Albuquerque morning journal. [volume] (Albuquerque, N.M.) 1903-1926, 1919-10-02
M n
Text of Johnson s
Speech Delivered
at San Francisco

San Francisco, Calf, Oct Fol-
lowing is the partial text of an ad-
dress by Senator Hiram w. Johnson
at luncheon here today;
The mathematical demonstration
recently made TO you hy President
Wilson has been delight and wonder
, to the world. He proved to you, to
the entire satisfaction of those who
bask in the sunlight OF honor, appar-
, and one equals six, and finally that
one equals thirty-two and thirty-two
equals one.
T "He showed that the representa-
tves of Great Britain at. the peace
, conference, with a fatuitiousness OF
, which we could hardly believe Lloyd
George capable, insisted vehemently
; upon the granting to the Brush EN-
plre of six votes to one vote Of the
United States, although it was per-
fectly obvious TO Lloyd George that
the six votes for which ne fought so
J fervently were of no advantage to
: him whatsoever He made II plain
that an empty honor had been ac-
! corded Canada, New Zealand. South
Africa, Australia and the govern
I, ing colony. India, and this boon COW
eted by Great Britain and eagerly
sought by her colonies they and he
knew because he tells us it was of
J neither consequence nor value nor
importance.
The difficulty with the explana-
ton of the. president is that it was at
variance with the facts, and as usual,
the facts, the memorable facts make
the issue with Mr.. Wilson
THE entire contention OF Mr.. Will
son depends upon two propositions,
first that the assembly has no power
and is a more debating society, and
secondly, that the power of the league
resides in the council. where Great
Britain, as he inferentially insists. will
ever have but one vote.
1T is not the fact. as the president
says, that in case of a quarrel between
Great Britain and the United States,
the British empire would be deprived
of her six votes. The colonies of
Great Britain, even including India,
We're taken into the league as separate
and distinct entities, with membership
as full and powers as great as those
of any sovereign nation. