The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
IN THE
SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
A U G U S T 30, 1919
Replying to th e Speech of
H on . H enry Cabot Lodge
of M assach u setts of
A ugust 12, 1919
j|
■
W A S H IN G T O N
1910
1 3 5 5 5 5 — in S 2 .*»
Sid i *
! !' ll
r
S i i<„
SPEECH
OP
H o n
. ROBERT
L. O WE N
T H E LEAGUE OF N A T IO N S .
Mr. OWEN. Mr. President, on Tuesday, August 12 last, the
honorable Senator from Massachusetts [Air. L o d g e ] , chairman
of the Committee on Foreign Relations of the United States Sen
ate, and the chosen leader of the majority party in this Chamber,
delivered a very carefully prepared argument against the league
of nations. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized as
a learned scholar and a very studious historian, and an argu
ment which he delivers after the debate has proceeded for
months may fairly be regarded as the ablest possible presenta
tion of the case against the league o f nations. If this argument
can not stand an analysis, the case of the opposition to the
covenant falls to the ground.
The honorable Senator lays down the first proposition:
That mankind from generation to generation is constantly repeating
itself.
And says:
W e have an excellent illustration of this fact in the proposed ex
periment now before us of making arrangements to secure the perma
nent peace of the world.
Thereupon he calls attention to the alluring promises made
in the treaty of Paris of November 20, 1815, and the high pur
poses alleged in the treaty of the Holy Alliance, and shows his
torically that wars followed and not peace. He argued by
necessary inference that these promises of peace and assurance
of high purposes did not produce peace but war, and therefore
that the declaration of purposes found in the present covenant
of the league of nations would naturally be followed by war,
because “ mankind repeats itself.”
The Senator quotes in derision the preamble to the covenant,
and says:
Turn to the preamble of ihe covenant of the league of nations, now
before us, which states the object of the league.
It is formed—
“ In o r d e r t o p r o m o t e i n t e r n a t io n a l c o o p e r a t io n , t o a c h ie v e i n t e r
n a t i o n a l p e a c e a n d s e c u r it y b y t h e a c c e p t a n c e o f o b l ig a t io n s n o t t o
r e s o r t t o w a r , b y th e p r e s c r ip t i o n o f o p e n , j u s t , a n d h o n o r a b le r e la t i o n s
b e t w e e n n a t i o n s , b y t h e fir m e s t a b lis h m e n t o f t h e u n d e r s t a n d in g s o f
in t e r n a t io n a l l a w s a s t h e a c t u a l r u le o f c o n d u c t a m o n g g o v e r n m e n t s
a n d b v t h e m a i n t e n a n c e o f j u s t i c e a n d a s c r u p u l o u s r e s p e c t f o r a ll
t r e a t y o b l ig a t io n s in t h e d e a l i n g s o f o r g a n i z e d p e o p le s w it h o n e
a n o t h e r .”
The Senator then said:
N o o n e w o u ld c o n t e s t t h e l o f t i n e s s o r t h e b e n e v o l e n c e o f t h e s e p u r
p oses.
B r a v e w o r d s , in d e e d .
T h e n d o n o t d iffe r e s s e n ti a l l y
p r ea m b le o f th e tr e a ty o f P a r is
( 1 8 1 5 ) , fro m
w h ic h s p r in y
A llia n c e.
fr o m
th e
th e H o ly
In other words, Mr. President, the promises made by the treaty
of the Holy Alliance having led to war, these promises will also
lead to war, because “ mankind repeats itself.”
135555— 19825
o
The obvious fallacy o f this argument is that the alleged
“ purposes ” of the Holy Alliance had nothing to do with the con
sequences which ensued from that alliance. War did not result
from the virtuous promises made to the people by the Holy
Alliance. The Holy Alliance made willfully, deceitful, and false
promises of brotherly love and peace in order to deceive the
people of Russia, Prussia, and Austria, and thus prevent them
from going into a revolution as the people had done in France
under likfe conditions of tyranny and bnite military power. The
fact that wars followed the treaty o f the Holy Alliance was be
cause this treaty was between military dynasties, made by
monarchial autocracies, each controlled by intrigue, by rival
armaments, and by ambitious secret purposes. They were lined
up against other similar governments at that time not greatly
in advance of them in structure of government or in conception
o f liberty and popular rights. England, however, was becoming
steadily more democratic, and soon withdrew from the treaty of
Paris. France ultimately withdrew from the Holy Alliance.
