The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
Proposed International Conference SPEECH OF HON. ROBERT L. OWEN OF OKLAHOMA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES FEBRUARY 19, 1923 W ASHINGTON GOVERNM ENT PRINTING OFFICE 1923 39879— 23605 SPEECH HON. ROBERT PROPOSED IN T E R N A T IO N A L L. O WE N . CONFERENCE. Mr. OWEN. Mr. President, this morning I sent to the desk a Senate resolution, which I ask may be read. The VICE PRESIDENT. The Secretary will read as re quested. The reading clerk read the resolution (S. Res. 445), as fol lows : R esolved, That the President of the United States is requested to invite all the nations of earth, whether they have adhered to the cov enant of the league or not, to attend, in the city of W ashington, United States of America, a three months’ international economic conference for the promotion of international trade and understanding, and a con ference for the establishment throughout the world of the territorial integrity and political independence of every nation, great and small, and the abolition of war. Mr. OWEN. Mr. President, the time has come when the United States Senate should perform the duty of voicing throughout the world the doctrine of international justice, of international righteousness, and understanding, the doctrine upon which the peace of the world and the happiness of man kind must be based. If eventually, why not now? The world is looking for the moral leadership of the one great disinterested, self-governing Nation. The World War demonstrated the enormous physical power of the United States. It demonstrated its power to produce at high speed quantity and quality of munitions o f war. It demon strated the power of a peaceful democracy to organize for war. It demonstrated the power o f our Republic financially, for with out a quiver it raised forty thousand millions of dollars to finance the war and establish liberty and justice in the world. It demonstrated our unselfishness. The statesmen of Europe are directly and indirectly ap pealing to America to point the path of peace and liberty. These appeals come from Great Britain, from Italy, from Bel gium, from France, and from Germany. From yesterday’s press I clipped the following: B R IT IS H LABO ItITES SEND A I T E A I / TO P R E SID E N T ---- SS M E M BER S OF CO M M O NS A S K MR. HARD IN G TO SAVE EUROPE. (By the Associated Press.) February 17.— Eighty-eight laborite members of the House a 11a' en t of Commons have signed the following cablegram to> F “ America, with Great Britain, unwittingly has made France s present destructive action possible. W e appeal for American cooperation Lo c y as the one hope or saving E u rop e /’ L ondon, President Baltasar Brum, of Montevideo, Uruguay, on Feb ruary 10, made public a plan for an association of American nations which the delegation o f Uruguay is to lay befoie t Pan American Congress at Santiago. Chile, next month, an abstract of which I hereto attach as^ Exhibit a . The substance of President Brums pwifomi is that the American nations should have a Western Hemu-p e _ " tion to encourage the idea that international relations are . 3 9 8 7 9 — 28665 6 k founded upon the principles o f justice and solidarity, regard less of differences of race, customs, or religion, to intensify inter-American friendship and friendly relations with other countries of the world, and to solve by arbitration interna tional conflicts and preserve the sovereignty and territorial integrity of every nation. On Saturday, February 10, I submitted to the C o n g r e s s i o n a l R ecord House Resolution No. 1G of the Legislature of Oklahoma, as follow s: IS 1 W h e r e a s it is m a d e k n o w n b y th e A m e r ic a n p r e s s t h a t c o n d itio n s in c o n tin e n ta l E urop e grow d a ily w orse; th a t n a tio n s , great and s m a ll, a r e t o t t e r in g , u n a b le to p a y e x p e n s e s ; a n d , , W h e r e a s s u ff e r in g a m o n g t h e p e o p le is i n c r e a s in g , f a m in e t h r e a t e n s h ere an d t h e r e , u n e m p lo y m e n t is g r o w in g , a n d a s p ir it o f s u ic id a l d e s p e r a tio n h a s s e ttle d d o w n o v e r h a lf th e w o r l d : a n d W h e r e a s i f s te p fo llo w s s te p a n d a n e w w o r ld w a r r e s u lt s t h is c o n flic t b y c o m p a r is o n w ill b le a c h th e r e d h o r r o r o f th e l a s t o n e , s w e e p in g us a lo n g w ith th e r e s t ; a n d . . . , , S4. „ W Th e r e a s t h e t i m e t o a v e r t t h e E u r o p e a n c r i s i s i s b e f o r e i t l e a d s t o a n e w c o n flic t o f n a t i o n s : N o w . t h e r e f o r e , b e i t R e s o lv e d b y th e H o u s e o f R e p r e s e n ta tiv e s o f th e N in th L e g is la tu r e o f th e S t a t e o f O k la h o m a , T h a t w e m e m o r a liz e th e C o n g r e s s o f th e l n ite il S t a t e s t o g iv e it s s y m p a t h e t ic c o n s id e r a t io n t o t h e f o llo w in g b a s ic p la n fo r a r e tu r n to w o r