New Ulm review. (New Ulm, Brown County, Minn.) 1892-1961, 1919-07-16

reasons are for the acceptance Of such s.
peace that fructifies not only IN war but
in revolution. ss #s
Only President Woodrow Wilson can
tell them. What were the springs 81
action ia his yielding TO something other
than peoples peace? He should tell
us the secrets Of the diplomacy Of which
we see only the results in an apparent
abandonment Of the programme his an
nouncement Of which caused the people
of all countries to hail him as the savior
of the worio Why did he recede from
his own high faith and hope and assent
to a peace which is opposed to the IN;
terests of the worlds workers, who have
been cannon fodder for ages? Can it
be that his idealism went down to dusty
defeat on so many points because he
could not stand out against the force of
international banking interests looking
out for the fat pickings from "a receiver
ship for civilization?' Did a would
made safe for democracy have to make
way for an arrangement whereby the
holders of the bonds of European nations
shall be protected from loss? The
United States admittedly must help
Europe to get on its feet, but must we
help the European powers pay their war
debts? Those powers want us to do so,
according OF Mr.. Frank Vanderlip. They
would bring us in to prevent any such
thing as radicals propose both there and
here, namely, a drastic levy upon or con-
scription of capital in order to relieve the
poorer folk OF an mtolerable burden of
taxation. It seems odd that Senator
Knox Of Pennsylvania should declare
this, but he does. President Wilson
should tell US if the peace that is to crush
the German people is to crush all other
people, too, under load Of an hundred
billions of Indebtedness. The exhausted
peoples cannot stand such drain and
strain. They will overturn all govern
ments rather. President Wilson should
clear up all this. He is the only man
who can do SO. He has let no other man
into full knowledge Of the situation.
/ The President alone has thefacts about
the conference at Paris. IF the covenants
were not openly arrived att it is time
to open up the details Of the proceedings
eliminating in the covenants. The Presi-
dent should tell us what he had to con-
tend against and why the forces in oppo-
sition were too strong for him, and in
what particulars his surrender was for
the higher good, why compromise was
better than obstinate adhesion to his
principles. Every American under
stands that politics, in an imperfect
world, IS matter Of accepting second
bests, because the perfect best is UNI
attainable. The peace the President
fetches home is not the perfect best he
sought. It is incumbent upon him to
show that it is the best second-best in
stead of the worst that he could have
accomplished, as his enemies maintain.
II he can do this the people will stand by
his peace and insist upon its ratification
by the senate.
Perfectionists say that the German
people should have rejected the peace
of violence and revenge, though it meant
the starvation Of millions under the
blockade. They say now that we should
reject the peace because it is not the peace
sought, even though our action should
throw Europe back into endless wars
between nations and the people into
starvation, revolution and long night
of semi-savage ignorance. The adyo-
Gates of an ideal peace maintain in fact
that no peace is better than any peace
that is not the perfection of human
justice. The American people will not
so view the subject. But they must be
shown that TIE second best in this
matter Of peace was the very best that
could have been wrought, all things con-
sidered. They will believe, they will
listen to no one but the President in ex-
tenuation of so much of failure as he
may have met in his efforts. They know
that not failure but low aim is
crime. The one and only way in which