The cause o f war was wrapped up in the treaty of the Holy
Alliance o f Russia, Austria, and Prussia because o f their
then severe 1 secret, dynastic, military ambitions. There was
during that period no available or possible provision in the
world providing for conciliation and arbitration in the settle
ment o f international disputes. There was no means of pro
moting progressive disarmament, and the ambitions and the
lust for power, unrestrained by law, unavoidably led to war
as a necessary consequence. There was no adequate restrain
ing power in all the world and no forum where the organized
opinion and power of mankind could make itself effective for
peace as there is available now.
The .Senator from Massachusetts has shown himself unable to
discriminate between the unavoidable consequence of war of
governments based on tyranny and brute force, such as Russia,
Prussia, and Austria, Bulgaria, and Turkey, and the conse
quences favorable to peace o f governments based on the con
sent of the governed, on justice and liberty, such as the United
States and Canada, the South American Republics, Australia,
Great Britain, France, Belgium, and Italy. Such blind leader
ship might easily prove to be a national calamity.
the Senator from Massachusetts has failed to discover what
every student of history ought to know, who has a discerning
mind and an intelligent comprehension, that the instability and
wars of military dynasties had an adequate cause, and that
these causes rest in the “ Rule o f the Few ” moved by intrigue, by
gross human selfishness, by ambition and lust for the property of
other people, leading them to develop great armies nominally for
defense, but always secretly for offense, so well described by
Von Bernhardi, in his description of the Hohenzollers and of
Frederick II. Everybody seems to know this except the
Senator from Massachusetts. The stability of Republics and
their power for peace is not based on preambles nor lofty
promises of high purposes, as the Senator from Massachusetts
seems to think. They are based upon sound principles affecting
the structure o f government, which go to guarantee justice
and liberty and humanity and the organized righteous selfgovernment of the people. These are the principles which
guarantee stability. These are the principles which not only
promise but will make sure the peace o f the world.
— 1982u
o
The Senator loosely argues that since “ mankind repeats
itself,” and since the Holy Alliance made virtuous “ promises”
and war followed, therefore that the virtuous promises of the
present covenant of a league of free nations can mean nothing
but war. The Senator argues from the false premise that the
promises of the autocrats of the Holy Alliance were sincere.
They were not sincere. They were wickedly false. I wondered,
when the learned Senator was quoting the treaty of the Holy
Alliance with its virtuous “ promises,” that he did not also quote
the secret amendments to the treaty of the Holy Alliance of 1S22,
which disclose the infinitely wicked deceit of these promises—
the secret treaty of Verona, in which the “ holy alliance of
lia rs” pledged their undying hostility to the democracies of the
world and the freedom of the press. Since the Senator thinks
it was the virtuous “ promises ” of the Holy Alliance that led to
war, let me call his attention to their pledge to destroy the
democracies of the world, and he will see. I trust, an abundant
cause for war necessarily involved in the treaty of the Holy
Alliance with its secret amendments at Verona, not because of
their virtuous promises but in spite of them. Their secret pur
pose was war.
Listen to the philosophy and historical admonition o f the
secret treaty of Verona:
“ The undersigned, special!)/ authorized to make some addi
tions to the treaty of the Holy Alliance, after haring exchanged
their respective credentials, hare agreed as follows:
“ Article 1. The high contracting powers being convinced that
the system of representative government is equally as incom
patible with the monorchial principles as the maxim of the
sovereignty of the people with the Divine right, engage mutually,
in the most solemn manner, to use all their efforts to put an
end to the system of representative governments, in whatever
country it may exist in Europe, and to prevent its being intro
duced in those countries where it, is not yet known.
You can only put an end to a government by war.
‘‘Art. 2. A.s it can not be doubted that the liberty of the press
is the most powerful means used by the pretended supporters
of the rights of nations to the detriment o f those of princes, the
high contracting parties promise reciprocal!y to adopt all proper
measures to suppress it, not only in their own States but also
in the rest of Europe:’ (Vol. 53, pt. 7, p. 0781, 04th Cong., 1st
sess., Apr. 25, 1910.)
The King of Prussia and the Emperor of Austria were the
real autocratic monarchs behind this deadly compact to destroy
the democracies of the world and establish “ world pow er” for
themselves and their allies as the military autocrats of man
kind.