ld s a n i t y : . F ir s t . T h a t th e U n ite d S t a t e s m u s t a s s u m e t h e le a d e r s h ip S e c o n d . T h a t a t th e fir s t p o s s ib le o p e n in g P r e s id e n t I l a r d i n g s h o u ld c a ll a c o n fe re n c e o f th e le a d in g W o r ld W a r p o w e r s : T h ir d . T h a t th e p r o g r a m a t t h i s c o n f e r e n c e s h o u ld b e in t w o s e c tio n s , e c o n o m ic p r o b le m s a n d lim ita t io n o f a r m a m e n t s ; . . F o u r t h . T h a t in s t a n t ly th e c o n fe r e n c e is c a lle d t o o r d e r A m e r ic a s s p o k e s m a n s h o u ld la y b e fo r e t h e a s s e m b ly s o m e s p e c ific p la n o f w o r ld r e h a b i l i t a t i o n w h i c h ‘m i g h t i n v o l v e a n i n t e r n a t i o n a l m o r a t o r i u m o n w a r d e b ts a n d a n i n t e r n a t io n a l lo a n t o t h e w o r s t s t r ic k e n n a t io n s ; a n d b e it fu r th e r R e s o lv e d , T h a t a c o p y o f t h is r e s o lu tio n t h e O k la h o m a d e le g a t i o n in C o n g r e s s . A d o p te d b y th e h o u se o f r e p r e se n ta tiv e s J ary, 11123. be sen t th is th e „ to each M em ber o f ^ , 2 4 th d a y o f J a n u o n C h a s . S. B r ic e , S peaker pro tem p ore of th e H ou se o f R ep r e se n ta tiv e s. This resolution from Oklahoma might lie regarded ns a motion in the assembly o f nations and to all mankind calling for intelligent, concrete action, and a conference to promote commerce and end war. I ask the Senate of the United States to consider this proposal coming from the heart of America, from a legislature just elected by the people, a body o f repre sentatives who know and feel what the sentiment o f the people is. The proposal for action is timely. It is entitled to serious consideration and to a decision. The Senator from Idaho [Mr. B o r a h ] on January 29 voiced from the State of Idaho in Senate Resolution 420 a conception similar to that which appeared in the Oklahoma Legislature. I am in accord with the Senator from Idaho, and would go still further concretely, directly, and simply. The time lias come for action. The resolution of the Senator from Idaho represents the aspiration of the large majority of Americans. On May 9, 1921, the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. L a F oi> lkttk] introduced Senate Resolution 74. protesting against the United States cooperating to carry into effect and enforce the terms o f the treaty o f Versailles, on the ground that the treaty of Versailles was influenced too largely by revenge; that it was a betrayal of tiie promises o f the United States made to the world and formally accepted by the Allies as the basis of the 3 9 8 7 9 — 236G 5 1 5 peace terms; that the Senate o f the United States had refused to ratify i t ; that the people of the United States had indorsed the action o f the Senate in objecting to the Versailles treaty. The Senator from Wisconsin was reelected and renominated after this declaration by an overwhelming vote in Wisconsin. He represents also a very considerable element o f public opin ion in the United States. Mr. President, the peoples of the world should no longer per mit themselves to be put in danger o f world war by the ambi tion, vanity, or self-sufficiency, or by the mere patriotism and physical courage o f national leaders who demand the invasion of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of other nations on any ground, real or fanciful. The chief reason the invasion of Germany by French leaders is objectionable is because it is a denial o f these fundamental international principles and because the remedy o f French invasion is worse than the disease of German evasion. The Germans ought to he made to pay the reparations due, and tlie world ought to require it, but the French invasion of Germany by military force is building up hostilities so intense that it may again produce a world war without obtaining the justice to which the French people are undoubtedly entitled. Senators should not be deterred from expressing their honest opinions by the unthinking charge that they are taking sides with Ger many against France. The principles o f international justice must he declared without respecting persons or nations. It has been said that “ God is no respecter of persons,” and justice and liberty are the divine principles through which the peace and happiness of mankind must be secured, and these principles must not be twisted by either hate or love of any nation, whether French or German. It is well to remember that there ought always to be made a broad distinction between the people and those who govern the people. The people can hardly be held morally responsible for things done against their will and without their consent by those who govern them without their consent, and this is why the subjects o f the former Teutonic imperalists are entitled to some consideration because their consent was not asked. Their opinions were enslaved and the people were