New-York tribune., 1919-02-26

gether and to enforce peace among it's
parts. If Washington had yielded, if he
mad not seen that state sovereignty must
be clipped, the Union probably would
not have lasted his lifetime, and war
and discord would have followed. The
covenant of Paris is not strong enough
to guarantee peace along the lines of
world confederation, and no candid per-
son will assert it is.
But another general theory of organi-
zation is suggested, and this is a coali-
ton or entente among the nations which
won the war, and which, it is we'll said
must be the maintainers.
This is the plan of Clemenceau. It was
the plan which Edward VII and Del
casse resorted to when the behavior
OF Germany gave warning that a great
crime was meditated. RESPONSIBILITIES
were lad on the members of the alliance,
each preserving its complete identity, to
concert and act together if the con-
ditlon feared came. Such an arrange
ment all the nations party thereto would
understand and, so far as now can he
foreseen, be true to- But the Paris
plan is not this. When Clemenceau
offered it the President, in his Man
chester address, scornfully rejected it.
and the distrust breeders became verv
active to break down the moral founda
tlons of such an alliance.
The plan before US contemplates
neither league of mankind nor an al
nance among the nations which have
shown they can be trusted to be true to
the obligations of Justice if thew under
take the business Of preserving peace
by their own power. Neither league nor
alliance, the plan seems to have the Writ
ues of neither and the faults of both.
Here is the criticism that it's upholders
must meet-not only in this country, but
III every country. Chanting praises of
peace and the beauties of a peace league
lodges the questions at issue-is the
man@uvre of the ostrich who hides his
head in the sand and thinks he is en-
tirely concealed
The obvious purpose is to drive
through by hurrah methods the signing
OF such blank check as Senator Lewis
has repeatedly asked for In contenpt
of democratic principles discussion of
vital details is avoided, for reasons
which may be easily surmsed to get q
blanket Endorsement for plan no one
understands or pretends to understand.
and which it's friends carefully avoid
describing or analyzing.
The President, resoutely refusing to
take the public into his confidence.
speaks only to express generalities whose
truth is not denied. This policy he has
steadily followed since the discussion
began. At Boston, it was said, he would
expose his thoughts. If such was his
intent he altered it, for again there was
dense silence as to all pertinent mat
ters; again there was cloud riding.
again there was only parade of the nm
contradicted Is there any one so igno-
rant as not TO know that every political
party in America has declared for the
league principle?
Theodore Roosevelt was neaca
Lacquer, calling the second Hague con-
ference. John Hay, who said our for
eign policy should be the Golden Ru1e
plus the Monroe Doctrine. was neace
Lacquer, and so are Elihu Root and
Phllander Knox. So Senator Lodge is
and has been. The Sixty-fourth Con-
gress, long before President Wilson
showed interest in peace league projects.
UNANIMOUSLY passed a resolution calling
for summoning of a conference to
organize peace and making an appro
prlatlon for its expenses. Concerning
the abstract question to which the Presi-
dent confines his discourse, the dominant
American view has been indicated with
great clearness.
And outside of imperialstic GERMANY
and her satellites the peace league prin-
ciple has been universally acclaimed.
From Sully to Clemenceau, through ST.