Here these military autocrats, who had offered themselves to
the people of Europe as the servants of Christ and the
guardians of the peace of Europe, were, in fact, secretly pledg
ing themselves to murder unoffending people of other lands
who had the temerity to believe in representative government
and in the liberty of a free press. They instantly made war
on the unoffending Spanish and Portuguese people and the
innocent Italian people, and put them all under absolute
monarchies, and would have done the same thing to the South
135555— 19825
6
i'
I
American Republics but for G-reat Britain and the Monroe mes
sage.
Does tbe Senator from Massachusetts really believe that it
was tbe virtuous “ promises ” of tbe Holy Alliance tliat led to
war, or tbe “ secret ” purposes and ambitions of these military
monarchical despots who were secretly plotting to rule the
world by brute force? There is a vast difference, Mr. Presi
dent, between the promises of an honest man or an honest
government, o f sincere well-meaning democracies, and. tbe
promises o f trained liars, murderers, and self-seeking despots.
And I feel fully justified in describing the Holienzollerns and
the Hapsburgs and the Romanoffs in these plain terms.
Tbe Senator from Massachusetts believes that the promises
of these royal scoundrels may be justly compared with tire
promises and aspirations of the honest organized democracies
of the whole world, basing an alliance not upon tlieir pretenses
of justice and liberty, hut upon the demonstrated fact that they
are truly willing to die for liberty and justice.
The Senator from Massachusetts really believes in the rule of
the representatives of the people over the people in the rule of
the few over the many. He would draw a wide distinction be
tween “ representative” government and government “ by the
people.” He does not believe that the people o f a State have a
right to instruct or control their elected Representatives or to
initiate and pass the laws that they want or to veto laws they
do not want. He thinks that for the people to express their
opinion upon a public question is dangerous to the principle of
constitutional government.
Am I hasty in making this charge against the leader of the
Republican Party in the Senate? I most certainly am not
The Senator from Massachusetts may have forgotten.'but I have
not forgotten, his famous speech in Boston on September 15,
1907, for I had been but two days in the Senate when, on De
cember 18, 1907, Senator Hale, o f Maine, had printed 20,000
copies of this famous speech o f the Senator from Massachusetts
as Senate Document 114, Sixtieth Congress, first session. This
speech was delivered in opposition to a bill then pending in the
Massachusetts Legislature known as the “ Public-opinion bill.”
The
Public-opinion hill
proposed to permit the people of
Massachusetts the astounding liberty of expressing their opinion
upon a public measure— but not exceeding four measures in
any one year. This hill Senator L odge violently opposed on the
ground that it would overthrow the constitution of Massachu
setts and destroy representative government. I shall not chal
lenge the Senator's integrity of mind or his integrity of purpose
in making this speech. I shall assume that he honestly' believed
that the opinion of the people was dangerous to constitutional
goverument. In all events, this was bis argument.
Twenty thousand copies of his speech were sent into Maine
in order to defeat a campaign then pending for the initiative
and referendum in tliat State.
The Senator said in criticizing the public-opinion bill tliat it—
w o u ld m ea n n o th in g U s e th e n a c o m p le te
o u r G o v e r n m e n t a n d in
th e fu n d a m e n ta l
G o v ern m en t rests.
r e v o lu tio n
p r in c ip le s
m
th e fa b r ic o f
u p o n w h ich
th e
That it—
w o u ld u n d e r m in e a n d u lt im a t e ly b r e a k d o w n
in o u r p o litic a l a n d g o v e r n m e n t a l s y s t e m .
135555— 19825
I
V
th e r e p r e s e n t a t iv e p r in c ip le s
7
With the assistance of Kingsbury B. Piper, secretary of the
State Referendum League of Maine, I prepared and had printed
as a memorial to Congress the answer of the State Referendum
League of Maine to the Senator from Massachusetts (Senate
Document 521, 60th Cong., 1st sess.). I caused 20,000 copies
to be printed and I franked them to Maine, and when the
people of Maine came to pass upon the validity of the argu
ment of the Senator from Massachusetts that the people should
have no right to express their opinions on public questions,
either by public-opinion statute or by the initiative and refer
endum, they decided against the argument of the learned Senator
from Massachusetts, and the honorable Senator from Maine who
circulated the famous Boston speech against the public-opinion
bill did not find it desirable to stand for reelection.