driven by a brute military force organized to the last degree which meant a sum mary death to any individual who da m l refuse obedience. How could the President o f the United States have made clearer the distinction between the people who were subject and the rulers who subjected them without their consent in the Central Empires than he did in his address to the joint session of the two Houses of Congress January 8, 1918? The President’s address o f January 8, 1918, was in answer to the desire o f the spokesman of the Central Empires “ to discuss the objects of the war and the possible bases o f a general peace,” and he spoke for (lie Entente Allies and all o f them. He spoke expressly for the United States and for all the govern ments and peoples associated together against the imperialists. The President said in regard to this: W o (th e a s s o c ia te d n a tio n s ) can n o t he se p a ra te d in i n t e r e s t s o r d iv id e d in p u r p o s e . . W e s t a n d t o g e t h e r u n t il th e e n d . F o r su ch a r r a n g e m e n t s a n d c o v e n a n t s ( t h e 1 4 p o in t s ) w e a r e w i l l i n g to tig h t a n d to c o n t in u e to lig h t u n t il th e y a r e a c h ie v e d . 39879— 23605 The President said: W e h a v e n o j e a l o u s y o f G e r m a n g r e a t n e s s , a n d t h e r e i s n o t h i n g in th is p r o g r a m th a t im p a ir s it. W e g r u d g e h e r n o a c h ie v e m e n t o r d is t in c tio n o f le a r n in g o r o f p a c ific e n te r p r is e s u c h a s h a v e m a d e h e r r e c o r d v e r y b r ig h t a n d v e r y e n v ia b le . W e d o n o t w is h to in ju r e h er o r t o b lo c k in a n y w a y h e r le g i t i m a t e in flu e n c e o r p o w e r . W e do not w is h to fig h t h e r e it h e r w it h a r m s o r w it h h o s tile a r r a n g e m e n t s o f tr a d e i f sh e is w illin g to a s s o c ia te h e r s e lf w ith u s a n d t h e o th e r p e a c e l o v i n g n a t io n s o f t h e w o r ld in c o v e n a n t s o f j u s t i c e a n d la w a n d f a ir d e a lin g . W e w is h h e r o n ly t o a c c e p t a p la c e o f e q u a lit y a m o n g th e p e o p le s o f t h e w o r ld — t h e n e w w o r ld in w h i c h w e n o w li v e — in s t e a d o f a p la c e o f m a s t e r y . President Wilson said further in this address: A n e v id e n t p r in c ip le r u n s t h r o u g h t h e w h o le p r o g r a m I h ave o u t lin e d . I t is t h e p r in c ip le o f ju s t ic e t o a ll p e o p le s a n d n a t io n a lit ie s a n d t h e ir r ig h t to liv e o n e q u a l t e r m s o f lib e r ty a n d s a f e t y w it h o n e a n o th e r, w h e th e r th e y be s tro n g o r w ea k . U n le s s th is p r in c ip le be m a d e it s fo u n d a tio n n o p a r t o f th e s t r u c tu r e o f in te r n a t io n a l ju s tic e can sta n d . T h e p e o p le o f th e U n it e d S t a t e s c o u ld a c t u p o n n o o t h e r p r in c ip le ; a n d to th e v in d ic a tio n o f th is p r in c ip le th e y a r e r e a d y to d e v o t e th e ir liv e s , t h e ir h o n o r , a n d e v e r y t h in g t h a t t h e y p o s s e s s . The m 6 r a l c lim a x o f t h is th e c u lm in a t in g a n d fin a l w a r fo r h u m a n lib e r t y h a s c o m e , a n d th e y a r e r e a d y to p u t th e ir o w n s tr e n g th , th e ir o w n h ig h e s t p u r p o s e , t h e ir o w n in te g r ity a n d d e v o tio n to th e t e s t . Who did the President speak for? He spoke for France, for Great Britain, for Italy—for the Allies as well as for the people of America— and the Allies adopted these principles, and on this declared basis the German leaders and the German people surrendered. Have we forgotten these 14 points? They are express covenants with Germany and the world. Can they ever he forgotten in international affairs? The 14 points were 14 explicit, contracted obligations. What are they? 1. Open covenants o f peace. No private international under standings. 2. Freedom o f the sea. 3. Removal o f economic barriers. Equality of trade condi tions. 4. Adequate guaranties to reduce national armaments to the lowest point consistent with domestic safety. 5. Absolutely impartial adjustment o f all colonial claims, rec ognizing o f equal right the sovereignty o f the populations con cerned with the equitable claims o f governments whose title is to be determined. 6. The treatment o f the Russian people— political independ ence and welcome into the society o f free nations under insti tutions o f her own choosing. 7. The evacuation and complete freedom of Belgium. 8. The restoration of Alsace-Lorraine to France. 9. The readjustment of the frontiers of Italy along clearly recognizable lines o f nationality. 10. The freest opportunity of autonomous development o f Austria-Hungary. 11. The evacuation of Rumania, Serbia, and Montenegro. The political and economic independence and territorial in tegrity of the several Balkan States. 