The Nonpartisan Leader Newspaper, December 30, 1918, Page 4

‘government of one was a .. lantic and stirred our then {1 colonies back for her and to - lesson in “law and order™ and " respect for duly constituted au- “Thority. But just two things now new ideas in progress which i can not and will not approve. Whoever comes to me with new igeas can go or I will remove him.” In his “General History,” page 517, Colby sums up the object of the Holy Alliance: “It held that the interests of sovereigns were the same, that a revolt against the menace to the power of the others, and that armed inter- vention on behalf of any ruler who happened to get into trou- ble with his subjects was the duty of other members of the ieague.” The policy of the Holy Alli- ance reached out acress the At- veung republic into action. The colonies of Spain in the new world revolted and established républics on the model of the 13 original American colonies of England, which had staged .revolution under those fiery radicals, Franklin, Jefferson, Washington, Patrick Henry and Thomas Paine. The Holy Alli- ance proposed to get Spain’s teach the rebellious colonists a a lieu of & Wilsonian League of Nations, result from the peace congress which is soon to meet in Eu- rope and in which our own country will take a lead- ing part. Do not scoff at the idea. Read the edi- torials in your daily newspaper or the articles and editorials in any of the big magazines! Not such a remote possibility after all, you’ll say, if you have your eyes open. The nations did not meet at Vienna in 1815 in a spirit of co-operation to make a peace of justice that would assure fu- ture world tranquillity, pros- perity and free development of all countries, big or little, con- querer or conquered. They met to divide the spoils. They, met filled with - jealousies, with hatreds and prejudices, and above all with a desire to grab each for itself all it could, right or wrong. They met to remake the map of Europe by parecel- ing out /the weak nations among the strong, without the slightest regard for the desires of the peoples concerned. The “peace”—merely an armed truce—was signed finally by Austria, France, Great Britain, Prussia, Russia, Spain, Portu- gal and Sweden. They gave Russia the duchy © saved the republics of the new world. President Monroe of the United States issued that fa- Prince Metternich, who fer many years was the leading spirit of the of Warsaw, about all that re- mained of Poland. They gave Prussia a part of Poland and ¢ mous ! pronouncement, the “Monroe Doctrine,” and Great Britain, in control of able and liberal statesmen, was not a ‘member of the Holy Alliance. The Monroe Doctrine demanded “hands off” in American affairs, and England backed it up. Thus, nearly a century before the Wilson declara- tion for “self-determination” of nations, the United States enunciated that great principle. Will some such alliance as the Holy Alliance, in Holy Alliance. He considered himself “God’s lientenant” in fight- - ing demeocracy Saxony. They gave most of Italy to princes of the Aus- trian house. They gave what is now Belgium to Holland. They gave the kmgdom of Naples to Spain, and there were many mmor territorial changes. Practically all of these arrangements, made to satisfy the avarice of the rulers and enforced re- gardless of the desires and asperations of the peo- ples concerned, were doomed te failure. Nearly every one sowed the seed of a future war.-. An enumeration of the wars which followed, nearly every one traceable to the arrangements of the Con- gress of Vienna, or to the hatreds and jealougies out of those arrangements, attests the failure of the rulers and statesmen of that day to grasp the principles of international justice neces- sary to permanent peace. Now that the nations are meeting again in a simi- lar conference, will the result show that the lesson of 100 years ago has been learned ? MANY WARS CAUSED BY ALLIANCE . The Congress of Vienna, we have said, was fol- lowed by the bloodiest century of European history. This was due to the failure of the congress to pro- vide for the peace of the world by a plan such as that now proposed by President Wilson’s “Fourteen Points.” It Will de no harm to meftion the most important wars that followed, all directly or indi- rectly traceable to the “balance of power” created and the armed truce established by the Congress of Vienna: The invasion of Spain by France. . The war against the Italian liberals, and la.ter the war of Italian independence, involving Franee and Italy against Austria. The war of Greek independence. The