In the State of Massacliusets, in the last election, when the
people were selecting their delegates to a constitutional congress
there was a campaign in behalf o f the initiative and referendum.
I had prepared by the National Popular Government League, by
Judson King, secretary, an argument for this great measure of
popular government, and caused it to be printed as Senate
Document 763, Sixty-fourth Congress, second session, which
was used in the Massacliusets campaign in favor o f the initiative
and referendum. An overwhelming majority of the delegates
who had favored it were elected, and even the president of Har
vard, who opposed it, was defeated. Senator Weeks opposed it,
and he was defeated, and Senator W a l s h , who favored it, was
elected, and is now present in the Senate.
I commend the judgment of the people of Maine and Massachu
setts to the considerate judgment of the honorable Senator from
Massachusetts. His leadership against popular government has
failed both in Maine and in the great Commonwealth of Massa
chusetts.
The Senator from Massachusetts does not believe in the wis
dom of the people. He does not believe that the people have the
intelligence to initiate laws they do want or to veto laws they
do not want, and therefore he does not have any great degree of
confidence in the stability o f a league of the great democracies
of the world or their ability to make sure their own peace. He
looks upon them with less confidence than he did upon the mili
tary autocracies that framed the treaty of the Holy Alliance, for
the Senator favored a league in 1915 when the autocracies were
in full flower.
I am devoutly thankful that there are hundreds of thousands
and millions of Republicans in the United States who do not
agree with the Senator from Massachusetts in this view, and
that there are on this floor splendid Republican Senators who do
believe in popular government and in the right of the people to
govern and who have confidence in democracies.
And I pause to say, Mr. President, that those who believe in
popular government are deeply desirous of having passed
through the Senate a thoroughgoing corrupt-practices act, and I
appeal to the Senator from Massachusetts to give his support to
such a bill in order that the “ representative system” of select
ing Senators and Congressmen may not be perverted by the cor
rupt and sinister influences that by money and fraud are able
unduly to influence the nomination and election o f Congressmen
135555— 10825
and Senators. For six years the Progressive Senators on this
floor have been trying to get a thoroughgoing corrupt-practices
act, hut have not been able as yet to do so. Why? I will leave
to those who opposed it and to those who do not favor it and to
those who secretly throw the weight of their influence against it
to answer that question before the end of the next session o f
Congress.
The Senator’s whole argument is based upon his inability to
perceive the difference between the relative trustworthiness of
democracies and autocracies, and in his violent assaults upon
the league he tries to show that we ought to have no league o f
nations at all. He goes so far as to denounce the banner of the
proposed league of nations of the free nations of the earth, of our
wonderful Allies, of our heroic Allies, who died for liberty and
justice and civilization as a “ mongrel ” banner, and he attaches
to the league of nations the unmerited stigma of “ Bolshevism ”
as illustrating wicked “ internationalism ” as contrasted with
his own admirable “ Americanism.”
Mr. President, all good Americans believe in Americanism in
its highest and purest and truest meaning.
Mr. President, a man can be a good citizen o f a town, of a
county, of a state, of a nation, and of a world without incon
sistency. He can love his home and be utterly devoted to his
own nation, and be a glorious American, and yet be generously
disposed and favor international justice and liberty and good
neighborhood, and the means of attaining them.
The galleries always applaud when a Senator strikes an
oratorical pose and thunders forth his sturdy Americanism,
and the Senator from Massachusetts did not fail to strike this
popular chord. The Senator gloriously sa id :
Call me selfish if yon will, conservative, or r e a c t i o n a r y ; b u t
A m e r ic a n I h a v e r e m a in e d a ll m y life .
I can n e v e r be a n y th in g
b u t a n A m e r i c a n , a n d I m u s t t h in k o f th e U n it e d S t a t e s fir s t.
an
else
' F in e! This is magnificent. The galleries bursted with ap
plause, but, Mr. President, in June, 1915, at Union College, the
Senator was still an American whether “ selfish, conservative,
or reactionary,” and he told the world then in language clear
and forceful— and I use his own words—that—
N a tio n s
m u st
u n ite
as
m en
u n ite
to
preserve
peace
and
ord er,
He stated that nations must be so united as to be able to say
to any single country—
You
m u st
not
go
to
w a r .-
F in e! This is splendid, but a flat contradiction o f his present
attitude that nations must not unite to preserve peace and
order; that they must not be so united as to say to any single
country “ You must not go to war.”