12. The sovereignty to the Turkish portions o f the Ottoman Empire, security to nationalities uuder Turkish rule, their autonomous development, and the opening of the Dardanelles. 13. The political and economic independence and territorial integrity of Poland inhabited by indisputably Polish popula tions. l 39879— 23665 I 7 14. A general association of nations must be formed under specific covenants for the purpose of affording mutual guaran ties of political independence and territorial integrity to great and small States alike. These are the covenants that the President o f the United States declared “ we (the Allies) are willing to fight for.” Human liberty, international justice— this was the moral climax of the war. These were the objects put in concrete form for which we fought. The authorities o f the British Empire, the leaders of France, of Italy, of Japan accepted the doctrine laid down by Woodrow Wilson. These are the things for which America sacrificed. These are the things for which our American soldiers died. They did not lay down their lives to establish the principles of injustice, of territorial aggrandizement, of military ambition, or to support the petty vanities of any human leadership. These are the pledges on which as a solemn contract the Ger mans laid down their arms and the Prussian military dynasty forever. Mr. President, it is said that all legislation is a matter of compromise, and the treaty of Versailles was a matter of compromise. It has been, however, demonstrated that Woodrow Wilson used every ounce of his energy— social, physical, and moral— to get these 14 contracted terms and points recognized. If he did not succeed absolutely and completely, it was not because lie did not go to the utmost limit of his powers. Per haps lie might have succeeded if he had had the whole-hearted support and understanding of all the American leaders. Un happily, party divisions, party ambitions, party prejudices, per haps, seriously weakened his efforts and did the world great injury. I am sure that lie believed that time would correct the failure of the Versailles treaty to fully meet the obligations to the world under the 14 points, such as self-government to the people of Shantung, to the people of Ireland, to the people of Egypt, and the matter of reparations. The Shantung controversy lias settled itself. The Irish people have been given self-govern ment. Large concessions have already been made to the people <>f Egypt, and various concessions have been made in the repara tions matter; so that liis foresight and hope have not been en tirely disappointed nor without reason. The doctrine of the right to rule without the consent of the governed has been almost entirely abandoned throughout the world. The doctrine o f democracy, the right o f the people to govern themselves, the doctrine of liberty, of the sovereignty of the people, their right to political independence and terri torial integrity, is now a generally accepted doctrine throughout the world. The military autocracies have been annihilated. Woodrow Wilson made a gigantic effort to convince the Amer ican people o f the importance of accepting the Versailles treaty and the covenant of the league. He pointed out in many speeches throughout the country how the entry of the United States into this treaty, into the league, would give stability to the nations of the w orld ; would bring disarmament, interna tional peace, and a rapid restoration o f the productive powers of mankind under the happy intluence o f complete international peace. Unhappily, his very great effort resulted in his very 3 9 S 7 9 — 23G 63 serious and prolonged illness, for lie was not physically strong when he entered upon the duties o f the Chief Executive, and only by the most careful daily effort had he been able to keep himself equal to his task. In the fall of 1919 he was no longer physically able to carry on this contest. He was as much a martyr to the public service as any soldier that ever fell in battle, and history will in due time accord him the high place which liis very great services justify. Mr. President, America owes a duty to the world and to its own future to take the invited initiative in organizing the world to recognize the principles of international justice, liberty, and good understanding, and of the right of every nation, great or small, to territorial integrity and political independence. W H A T ABE T H E O BJECTIO N 'S? Certainly, Mr. President, there can be no objection to the United States giving voice to these principles in which we all unanimously believe, and a formal declaration would go far to strengthen these political doctrines throughout the world. Certainly our entry into the League o f Nations with such reservations as Congress might see fit, would wonderfully stim ulate the great doctrines o f liberty and international justice set forth in the covenant of the league. T H E ELECTIO N OS' 1920. Mr. President, there are those who imagine that the election of 1920, and there are those who have carried on a propaganda to the effect