Daily capital journal. (Salem, Oregon) 1903-1919, 1919-06-26
ARTICLE X (cOntinued)
Chances Of war Remote

efatlOn OF thc league 10 nor itCk war I
at all. The obligation of the members
Of the league to impose in the first in |
stance a universal boycott against q
reealeitrant faithleSs member eonsti- /
tutes most formidable threat against |
any member seeking to violate article !,
X or the covenants of the following |
articles. Such a boycott viii he with |
ering ostraeism and isolation Of a ma
ton that few could endure. No single |
nation, unless it be the United States
or some Of the greater South American
nations, could live if denied food and
raw materials from the rest of the
world, and if forbidden the use of
foreign market for the sale Of their
products.
''Minatory" Influence
Second, no nation would willingly
face the overwhelming force of the
world organized to punish it for viola
tion of its covenants The ininatOry in
fnence of a world league, with its mem
bers obligated to unite in economic and
military pressure, if need be can hard
ly be exaggerated. OF course if mum
Der of nations entered into a eonspi
raey to fight and subdue the rest of
the world, then this minatory influ-
ence might not be controlling, but in
that case all the members of the lea
que would wish to join in the war, just
as they did in this, and defeat such
conspiracy and vindicate the power of
the league for its useful ends.
What we are now answering is the
objection that there viii be a lot of
little wars all over the world, in which
we shall be engaged, which will claim
our money and our men. 1t Is in re-
straint of the smaller war in which a
large nation attempts to bully weak
er one that the minatory effect of the
league win DC so controlling. The re-
suit will be that the league having the
power completely to suppress the bully
ing nation will not need to exercise
that power. Indeed it is hardly too
much to say that the nations Of the
league will never need to go beyond
the effective discipline of a universal
boycott. But if such war does break
out in which we shall deem it our duty
to intervene under article X, or the 9th
er articles, one instance of suppression
by the joint forces of the league viii
be a lesson for the world, not needing
repetition. 1t will be worth all it costs
in demonstrating that the way of the
transgressor who breaks the covenants
of the league will be hard.
Lessons from History
This conclusion as to the minatory
effect Of the covenants of the league
and the organization of its members to
enforce them does not rest merely on
an a priori reasoning. We have in our
own history striking confirmation
Of it. In 1923, the Holy Alliance con
sisting Of all the powerful nations Of
Europe, except Great Britain, gave in.
dieation of an intention to air Spain
in recovering her lost colonies in this
Western Hemisphere. We had recogniz-
ed the independence of those colonies,
Canning, the British minister for for
eign affairs, urged upon President
Monroe and John Quincy Adams, the
secretary Of state, the wisdom of unit
ing with England in league to resist
the Holy Alliance in overthrOwing the
independence Of these new American
states Thomas Jefferson was consult
ed, and he advised making a league
with England which he said would
not be an entanglng alliance against
which he had warned his countrymen,
but would be Justified by its great pub
lie purpose. Monroe and Adams. how
ever, thought it wiser to act alone.
John c. Calhoun, the secretary Of war,
advised strongly against sole action.
Nevertheless, President Monroe. in his
message Of that year. made the deea-
ration which has since been known as
the Monroe Doctrine, and notified the
members Of the Holy Alliance that the
United States would regard any at
tempt on their part to overthrow an
independent state in the Western Hem
isphere as against the interest Of the
United States which we should resist.
Calhoun and others thought that such
a declaration and policy would eer-
tainly involve US in many wars.
What has been the result9 For now
nearly a century, the Monroe Doctrine
has been maintained inviolate through
constant assertion Of It by succeed
ing administrations and without firing
a shot or the loss Of single soldier.
During the Civil war, Napoleon the III
did attempt to violate IT by setting mp
Macmillan in Mexico as an emperor.
As soon as our hands were free, how
ever, and we we're able to send Sheri-
dan with an army TO the Mexican bor-
der, Napoleon Withdrew his French
troops and Maximihan collapsed. If
such a threat by the United States
alone, not always 50 strong as she now
Is maintained inviolate a declaration
ike the Monroe Doctrine for a cen
fury, il follows fatiori that the dec
laration Of the league uniting the pow
er Of the world in proposed maints-
nance Of a similar doctrine will be
equally effective, and that IL will not
involve the members Of the league in
any more wars than We have been in.
volved in by reason Of the Monroe
Doctrine.
VIII it Retard Progress
Finally, It is objected to article X
that IL is too rigid, that progress Of
the world may need rearrangement OF
boundaries, an enlargement Of one
country and a reduction Of another OF
the creation Of new states. Article X
does not forbid changes in boundaries
or the enlargement or reduction Of
states or the establishment Of new
states. All that It forbids Is the taking
Of territory by force from a mem.
Der Of the league or overthrowing ts
government by violence. Article X does
not protect any nation against intern