T h e S e n a t o r ’s A m e r i c a n i s m a t U n i o n C o l l e g e d i d n o t p r e v e n t
h i s m a k i n g a n e a r n e s t a r g u m e n t in f a v o r o f a l e a g u e o f n a t i o n s ,
a n d w h e n h e m a d e t h e a r g u m e n t in f a v o r o f a l e a g u e a t U n i o n
C o l l e g e i t w a s fin e A m e r i c a n i s m .
I t w a s fin e A m e r i c a n i s m
w h e n T h e o d o r e K o o s e v e l t m a d e t h e s a m e a r g u m e n t in r e c e i v i n g
t h e N o b e l p r i z e a t C h r i s t i a n i a in 1 9 1 0 .
P re sid e n t T a f t s h o w s h is
fin e A m e r i c a n i s m w h e n h e l o v e s A m e r i c a a n d l o v e s i d s f e l l o w m e n
th r o u g h o u t th e w o r ld a n d s ta n d s f o r a p r o g r a m o f a s s u r e d p e a c e
t h r o u g h th e h o n e s t c o o p e r a tio n o f a ll t h e g r e a t d e m o c r a c ie s o f
e a rth .
135355— 19823
a
It is fine Americanism when the Senator from North Dakota
[Mr. M cC umber ] and other patriotic Republicans and Democrats
stand on this floor and urge a league of free nations.
The Senator from Massachusetts must not attempt to monop
olize Americanism, for selfishness or partisanship in foreign
affairs does not describe Americanism.
When Germany and Austria and Bulgaria and Turkey, the
great military dynasties, were at the height o f their power the
Senator from Massachusetts argued in favor of nations uniting
to prevent war. He was willing to admit military dynasties to
a league of nations to prevent war, but now that the military
dynasties have been humbled to the dust, now that brute force
based on the doctrine that might makes right has been utterly
overthrown by the honest peace-loving democracies o f the
world, the Senator rises up as the chief opponent of what he
himself generously argued as a good American in 1915.
Mr. President, am I going too far if I appeal from “ Philip
drunk to Philip sober ” ?
The one great gigantic fact of all history has occurred to
assure and make possible the future peace o f the world and to
make it comparatively easy to establish peace, and that is the
overthrow o f arbitrary power, the overthrow of the Hohenzollerns, the Hapsburgs, the Romanoff and their brood o f princes,
grand dukes, et id orane genus, and the establishment of the
great doctrines o f liberty, Justice, and self-government and the
establishment o f the overwhelming power of the democracies
of the world.
The Senator from Massachusetts fails to recognize the one
great event which makes this war the most notable war o f all
history and which alone opens wide the door to permanent
world peace.
The Senator from Massachusetts having argued that it
was un-American to recognize this “ mongrel ” flag of the free
nations of earth, proceeds, absurdly enough, to argue that he
and his colleagues will accept the “ mongrel” flag and all its
evils provided reservations be inserted in the ratification,
which do not really change the meaning o f it, but would pre
vent any friendly ally in the future from changing the mean
ing of it.
The Senator does not. recognize any difference between the
leyal and moral obligations o f the league. He says treaty obli
gations are merely moral obligations, and with this view I am
in entire accord. But, Mr. President, an interpretative resolution
separate from the resolution of ratification o f the treaty inter
preting the meaning o f the covenant would protect the United
States from the possibility of any future charge o f moral delin
quency by any nation on earth, and prevent any nations, friendly
or otherwise, from charging that the United States refused to do
what it agreed to do. The only difference between the effect
of a resolution separate and apart as an interpretation and an
amendment or reservation in the face o f the ratifying resolu
tion is, that the latter would require the action o f all other
nations, might produce serious confusion, would certainly post
pone final action for some months at a time when prompt action
in declaring peace is of the highest importance, while a reso
lution of interpretation would avoid these obvious objections.
There is one possible partisan advantage in putting amend135555— 19S25
10
ments and reservations on tlie proposed league. It might to
that extent discredit with some of our own people and with
those of foreign countries the President of the United States
and the members of the peace conference who represented the
United States at Paris.
