The Nonpartisan Leader Newspaper, November 3, 1919, Page 12

'Was the Leader’s Editorial Right? S T i % s s A Reader Takes Exception to Our Statement on the Peace Treaty—Claims Points Are Included—The Editor Replies the Fourteen Columbia, S. D. DITOR Nonpartisan Leader: I have been tempted, and have yielded, to write for publication a letter to the Leader in reply to an editorial in the last issue, headed “Why We Have Not Taken a Stand For or Against the Peace Treaty.” From the time President Wil- son set foot on foreign soil till he brought home, in March last, the formulated treaty of peace and the league of nations, the old-party papers—controlled by the bitterest enemies of the Nonpartisan league —shouted from every rostrum in the land and every housetop and impregnated the people with the fact that Mr. Wilson had domineered over the Amer- ican people for two years and had gone to Europe and was riding roughshod over the people there and having his own way in everything; and I may add that it was quite evident that the people over there were quite pleased to have him do a little riding, even though it might be rough in spots. But it was discovered by the old-gang press all of a sudden that Mr. Wilson had been turned down and his high-sounding phrases embodied in his 14 points had been buried so deep that they could not be found; that he, the president, was only a “cat’s- paw for the crowned hedds of Europe to pull their chestnuts out of the fire.” - Can we discover any consist- ency in these two claims? If not, then what way can we in- terpret it other than an effort to belittle Mr. Wilson’s efforts and to discredit him in the eyes not only of our own people, but of the whole world? This is what we call “playing poli- tics” for political purposes, and to kill off a strong man and an enemy of what we call “Big Biz,” and a strong man for the farmers and laboring men of the country—one who has tried the best he could to follow out in actions the"senti- ments expressed in “The New Freedom,” which was read at every Nonpartisan league meeting and was carried in the pocket of every League speak- er. It may be true that Mr. Wil- son has not measured up to the idiosyncrasies in thought of some of us, but are we to let one or two errors of the head outweigh the 80 per cent of good and beneficial acts which he has accomplished? We think not. If the reform ele- ment of every organization and political party will not stand by a leader but desert him when the mud is flung at him, what incentive will there be for another- “Moses” to lead the people out of economic and social bondage? SUPPORT THE MAN, SAYS OUR CORRESPONDENT As Nonpartisans, it is our duty to get behind and lend our moral force to any man who has proven a true leader for the people with no political aspi- rations or thoughts of self, no matter what name he may see fit to give himself, even though it be your friend (?) Governor Burnquist (of whom some poet has said he was “badly shot in the running gear”) if he repents and becomes thoroughly im- bued with the spirit of reform which thinks of the /interests of the people and not of party or social standing. We differ on the merits of the league of ‘nations—that was to be expected—some from political and selfish motives, some because they have given it no thought and do not understand it, and others for various reasons. : The Leader says it does not approve of it be- cause Wilson’s 14 points were eliminated from it. Mr. Wilson says that the 14 points are the very basis of the treaty, that every one was made a part of the treaty; and as eminent a man and scholar as Doctor Frank Crane says they are, and for that reason it—the covenant—is the most won- derful instrument ever drawn in the history of the world. I am not a scholar or man of letters, but I find the 14 points are corporated in the league and am in favor of its ratification, and must dis- sent from the Leader when it says it makes no difference whether it is ratified or not. . p C. H. CREED. EDITOR’S NOTE: Mr. Creed has “come back” at us fairly and squarely. The editorial he alludes to did not oppose the ratification of the peace treaty and league of nations covenant. It took the.position that the Leader would not take part on either side of the bitter controversy and made it plain that Leader readers could take what stand they thought right on the matter, without the Leader’s trying to influence them one way or another. Besides taking Mr. Wilson’s Republican critics to task, we did say that the result of the work of the world diplomats at Versailles “amounted to a repudiation of Mr. Wilson’s 14 points,” and we did say that it really ‘did not make much difference to the common people of the world whether or not the treaty and league were ratified. A bils As to our arguments supporting the statement that the ratification or nonratification after all was unimportant, we refer the reader to the original editorial, which appeared in the issue of October 13. Mr. Creed says that not to support Mr. Wilson wholeheartedly now would be deserting a progres- I WHAT WILL THE HATCHING BE? I —From the Grain Growers’ Guide, Winnipeg. Farmers of Canada, particularly those of Alberta, have come to the realization that they can hope for nothing from any policy of neutrality in politics.. They find that they must vote as farmers. As a result, they