war of Belgium against Holland ior Belgium ~independence. The war of Russia against the revolting Poles. The Crimean war—Russia against France, Eng- land and Turkey. The war of 1866—Prussia against Austria. The Franco-Prussian war .of 1870. The Russo-Turkish war of 1877 and 1878. Bhe several Balkan wars; beginning with the war of 1897. The world war just ended. Will the representatives of the nations of the world soon ‘to meet in Europe bring the world peace, or will they create conditions that will pro- duce a bloody and infameus record rivaling that of the Congress of Vienna and the Holy Alliance? We shall see. All Ten of N. D. Amendments Pass State Canvassing Board Officially Declares Measures Adopted—Long-Standing Court Dec181on Shows Only a Majority Vote Needed NDER the constitution of North Dakota as interpreted by the supreme court of that state long before the League was ever thought of, comstitutional amendments voted upon by the people require only a majority vote of those voting upon the measures. Thus, the 10 amend- ments to the constitution pmposed by the League have passed. They had ies of those who voted upon them of from 15,000 to 30,000. Five of them obfained majorities of the total vote cast at the election, but five of them would have failed had the supreme court interpretation of the constitution required a majority of all votes cast in the election, as was originally supposed was required. Some 15,000 voters did not vote for or against the amend- ments. The system of cou:ntmg votes on constitutional amendments in some states, which counts those not voting as being against the propositions, is vicious and undemocratic and does:not prevail in North Dakota under the decision of the supreme court re- ; ferred to, which was handed down in 1908. Such ‘a system gives the balance of power on constitu- tional questions to citizens who do not vote because they are too ignorant to understand the question on - the ballot, or who do not vote because too shiftless .or not interested in publie questions. Under the ., old rule of “silence gives consent,” sach voters should be counted FOR the measures instead of AGAINST them. QUESTION DECIDED ... 'BY COURT IN 1908 In Minnesota, for instgnece, it is practically im- possible to amend the constitution by popular vote. A few years ago initiative and referendum amend- . ments to the constitution failed in Minnesota, al- though those who voted for the measures outmum- bered those who voted against them three to one. 1At the last election Mimmesota voters gave a prohi- .“bition amendment a 15,000 majority, but the meas- ure was counted lost under the system of comsider- | . ing as against the measure all tht_)se who did mot vote on the proposition. The Minnesota constitu- tion has the same provision about counting votes on constitutional amendments as the North Dakota constitution, but the North Dakota supreme court has inferpreted it differently in North Dakota. Inasmuch as the North Dakota election eanvass- ing board, composed of state officials elected by the League farmers, has been accused of declaring the ° North Dakota amendments adopted in defiance of the laws and constitution, we here give an explana- tion of the matter: The provision of the constitution relative to counting ballots on constitutional amendments is as follows: in the xecqm! seetion of ‘the eonsh‘hlhon above Spalding, was that this meant “a majority of all the legal votes east at the election ON THE AMENDMENTS.” The court held that, so far as the measure before the people was concerned, there were no “legal votes cast at the election” except votes cast for or against the measure. It was held that a vote for governor or attorney genetal or any other office or measure could not in reason be counted against the measure under consideration, and that persons who had not voted on the measure had not cast a “legal ballot at the election,” SO FAR AS THE MEASURE WAS CONCERNED. WISCONSIN COURT . This fixed the rule in North -Daketa that a ma- )ontyafflwsevohngonameasureeanadoptxt and did away with the system of eounting used in Minnesota and some other stafes, whereby meas- ures require a majority of those who go to the polls, thus counting those who do not vote on the - measlneasagamstlt. ltsinldbendedthatflmdeeummwhnh was binding on the canvassing beard, was made, many years before the League was organized it North Dakota and was written for the court by a judge who since became a League enemy and was defeated for re-election by the League The North Dakota supreme court decision of 1908 written by Judge Spalding, says: S