Is it un-American if I should feel unwilling to discredit our
representatives, either at home or abroad, unnecessarily? The
delay in ratifying the peace treaty is paralyzing our export
trade. Our favorable balance of trade fell oft' $400,000,000 in the
month o f July in 31 days. Our foreign-exchange market has
gone into complete demoralization awaiting the determination
of the conditions of peace.
We hear no proposal from Great Britain or France or Italy
or Belgium or Japan for putting amendments into this proposed
league. They do not have any fear that the friendly nations of
the earth, based on self-government, liberty, and justice will mis
interpret the covenant to their disadvantage. None of them have
imagined that they were relinquishing their rights of self-govern
ment or subjecting themselves to the coercion of a league of
foreign nations. On the contrary, they wrote into the league
section 10, for the protection of the territorial integrity and ex
isting political independence o f every nation. This covenant was
drawn up by the ablest men in the world— if the Senator from
Massachusetts will pardon the apparent neglect—chosen men
representing all of the great nations. It was subjected to the
closest scrutiny. It carries out and makes possible the aspira
tions of The Hague conventions with the addition o f methods for
conciliation and arbitration and disarmament and means for
protecting the territorial integrity and existing political inde
pendence of nations by boycott, blockade, and even armed force,
which will assuredly rarely, if by any possibility ever, be neces
sary.
This should not be made a partisan question. The Senator
from Massachusetts taught me the sound doctrine in one of the
great maxims o f the United States Senate, which has been hon
ored for a hundred years, and that is—
P a rty
lin e s
cease
at
tid e
w a ter.
Is it un-American if I appeal to the honorable Senator to sus
tain this venerable and worthy maxim o f the Senate? Why does
he, before the treaty arrives, sign his round robin? Why does
he marshal his political followers as far as he can in hostility to
the aspirations o f mankind? The world is weary, utterly weary,
of war. The industries, the commerce o f the whole world have
been profoundly shaken by the gigantic destruction and waste
of this war.
The cost of living because of this Great War has become pain
ful and irksome to the people of the whole world. It is of the
most urgent importance that we get back to the basis o f peace,
in order that we may address ourselves to solving the problem
of the high cost of living in this country, which is greatly perplexing to the Congress as well as the people at home.
The unhappy people o f Europe are struggling to reestablish
themselves. Millions of men, women, and children have died in
this great struggle to establish on earth human liberty and the
right o f the people of the earth to self-government. Side
by side in the hills and in the valleys of France lie thousands
of our beloved sons with the cherished youth of Great Britain,
loddOd--- 10S-J
11
Belgium, France, Italy, and of our other allies. They died in a
war whose great purpose was to overthrow arbitrary power, to
establish government upon a sound basis o f the consent o f the
governed, to establish forever “ Peace on earth, good will toward
men.” Surely it is not un-American that we should desire
that their infinite sacrifice should not be in vain. Honest
democracies do not want war, nor the cost o f war. nor to have
their children die in battle. The people who pay the cost of
the war, who send their sons to die upon the battlefield, who pay
the taxes o f war, and control democracies will not permit war
that can possibly be avoided.
Perhaps without a league the future peace of the world
might be accomplished, hut a league o f free nations o f the
earth, established with the power to say to outlaw nations
“ You must not go to war,” as the Senator from Massachusetts
so finely argued in June, 1915, at Union College, will secure and
make certain the ends for which the youth of the world was
sent to the battle fields to die.
May I not be permitted to appeal to the better Americanism
of the Senator from Massachusetts not to throw himself across
the path o f human progress and world peace? He is not
(as he thinks) waging a war against Woodrow W ilson; he is
waging a war against the desires and the hopes of all mankind.
We have joined the sons of France, Great Britain, and Italy
and our other great allies in breaking down the military autoc
racies of Europe. Are we not in honor hound to stand by our
allies until the new governments, the new democracies o f Eu
rope, are established and made stable by the stabilizing force of
the organized powers of mankind that league to preserve peace?
Shall we scuttle like cowards and cravens from the wounded
peoples of Europe before the nations born of this war can bal
ance themselves and be at peace and a blessing to themselves
and to the world when with the league of the great democracies
wo can easily assure them stability and peace?
Is it un-American to carry out our implied obligations to Eu
rope?
Mr. President, the honorable Senator from Massachusetts in
terprets article 10 to mean that the council in ad rising the means
to he employed to preserve the territorial integrity and the ex
isting political independence of member nations will be author
ized to send American troops to the ends of the earth in every
petty quarrel that might arise anywhere in the world.
