The Bridgeport times and evening farmer., 1919-10-13
IRELAND AND
 THE LEAGUE
(Springffeld Republican,

LAIS LO LIS OWn presentation or the subject, Ireland Is the primary cause of his attack on the League of Ma tions. The senator admits he is com n1ttted to the principle of League; but no one at this time should seriously stress the point that some other League would be preferable. It is the sober truth to say that unless we accept this league sub stantis.lly as it is outlined in the covenant there will be no league Not within the lives of the people now living, old or young, will it be possible to establish a society of nations less exposed to criticism than this one, especially criticism such as is offered by the spokemen for the cause of Irish independence.
 Let us fact the facts. What is the attitude of the people of Irish blood in America? Senator Walsh answers by saying that "they ask the Unit ed States not to join in any league or make any agreement with other nations which may hinder or for ever bar oppressed peoples from obtaining independence" Coming more to the point, the senator de- nounces the covenant because "it prevents, through article 10, this nation or any other nation going to the assistance or aid of any op- pressed race seeking independence" MT. Walsh has Ireland in mind, pre- cisely as Bourke Cochran had Ire land in mind in his similar attack
 on the league at the hearing before the foreign relations committee in August.
 What both men unmistakably de- sire is to have the United States left wholly unhampered by "any league or "any agreement in making war on the British empire for the estab- lishment of Ireland's independence MT Roosevelt's declaration in his last days for a compulsory arbitral- ton treaty with Great Britain to the end that war between Great Britain and the United States, for any reason whatever, might be pre- vented. must be as obnoixous to this school of Irish politics and policy as the league of nations be- cause, from their point of view, a simple compulsory arbitration treaty between the two powers would keep Ireland from winning her independence. Even the Bryan cooling off treaty now in force, between Great Britain and the United States, can be regarded as coming under the ban, as indi- cated by Senator Walsh. because it would be for a time at least hinder American armed intervention in an Irish instruction.
 Appearing in behalf of the cause Of Irish Independence before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on August 30, Bourke Cochran in reply to Senator Walsh of Montana was explicit on this question to ,a very enlightening degree. The Montana Walsh had argued in the Senate, according to MT. Cochran, that there were three means by which subject nation could effect it's Independence. One was by con- sent of the governing nation, the other was by revolt of the subject people themselves, the third was by outside intervention, and he claimed great credit for the pro- posed league of nations because it prohibited but one of these methods of relief, leaving the other two open and available"
 MT. Cockran's reply was that only through direct "outside tnterven- ton" of the old-fashioned sort, the method rendered unavailable by the league covenant, could any people win it's independence. Every sue cessful revolution" he declared, "of which I have any knowledge, was effected through outside support" His chief illustrations were the French support of the United States in the Revolution and the Ameri- can support of Cuba in our war with Spain. But intervention of that character means war. Indeed, under the old system of International re- lations, intervention to separate from another country a portion of it's population and set them up as an independent state has always meant war and it will always mean war if there is force enough in the sovereign to resist the pressure from the outside. Spain in 1898 ordered her forces out of Cuba, simply to save her national honor" The avenue which MT. Cochran said must be kept open, and which the junior senator from Massa chusetts now says must be kept open, is the avenue of war.
 When they say that in the case of Ireland, no nation must be hindered by "any agreement" even from going to her 'assistance'-i which means with armed forces or the threat Of armed forces - they necessarily have the United States in mind. For since the downfall of Germany, there remains no Euro pean nation from which armed in- tervention in an Irish insurr ection could be looked for with the slight est hope of success. For France to engage in such an enterprise would be out of the question, for France no longer attempts to rival Britain as a naval power. America alone is now regarded as the nation from which military aid for a revolution ary Ireland could be expected. America alone is capable of giving aid in the least effective.
 If the Irish leaders have these ends in view, it is useless to talk with them about any league of na- tions however organized. They are against "any league or "any agree ment," to which Great Britain and the United States shall be parties, whose purpose is the preservation
 of peace, so long as Ireland has not gained full independence. It is idle
 to pick flaws in the present | covenant, on the pretense that there could be a better or a safer covenant, when in reality no cove
 nant at all is wanted. The Irish leaders are not the only ones who