that the election o f 1920, was a mandate from the American people not to enter the League of Nations. Nothing could be more absurd or so injurious to the world's interest as this pretension. If this grotesque notion that the American people voted against the League of Nations in the election of 1920 prevails it would mean the abandonment by America of the moral leadership of mankind. The election o f 1920 meant nothing of the kind. Both parties were committed to the covenant of the League of Nations. The Democrats voted for it without reservations and with reserva tions. The Republican Senators voted for it with reservations and some without reservations, and only a negligible number voted against it. The Democratic Party made it an issue in the campaign o f 1920 and made the following declaration: T h e D e m o c r a tic P a r ty fa v o r s th e L e a g u e o f N a tio n s a s th e s u r e s t, i f n o t th e o n ly , p r a c tic a b le m e a n s o f m a in ta in in g th e p e a c e o f th e w o r ld a n d t e r m in a t in g th e in s u ffe r a b le b u r d e n o f g r e a t m ilit a r y a n d n a v a l e s t a b lis h m e n ts . I t w a s u p o n t h i s b a s i s t h a t t h e P r e s i d e n t o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s , in p r e a r r a n g e m e n t w ith o u r a llie s , c o n s e n te d to a s u s p e n s io n o f h o s tili tie s a g a in s t th e Im p e r ia l O rm a n G o v e r n m e n t: th e a r m istic e w as g r a n te d a n d a t r e a t y o f p e a c e n e g o t ia te d u p o n t h e d e fin ite a s s u r a n c e to G e r m a n y , a s w e ll a s to th e p o w e r s p itte d a g a in s t G e r m a n y , th a t “ a g e n e r a l a s s o c ia t io n o f n a t io n s m u s t b e fo r m e d , u n d e r s p e c ific c o v e n a n ts , f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f a ffo r d in g m u tu a l g u a r a n t ie s o f p o lit ic a l in d e p e n d e n c e a n d t e r r i t o r i a l i n t e g r i t y t o g r e a t a n d s m a l l S t a t e s a l i k e .” Upon this platform the Democratic candidate received 9,147,350 votes. The Republican Party platform of 1920 made the following declaration with regard to the League of Nations: T h e Iie p u b lic a n P a r t y s t a n d s fo r a g r e e m e n t a m o n g th e n a tio n s to p r e s e r v e th e p e a c e o f th e w o r ld . W e b e lie v e t h a t su c h a n in te r n a t io n a l a s s o c ia tio n m u st be b ased upon in te r n a tio n a l ju s tic e and m u st pro v id e m e th o d s w h ic h s h a ll m a in ta in t h e r u le o f p u b lic r ig h t b y th e d e v e l o p m e n t o f law a n d t h e d e c i s i o n of i m p a r t i a l c o u r t s a u d w h i c h 39 87 9— 23C 65 s h a ll se c u r e in s ta n t a n ti gen eral in te r n a tio n a l c o n fe re n c e w h e n e v e r peace s h a ll be th rea ten ed by p o litic a l a c tio n , so th a t th e n a tio n s p le d g e d to d o a n d in s i s t u p o n w h a t is ju s t, a n d f a i r m a y e x e r c is e t h e ir in flu e n c e a n d p o w e r f o r t h e p r e v e n t io n o f w a r . W e b e lie v e t h a t a ll t h is c a n b e d o n e w it h o u t t h e c o m p r o m is e o f n a t io n a l in d e p e n d e n c e , w it h o u t d e p r iv in g th e p e o p le of th e U n ite d S t a t e s in a d v a n c e o f t h e r i g h t t o d e t e r m in e f o r t h e m s e lv e s w h a t is ju s t a n d fa ir w h e n t h e o c c a s io n a r is e s , a n d w it h o u t in v o lv in g th e m a s p a r t ic ip a n t s a n d n o t a s p e a c e m a k e r s in a m u lt it u d e o f q u a r r e ls t h e m e r its o f w h ic h t h e y a r e u n a b le to ju d g e . It criticizes the covenant of the league as drawn and the in sistence o f the President in favor of the covenant without amendment; and in regard to the Republican Senate which had voted to adopt the covenant o f the league with reserva tions the Republican platform said: W e a p p r o v e th e ir c o n d u c t a n d h o n o r t h e ir c o u r a g e a n d fid e lity , a n d w e p le d g e t h e c o m in g R e p u b lic a n a d m in is t r a t io n to s u c h a g r e e m e n t s w it h th e o th e r n a tio n s o f th e w o r ld a s s h a ll m e e t th e fu l l d u t y o f A m e ric a to c iv iliz a tio n and h u m a n ity in a c c o r d a n c e w ith A m e r ic a n id e a ls a n d w it h o u t s u r r e n d e r in g t h e r ig h t o f t h e A m e r i c a n p e o p le to e x e r c is e i t s ju d g m e n t a n d i t s p o w e r in f a v o r o f ju s t i c e a n d p e a c e . As far as the public was concerned there was little or no difference between the attitude o f this Republican platform and the Democratic platform, because the Democratic plat form had no intention whatever to deprive the people of the United States “ to determine for themselves what is just and fair ” or to involve them in a multitude of quarrels, as stated in the Republican platform. The Democratic platform stated in terms, with regard to the League of