The Senator urges that we would have a “ moral ” obligation
to take the advice, and the “ m oral” obligation being as strong
as a legal obligation we would be obliged to obey or be guilty of
a breach of our moral obligations, a thing absolutely incon
ceivable to the austere Senator from Massachusetts.
The Senator greatly enlarges upon this great, unhappy thought
and in his imagination he sees our soldiers sent into central
Arabia to protect the Sultan of Hejaz under the irresistible ad
vice o f the council.
Mr. President, with the establishment of a league of nations,
with the great democracies o f the world in honest cooperation,
there are many provisions which will prevent war or the need of
soldiers.
For example:
Every means possible for conciliation.
135555— 10825
12
h{ ?-!!|
Fberj moans for arbitration, and at last if a nation bo deter
mined to be an outlaw nation in violation of the organized
opinion of mankind, and then invades the territorial integrity o f
a member nation and its existing political independence, there
is a penalty so gigantic that no nation would dare to face it.
That is, a world boycott, a complete separation of that outlaw
nation and of its nationals from any commercial, financial, postal,
telegraphic, or any other means o f communication with the citi
zens o f other nations.
No nation could stand this. But this is not all. It is only on
the extremely remote if not impossible contingency that this
\\ould not suffice to restore an outlaw nation to sanity, then and
then only would it be necessary for the council to “ advise ”
means of military and naval coercion.
It is to be assumed by men of common sense and common hon
esty that the council in such a remote contingency would 'dve
sensible and honest advice and that the great, honest peaceloving democracies of the earth would act in good faith in regard
to the advice.
"
ot
If in the extremely refnote contingency which might thus
arise the still more unlikely occurrence should take place that
the advice should prove foolish or tyrannical, no nation would
bo compelled as a moial obligation to observe idiotic advice
The Senator from Massachusetts is unduly alarmed He is
seeing ghosts which do not exist.
Article 10, pledging every member nation its territorial in
tegrity and existing political independence, is vital to the peace
of the world, and under no circumstances should this assurance
be removed from the treaty or modified.
The Senator finds an insuperable difficulty in article 15 because
it provides that any dispute may be submitted to the council
and the council might submit it to the assembly, and the a m ia
bly might make a “ report” unfavorable to the United States
and the dispute might be on the question o f immigration with
Japan. Terrible! The answer is, first, that no such dispute
could arise, because it would be an invasion of our existing
pohtica1 mdependence and territorial integrity, and, second if
it did arise, m spite of the article 10, in spite o f the preamble to
the treaty, and the council did not throw it out o f court because it was ‘ solely within the domestic jurisdiction ” o f the
l luted > fates, and, finally, if the entire assembly made a report
against the United States, nothing would follow, because noth
ing could follow under article 15, except that Japan might imae
a tear, and she can do that now. Nothing would follow, because
there is nothing in the treaty to compel the enforcement o f the
opinion or report o f the assembly in that particular.
It is left to the parties unable to settle their'controversy
under the report then to resort to war, in which the world will
take no part except conciliation, world opinion, and world in
fluence. The report is not made enforceable by article 15. Such
a report is only of the same force as a report by the council
wherein the members agree not to go to war against a member
who complies with the recommendations o f the report. If the
council fails to reach a unanimous report the members reserve
liberty of action.
o i W<r,w.0ukI not be anJ' worse off if the three times impossible
should happen, as imagined by the Senator, for Japan could
135555— 19825
t>
v m
-
13
make war on us now if Japan wished to do so. Besides that,
we could withdraw from the league of nations if we did not
like the administration of it. There is not the slightest possi
bility, however, that any nation will ever withdraw from this
league once it has entered into it, because this league will work
to perfection, giving a forum, a meeting place, where the na
tions of the world can come together and use there the common
sense and common honesty of the human race, and that will be
found sufficient.
The Senator is seeing ghosts, which were not visible at Union
College. The Senator declares that if other nations are willing
to subject themselves to the domination o f a league, he will
never, never consent for the United States to be dominated by
the league.
The Senator need not trouble himself. Other nations are
not willing to subject themselves to the domination of a league,
but enter into the league for the purpose o f protecting them
selves against the domination o f outlaw military tribes or
nations who are not yet sufficiently advanced in civilization to
appreciate the blessings of liberty and justice and self-govern
ment.
