvement also. But even when perfected, it will not be perfect. Nothing human is perfect; awakened | , of any coun- be or the peace of the world, First or last a clause that any member mi vith- | 3 r might with- | > 08 bear of all, the point on which popu-| been our land ¥ | most powerfuf! the ! | | Covenant | to the cove- | cannot change| can we escape cannot move the try backward, and it 80 we cannot help moving # other way. The destiny & is forward, and we must lod SENATOR LODGE AT ODDS WITH WILSON | Senator Lodge spoke in part as fol- lows: you shoul§ be satisfie | Not Against Any League. [ | “It has been said that I am against any League of Nation: I am not: | far from it. I am-anxious to have the nations, the free nations of the united in a league, as we call it, a society, as the French call it, but | united, to do all to bring about a eral disarmament. corn flakes gen- to Comsistency. “Now, just a word in regard to in- | consistency. I do not think I have | inconsistent, but 1t does not | matter whether I have or not Indi- | vidual inconsistencies have no rela- tion to the merits of any question g nobody ever changed thdir minds it would be a stagnant world The on difficulty comes, as it comes with many habits, harmless in moderation but dangerous in excess. “Let c d FEurope introduce | some kind of police system in the | weak and disorderly countries at their thresholds, but let the United States | treat Mexico as our Balkan peninsula, | ask for ,.'"’!Iu h('lfn» | Copyright 191 BYR. J. Reynol Tobacco Co. EVER was such right-handed-two- fisted smokejoy as you puff out of a jimmy pipe packed with Prince Albert! That’s because P. A. has the quality! You can’t fool your taste apparatus any more than you can get five aces out of a family deck! So, when you hit Prince Albert, coming and going, and get up half an hour earlier just to start stoking your pipe or rolling cigarettes, you know you've got the big prize on the end of your line! Prince Albert’s quality alone puts it in a class of its own, but when you figure that P. A. is made by our exclusive patented process that cuts out bite and parch—well—you feel like getting a flock of dictionaries to find enough words to express your happy days sentiments! Toppy red bags, tidy red tins, handsome pound and half-pound tin humidors—and—that classy, practical pound crystal glass humidor with sponge moistener top that keeps the tobacco ino::;ch iurfect :on‘:i’z"tion. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, Winston-Salem, N. C. with ordinary but you should CRIMP CU LONG BURNING PIPE ANDE CICARETTE TOBACCO