Nations, that— T h e P r e s id e n t r e p e a t e d ly h a s d e c la r e d , a n d t h is c o n v e n t io n r e a ffir m s , t h a t a ll o u r d u t i e s a n d o b li g a t i o n s a s a m e m b e r o f t h e le a g u e m u s t b e f u l f i lle d in s t r i c t c o n f o r m i t y w i t h t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s , e m b o d ie d in w h ic h is t h e f u n d a m e n t a l r e q u ir e m e n t o f d e c la r a t o r y a c t io n h y t h e C o n g r e s s b e fo r e t h is N a t i o n m a y b e c o m e a p a r t i c i p a n t in a n y w ar. When on November 19, 1919 ( C o n g r e s s i o n a l R e c o r d , p. 8802), Mr. L o d g e submitted the question o f ratifying the covenant of the league with certain reservations, 41 Senators, including my self, voted for it, including nearly all the Republican Senator B a ll C a ld e r C apper ( 'nit. C u m m in s C u r tis D illin g h a m Edge E lk in s P r e lin g h u y s e n H a le H a r d in g •Tones, W a s h . K e llo g g K enyon K eyes L en root iJU L oU d JJO ge M cC um ber M cLean M cN ary N ew N ew berry Page P en rose P h ip p s S Im D Uo Vo U tl Spencer S te r lin g S u t h e r la n d T ow n sen d W a d sw o rth W arren W a tso n and five Democrats. The following Republicans voted against the treaty with the reservations: B orah G ron na B rnn degee F e r n a ld F ia n c e J oh n son Knox L a T o ile tte M cC u m b erS herm an M oses N o r r is P o in d e x te r Some of these Republicans voted against it because they were opposed to the treaty on any ground whatever, such as Senators B o r a h and J o h n s o n o f California, while others, in cluding nearly all the Democrats, favored the treaty without these reservations, including all of the Democrats except five, and these Democrats were in favor of the treaty noh\ lthstanding the reservations, so that the vote in the Senate of the United States was overwhelmingly in favor o f the co\enant ot the league, with or without reservations. 39879— 23665 Senator Harding, who was at that time a candidate for the Presidency, voted twice for the covenant of the league with reservations. Nearly all the great Republican leaders were strenuously for the covenant of the League of Nations with or without reservations, for example: Hon. William Howard Taft, formerly President, who was the president of the League to Enforce Peace, and now, by President Harding’s appointment, Chief Justice o f the United States. Mr. Taft, in signed articles in the Public Ledger and in interviews and addresses, strongly advised the friends of the League of Nations to vote for Senator Harding as the best, if not the only hope, for our entry into the league, and in an article in the Public Ledger immediately following the election Mr. Chief .Justice Taft said: T h e e n e m ie s o f t h e le a g u e w ill m a in ta in t h a t t h e g e n e r a l v e r d ic t is o n e c o m p le t e ly a d v e r s e to a n y le a g u e , b u t t h is w i ll n o t b e t h e r e a s o n a b le ju d g m e n t o f t h o s e w h o h a v e f o llo w e d M r . H a r d i n g ’ s p r o m is e s in h is s p e e c h o f a c c e p t a n c e , in h is s p e e c h o f A u g u s t 2 8 , in h is D e s M o in e s s p e e c h , a n d in h is I n d i a n a p o l i s s p e e c h . Hon. Elihu Root, former member o f the Cabinet, Secretary of State, stood for the league with the Lodge reservations. Charles Evans Hughes, twice Governor of the State of New York and Justice of the Supreme Court, nominee for Presi dent, and at the present time Secretary of State under Presi dent Harding— the same. Gen. Leonard Wood, who was a leading candidate for the Republican nomination for the Presidency, declared his— A p p r o v a l o f th e L e a g u e o f N a tio n s w ith th e S e n a te r e s e r v a tio n s — r e s e r v a tio n s w h ic h t h o r o u g h ly A m e r ic a n iz e it and le a v e A m e ric a a b s o lu t e ly fr e t' a n d u n t r a m m e le d t o f o l l o w t h e o n ly m a n d a t e s h e w i ll e v e r a c c e p t — t h e m a n d a t e o f A m e r i c a n p u b lic o p in io n , t h e w ill o f th e A m e r i c a n p e o p le . Frank O. Lowden, twice Governor of Illinois, another leading candidate for the Republican nomination, stated in his primary campaign— A n o th e r q u e s tio n is t h a t o f th e L e a g u e o f N a t io n s . I b e l i e v e in th e p a s s a g e o f th e L e a g u e o f N a t io n s c o v e n a n t w ith r e s e r v a tio n s . I d e fe n d th e a c tio n o f S e n a to r s w h o in s is te d upon r e s e r v a tio n s to th e c h a r t e r s u b m itt e d to t h e m . * * * W hen th e R e p u b lic a n P a r t y is in p o w e r w e s h a l l , I h o p e , p r o c e e d t o e s t a b l i s h th is m a c h in e r y fo r a d ju s t in g in te r n a t io n a l d iffe r e n c e s . Herbert Hoover, whose friends were urging him for the Presidency, in the Public Ledger and the Chicago Daily News, said— I s ta n d e a r n e s t ly fo r a L e a g u e o f N a t io