Grand Forks herald., 1917-01-11

effect carried out by the ordinary ma
ch1nery of government which supports
those in whose favor the decisions are
made. and prevents forcible resistance
by those against whom they are rem
dered. This machinery has all the
the function of public opinion is to
support that condition as the. guar
antee for the maintenance of order,
not to lend it's approval to the par
ticular decision involved. Moreover,
the program of the league does not
propose to entrust any physical force
to the international tribunal. AS in
the case Of the supreme court of the
United States the application Of force
is left to other public authorities
charged with the use of force--the
executives and the Legislatures Of the
nations The plan, indeed, gives no
semblance Of force. to the tribunal,
for it's decisions are not enforced to
all.
Then there is the objection that
I.tbe league would prove ineffective. II
Wright. Of course, be SO, because when
1t Aeame to the point TIE sxnember
cations; but recent experience seems
to show that self-respecting nations
are apt to fulfill their agreements to
take up arms. France in 1914 had no
hesitation in taking part with Rus
sias although she knew we'll the suf-
fering and danger Of national disaster
1t would entail.
THE history Of the Monroe Doc.
trine is suggestive. The United States
declared that any attempt by a for
eign nation to acquire territory on
dangerous to our peace and safety
and would not be looked upon by us
, with indifference, meaning that II
might result in war. There ia NO
doubt that several foreign countries
have desired to acquire possessions in
this hemisphere. and in one case q
great and gallant nation attempted to
establish an empire in Mexico. Yet
no nation has cared to run the risk OF
war with the United States, and even
France, at our request, withdrew from
Mexico as soon as our hands were free
after the Civil war. In short, the
Monroe Doctrine has prevented for
eign nations from acquiring posses
sions on this continent for nearly a
century, and In doing SO has never
caused the shedding Of drop OF
blood. This has been the result Of q
consistent policy. with the sanction OF
ultimate force, addressed by one ma
ton to the whole world. How much
more effective would be a policy, sane
toned by a threat of force, addressed
by the whole world to one nation!
MANY Americans complain that
the league would involve our coun-
try in entangling alliances with for
eign nations contrary to our tradi-
tions. 1t would certainly involve OBJ
legations, and those of very grave
Observation-Disclosures that might
possibly result in war-and so does
the Monroe Doctrine. On the other
hand, the obligations might, and
probably would, save US from being
entangled In war. There are different
kinds of obligations and alliances.
Some people think Of the proposed
league as an alliance Of few nations
to counterbalance another league Of
about equal strength, and this might
we'll become provocation, rather
than a prevention Of war. A vendet-
ia, where men are bound together to
fight others and revenge injuries, 10 an
entangling alliance; a police force is
not. 1t 10 to the latter class that the
league belongs.
There is no use in seeking to mini.
mixe the obligations that our nation
would undertake, but no nation. and
especially no rich and powerful ma
tion. can be wholly isolated in the
world today"