The Washington herald., 1914-10-14
Col Roosevelt and Peace Treaties.

l. - CNNS ONA~AN~a
Col Roosevelt and the Hon. James Bryce are
both students Of history especially political history
and few years ago when one was President of the
United States and the other Ambassador for Great
Britain in Washington, they were supposed to think
much alike on the teachings of history. That must
have been an. of judgment on the part of the
public they must have changed somewhat in their
views, one or the other or both Both of these men
have been contributing to the discussion of the war;
as to its and effects, and the New York Times
recently presented their views in the same issue.
Mr.. Bryce discusses the doctrine of force put
forward by the German military author, Bernhard,
combats that theory and closes his discussion with
the sentence: The faith of treaties is the only solid
foundation which the temple of peace be
built"
Col. Roosevelt does not mention the German au-
thor but argues that treaties without the force to
compel their respect are of no avail and he closes
lcng article with the sentence Neither the existing
Hague Court any peace treaties of the existing
type will the slightest influence in saving
from disaster any nation that does preserve the
vire virtues and the long-sghtedness that will en-
able it by its might to guard its own honor, in
terest, and national life"
The Colonel is not direct and simple in his
conclusion as is Mr.. Bryce, or the German author,
Bernhard, who declares courts of arbitration
pernicious delusions" and efforts directed toward
the abolition OF war not only foolish, but abso-
lutey immoral" Mr.. Bryce believes that the great
powers of Europe were solemnly bound by their
treaties to protect the neutrality of Belgium Col
Roosevelt sympathizes with Belgium, but contends
that each nation bound to protect its own interests
by preservation of the vrle virtues and ongsghted
ness. He does not note the fact that the Belgians
have given rare exhibition OF the vire virtues of
self-defense, that they had been long-sghted in
preparing defenses far beyond the ordinary ability
of small kingdom but not enough to withstand the
attacks of the greatest military power in the world.
Col Roosevelt is too indefinite in his conclusions.
He should openly agree with Bernhard, that efforts
to avoid war are foolish and immoral, or with Mr..
Bryce that the strong nation which promises to pro-
tect weak nation is bound by that promise. He need
violate the principle of neutrality in making clear
his views this question If great nation like the
United States is bound protect its own honor and
compel other great nations keep their treaties with
it. will not the Colonel also say whether this gov
eminent is also bound by the Monroe doctrine to see
that other great powers observe their treaties with the
smaller and weaker nations on this hemisphere? He
has been an ardent advocate of the Monroe doctrine
and it might be considered ominous in Mexico and
South America that Col Roosevelt is now insisting
ice the vrile virtues and be able protect itself
against the greater powers of the world.
One desiring to find fault with Col RooseveIt's
position might accuse him of political agitation
against the arbitration treaties negotiated by Secre
AIRY Bryan, and also those which negotiated by
Secretary Knox. in the Taft administration But the
Colonel also tried his hand arbitration treaties
when he was President and he wrote a rather sar-
astc letter to the late Senator Cullom, then chair
nan of the Committee Foreign Relations, because
he Senate refused to rafy his arbitration treaties
without amendment President Roosevelt wanted a |
reaty that would give him the power to enter into
agreements which the Senate thought would author
ze him to make arbitration treaties without the
onsen of the Senate and because the Senate changed
agreements to treaties" President Roosevelt with
rev the treaties he had sent to the Senate The OBJ
econ which Col Roosevelt has to arbitration treaties
would seem to be that the Senate should, in con-
ormity with the Constitution, have hand in making
hem His controversy with the Senate in 1905 might
Indicate that he favors such secret treaty-making
ower as the Kaiser of Germany and the Gar of
russia have. So it may be that the Colonel has
lot changed and that he would still favor peace
reaties if he were President and alone responsible
or making them, without ratification by the Senate