n s to m in im iz e w a r , a n d , m oreover, I sta n d fo r th e le a g u e w ith a lte r a tio n s in th e d ir e c tio n p o in te d b y th e R e p u b lic a n r e s e r v a tio n s . And Herbert Hoover went so far as to say that— T h e g r a v e s t p e r i l t o t h e c a u s e o f p e a f,e s e e m s t o m e t o b e t h i s , t h a t J o h n s o n a n d B o r a h b e lie v e a n d a r e m a k in g t h e p a r t y a n d t h e c o u n tr y b e lie v e t h a t th e y h a v e m a d e th e is s u e s a n d a r e d o m in a t in g t h e c a m p a ig n . I f t h a t fa ls e im p r e s s io n is a llo w e d to g o u n c h a ll e n g e d , w h e n th e y r e t u r n to th e S e n a te th e y w ill b e a b le t o d r a w to th e ir s id e su c h S e n a te s u p p o r t a s w ill e n a b le t h e m t o b lo c k c o m p le t e ly S e n a t o r H a r d in g w h e n , a s P r e s id e n t, h e in v it e s a p p r o v a l e it h e r o f t h e e x is t in g le a g u e w ith r e s e r v a tio n s o r— And so forth. Vice President Coolidge on October 28 at Car negie Hall, New York, said: I f tiie s e c u r it y o f E u r o p e is so in t e r t w in e d w it h th e V e r s a il le s t r e a t y a n d th e e x is tin g L e a g u e o f N a tio n s th a t w e can m a k e th e b e st p ro g re ss 39879— 23665 11 by taking the good in that treaty and in that covenant and by excis ing or amending those things which are not consonant with American traditions and habits, surely the Republican platform permits of such a course; surely the public declarations of Senator Harding permit such a course. And so, many other of the Republican leaders, such as W. Murray Crane, o f Massachusetts; William Allen White, of Kansas; Judge Nathan L. Miller, ex-Governor of New York; Ly man J. Gage, ex-Secretary o f the Treasury; George W. Wickersham, ex-Attorney General; Charles D. Hilles, president of the National Republican Club; Oscar Straus, and so forth. It is perfectly notorious that the Republicans went before the people in 1920 with the assurance that Senator Harding was the best means by which to get effective favorable action on the League of Nations. The Republican Party platform was framed in such a way as to prevent Senator J o h n s o n , o f California, or his supporters bringing about a party split, but the friends o f the league be lieved in Harding and voted for him; and to say that the 7,000,000 plurality which he received was because President Harding was opposed to the League o f Nations, for which he twice voted, is false and utterly preposterous. There are other reasons which fully explain the 7,000,000 plurality which Harding received without the pretense that hostility to the league was the reason. In the first place, the number of votes had been increased 50 per cent by the woman’s v ote; and, therefore, whatever the plurality, it would be largely increased by this new vote. In 1910 the voters in America were exceedingly opposed to the entry of the United States into the war. The Democrats had made the campaign on the slogan “ He kept us out of war,” and on that slogan Woodrow Wilson received 9,129,606 votes against 6,286,214 in 1912, a gain of nearly 3,000,000 votes. This included the people who by descent or affiliation were sym pathetic with the German, Austrian, Bulgarian, or Turkish people, the pacifists, and many of the socialists, and all those who wanted to keep out o f war. When Woodrow Wilson led us into war, as he was compelled to do by public opinion, these citizens turned from the support of the Democratic ticket like a shoal of herring, and the Repub licans carried both the House and Senate in 1918. The preelection letter o f Woodrow Wilson in 1918 alienated many progressive Republicans, energized the Republican Party, and laid the foundation for the solidarity o f all Republicans in 1920. Many independents and Democrats, as well as progressive Republicans and people of no particular party activity, were incensed by the unavoidable annoyances of war activities, for example: „ „ ,, (a) The selective draft act called 10,000,000 men of all po litical complexions on June 5, 1917, and left hundreds of thou sands of grievances. (b) The Council of National Defense, necessary as it was, was organized down to the crossroads and offended hundreds of thousands. _ . ____ (c) The antisedition act. with its spies, and so forth a neces s a r y act, nevertheless laid the foundation for a number of grievances against the party in power—the Demociatic la ity . 