The Senator is very' much frightened about the Monroe doc
trine, and it is extremely difficult for me to believe in the sin
cerity of those who argue the Monroe doctrine will be weakened
by tlie proposed covenant which explicitly recognizes it and
implicitly confirms it by every principle o f the proposed cove
nant.
The Senator is terribly afraid that we can not withdraw,
because he thinks that we could not withdraw except bp unani
mous vote, that all our international obligations and all obliga
tions under the covenant had been fulfilled. It never crossed
the mind of any honest man who had part in framing this league
covenant that any member could ho refused the right to with
draw on any such ground. Such an interpretation is not only
contradicted by the President of the United States but is absurd.
Of course, a nation in withdrawing should withdraw and dis
charge its obligations at the same time. But the Senator proves
too much. He discovers that it requires unanimous action to
withdraw.
If it were an affirmative action o f the league (which it is not)
it might he true— for an affirmative action of the league does
require unanimous consent—but this discovery entirely destroys
the long argument which the Senator makes about the league
dominating the United States, interfering with immigration,
tariffs, and so forth, as no one is stupid enough to contend a
unanimous vote of the assembly to deal unjustly with any nation
is possible.
The Senator greatly enlarges upon the United States meddling
in the internal affairs of the nations of Europe. There is noth
ing in the league of nations which justifies this notion of the
Senator from Massachusetts. On the contrary, the 10th article
prevents any interference with the existing political independ
ence of the nations. It was necessary, in setting up the new
Governments of Europe, made up out of the heretofore subject
poples of Austria and Germany, to provide the means by which
they should he established, including Turkey and Bulgaria; but
beyond this the treaty does not go, and in this the covenant of
the league takes no part.
135555—19823
u
Mr. President, I favor the liberty and freedom of all peoples
sufficiently advanced to govern themselves or under mandatories
where backward and not yet qualified. I wish to see Ireland
free and the Philippines. I wish to see Egypt and Porto Rico
fr e e ; I wish to see India and Korea free to govern themselves,
and given honest, faithful help to accomplish this end in safety
and peace.
The members of the league, article 23 (b ), “ undertake to
secure just treatment of the native inhabitants of territories
under their control.”
What is the just treatment referred to? It can be nothing less
than liberty, freedom, and self-government, such as was involved
in the proposals of President Wilson as a basis of the armistice,
and which was accepted by all our great allies.
We set the example in Cuba, we are following it in the Philip
pines, we must perfect it in Porto Rico, and we must use our
influence in having this element of justice carried out throughout
the world undeterred by commercial or industrial selfishness.
Mr. President, the league of nations in this covenant is a
league between the great, honest, peace-loving democracies and
free nations o f the whole earth.
Its moral influence for peace and good will toward men is
the greatest power ever invoked for the peace, the happiness,
the prosperity of mankind. It not only proposes peace; it pro
vides the most abundant means and mechanism by which to
accomplish it. It provides the completest means for the con
ciliation o f disputes and the settlement of controversies by
arbitration.
It provides for disarmament and the reduction of the military
and naval forces o f mankind down to police purposes.
It puts an end to military dynasties. It establishes the great
principles of liberty, justice, and the self-government o f the
people o f the whole world.
On such principles it safeguards the backward peoples of the
world and provides a means for leading them forward to civiliza
tion without exploitation.
It provides for the protection and preservation o f the terri
torial integrity and existing political independence o f every
nation.
It provides the means to enforce the rights o f member na
tions against aggression.
It establishes in the council and in the assembly a meeting
place where all the nations o f the world may in one chamber
communicate with each other freely and openly.
It puts an end to secret treaties and political intrigue and
military dynasties and the doctrine o f divine right and the doc
trine that might makes right and establishes on earth the rule
o f conscience, the rule of morality, the rule o f international
decency and justice and good neighborhood. It is not a mere
peace of idealism based on a rosy dream. It is a real living
vital force, born on the battle field out o f the blood of all of
the nations of earth. The world will not go back. It is moving
forward under the leadership o f God and the everlasting doc”
trines o f Christ. Let the Senator from Massachusetts beware
of throwing himself across the path of the righteous judgment
of mankind.
133555— 19823
o
t
m
r-
I
@FedFRASER