are entering the next election with a full farmer ticket. The cartoon in the farmers’ paper reproduced here is applicable to the situation here also. They see the gang politician trying to hatch new ideas out of old-time partisan politics. and the organized farmers know it can’t be done. It’s a “dud,” a shell that’s worth nothing. sive leader, simply because mud is thrown at him. With that we disagree. If there has been any “de- sertion” by anybody, it has been on Mr. Wilson’s part. We do not argue that the treaty and league covenant are not the best that could have been ob- tained in the face of the selfish conflicting claims of the allied nations and lack of vision and ‘moral bankruptcy on the part of the- victorious rulers who met at Versailles. It may or may not be the best treaty and league covenant that could have been obtained under these circumstances, but to argue that the Versailles congress did not repudiate the 14 points is to fly in the face of the plain facts. Scarcely one of the 14 points has been followed. The nations are still warring on Russia, have for- bidden German Austria to annex to Germany, al- though the people affected desire it, have given a whole province (Shantung) and 30,000,000 people to Japan without their consent, and have commit- ted other gross violations of the “self-determina- tion” point. All these violations are now sanction- ed by Mr. Wilson. . The league of nations is a league of nations only in name—it is-in reality an alliance of the vie- torious powers against the defeated powers. Per- haps it is the best ALLIANCE that could be ob- tained under the circumstances, but it is not based on the splendid statements concerning world democ- ) . PAGE TWELVE And organized labor racy and justice made by the president during the war. We have yet to find a prominent liberal who supported the president and his 14 points during the war who claims the 14 points have been follow- ed by the league covenant. _ So we say that, if there have been any “deser- tions,” it is Wilson who has betrayed the liberals, and not the liberals who have gone back on the president. The president is now defending the out- rageous violations of his 14 points at Versailles, and is verbally castigating those who still stand up for the 14 points, even going so far as to call them “pro-German.” SUPPORT THE PRINCIPLES, THE BETTER WAY As we said in the editorial, if the president would be honest and candid now, admitting his defeat and not trying to defend imperialists, and if he still stood by his 14 points, liberals could still support him, even though he failed. ~ In supporting the 14 points during the war the Leader was not supporting Mr. Wilson personally as a man, as a politician or as leader of the Dem- ocratic party. We were supporting his announced PRINCIPLES, and would have supported them had- they been announced by another man. We are still for these principles, and would still be vigorously fighting Mr. Wilson’s critics, had he stood by his announced beliefs. We do not criticiz¢ him for failing at Versailles, but only for not being honest about it. A better man might have failed under the circumstances, but an honest one would not de- fend the treatment of Russia and China, to speak of only two of the many betrayals. Mr. Creed is welcome to his view of the matter, though he confesses he has not read or studied the treaty and league covenant and compared them with the 14 points. We suggest that he and our other readers do so. : It is true, as Mr. Creed says, that the kept press of America was opposed to the 14 points and fought the president, but it is not true that the kept press is now a unit in oppos- ing the treaty and league cov- enant. The big interests as a whole are perfectly satisfied with the treaty and league of nations and view with com- placency the failure of Mr. Wilson to get his 14 points. Mr. Creed will find, if he reads the kept press carefully, that the papers which are still fighting the president are not doing ‘so because the 14 . points were abandoned and because Mr. Wilson concurred in their abandon- ment, but are fighting him for narrow partisan reasons. The liberals are the only ones opposing the president on account of the abandonment of the 14 points. v As between Mr. Wilson and most of his promi~ nent Republican opponents, we think the big: inter- ests are for the Republicans. They have served the interests longer and more faithfully than the Demo- crats but only because they have had more opportu- nity. It is true that the Democrats got in largely. because they did make some show of opposing spe- cial privilege and corrupt vested interests. But the Democrats when “in” sold out to the same interests that have always controlled the Republicans.. They have not made good and there is no hope for the people in either old party now. SO0 “The New Freedom” and the 14 points are one thing, and Mr. Wilson, responsible for the peace treaty, is another. X § “The New Freedom” is a good and true book. The 14 points are magnificent interpretations of the ideas of liberals concerning world peace and justice. \ . Let us still stand by the book. Let us also still stand by the 14 points, even if the author of them has pitifully failed in getting the world’s rulers to adopt them, and now defends their repudiation. Let . us back principles, not politicians. x e Y > P R