3 9 8 7 9 — 2 :5 0 0 5 1*2 f| •it 40" s (d ) The suppression of free speech, necessary in war to pre vent the foolish from demoralizing our war activities, neverthe less offended thousands. (e) The War Trade Board interfered with trade and com merce in innumerable ways and left hundreds of thousands of fended. (f ) The War Industries Board interfered in all sorts of ways with the industrial life o f America— very necessary in time of war and commendable in the highest degree. Unnumbered grievances nevertheless were incited by the action of the War Industries Board. (g) The food control under Hoover and fuel control under Garfield offended millions of the people. It mattered not if Hoover and Garfield were Republicans. The offense was com mitted by the Democratic administration and the grievance was against the Democratic Party. (h) Priority orders on the railroads and embargoes on goods and gold offended hundreds of thousands o f people. (i) The Government control o f railroads, the Government con trol of the telegraph and cable, the Government control of the telephones, the preferential treatment o f military and naval business in men, materials, and transports over civilian busi ness offended thousands. ( j ) The commandeering o f men and material; and outbidding civilians for labor and goods required for war broke up peace time commercial standards and offended thousands. (k ) The high taxes o f war, the excess taxes, the surplus taxes, and the methods of revenue collection and administra tion annoyed and incensed many. (l) Necessarily the administration of war is autocratic even in a democracy and thousands were offended by this cause. On top o f all these things there was a resolute and tre mendous propaganda carried on against Woodrow Wilson and his administration, due, o f course, in part to these causes which are enumerated. Then followed Wilson’s physical illness and more or less Democratic demoralization and a serious discontent within the ranks o f the Democratic leadership. It was all o f these things combined that led to Harding’s very great plurality, not because of American hostility to the League o f Nations. The campaign o f 1920 was carried on on the Republican slogan of so-called “ antl-Wilsonism ” and “ we want a change.” The American people wanted to get a change from the auto cratic bureaucracy of war to the usual and more democratic processes o f peace, and the election of 1920 reflected this senti ment. But the American people, the overwhelming majority of the American people, believed in the principles o f progressive democracy. Nearly all the Democrats are progressive and over half of the Republican citizens are progressive and have been for years, as was shown in the election of 1912 when Roosevelt received 4,126,020 votes and the lovable, genial Taft only 3,483,922. The American people are progressive, and they wish to have a progressive Government. This was most clearly indi cated in the election o f 1922 when so many stand-pat, conserva tive Republicans were defeated and progressive Republicans and 3 9 8 7 0 — 236G 5 I 13 Democrats sent to the House of Representatives and the Senate by that election. In Oklahoma not less than 75.000 Republicans voted the Democratic ticket in 1922. The people of America are not altogether blind party follow ers, but to a large extent the people regard political parties as a means by which to make effective their will. The time has come when Congress and the Senate should voice the aspirations of America and of mankind for international liberty, inter national justice, international righteousness. If it did nothing more than express its opinion in an intelligible form it would probably suffice. But, Mr. President, America should discharge its full re sponsibility before God and before man and call the leaders o f the world together in Washington for an economic and political conference to complete the work o f overthrowing militarism already so largely accomplished. It was a splendid thing, in pursuance of this great advance, which President Harding and Secretary of State Charles Evan Hughes accomplished in bringing about the four treaties limiting naval armament. It had my heartfelt approval because it was a fine step forward. It is time to take another step forward. It is time for President Harding to fulfill his promises to America. It is time for the Republican Party to meet its promises of 1920 to America with regard to international peace. Let us not be content to be silent and allow the days to pass by while another world war is being bred in Europe. It is our duty to Europe, as well as to our own people, to speak and to give the world a forum in which to speak, and the nations of the earth, when assembled in Washington City, in a favorable atmosphere, comparatively free from intrigue, will be able to give voice to the aspirations of the human heart, to the aspira tions implanted in the soul of man by the Master Maker of men. It would be another Pentecost. America will then be able to fulfill the high destiny for which she has through the last century been slowly and surely pre pared. Mr. President, our responsibility in this matter demands ac tion. America already has the financial and commercial leadership of the world and by equipment is the only great Nation capable of assuming the moral leadership o f mankind and leading peacefully the way to international liberty, international under standing, international justice, international prosperity, and happiness. 30870—-236G5 o
@FedFRASER