New-York tribune., 1919-08-23

The Bitter-Enders


ers" or "irreconcilables" of the Senate
have in mind during their tour of the
country? The objective ascribed to them
is the killing of the league of nations
idea. But is this their fundamental mo-
tive? This may be much doubted-it is
at war with their repeated declarations.
The name "bitter-ender" used in an
epithetical way is one invented and ap-
piled by politicians who have carried
on the meanest sort of misrepresenting
attacks on those in their way. Bluster
and abuse have marked the demeanor of
the official advocates of the covenant
They have tried to browbeat and to
coerce There is nothing in the record
suggesting that these elements have
suddenly become candid and .lon-parti-
san, and hence there is no reason to as
sumo that their present characterize
tions and Inscriptions of purpose are fair
and accurate.
Messrs. Borah, Johnson, Poindexter and
Knox are all on record as favoring in
every feasible way the comfy and good
relations Of the nations. They have
urged international arrangements. They
have not championed aloofness as an end
in itself. They we're conspicuously in
favor of intervening in the war while
the President was campaigning for re-
election on the issue that he kept US out
of war. Here was no spirit of selfish
aloofness on the part Of men against
which ferule which has lost it's terror
is threateningly lifted.
What, then, do the misnamed bitter
enders seek? Why would they be pleased
if the covenant were beaten and the busi-
ness of developing an international asso-
citation were deferred? Senator Knox
amply explains. He denies that
conference whose main business was to
make a specific peace, necessarily puni-
tive in character, was a proper body to
father an acceptable general peace
scheme. This implies no opposition to
a league of peace--indeed, quite the re-
verse.
But back of the thought that the cove
nant is a bungle because other matters
controlled the minds of it's makers is
something subtler. What Messrs.
Borah, Johnson ct al have insisted on is
a covenant that shall be in accord with
American ideals. President Wilson
claims he is an idealist; so do other men:
not from lack Of ideals do men oppose
the covenant, but rather because of vivid
and mastering ideals.
What are the American ideals thoupht
to be in jeopardy? They are easier to
feel than to describe in short compass.
Our government rests on a conception
different from that of Europe-the con-
ceptlon that men possess certain inherent
rights, whereas the European conception
has been that government springs from a
centring of power. We stand with
Rousseau; Europe with Hobbies.
10 us government is mere tool of
life, while elsewhere it is an end in itself.
In recent years there has been an an
Proclamation to one ideal-to the Ameri-
can one-but it will not be said there Is
yet identity
SO Americans, although willing to take
action in particular cases and in no wise
championing an impossible aloofness.
look askance at proposals to link US
closely to an only partly changed Euro-
pean system. Back of all the criticism
OF the covenant is an Americanism which
feels the nation must be sure before de-
parting from it's traditions.
The Tribune is of the opinion that It ia
possible to Americanize the covenant and
at the same time to get the practical ben
ef1ts that will come from periodic meet
ing OF an ambassadorial council. But
this does not forbid an understanding Of
and degree of sympathy with those who
do not think it right nor American to
join an association which says its will
shall be law and which implies some
measure OF pressure on us to Join in
bossing men who. according to American
srindpls~ shsuld b thsit, own bosssst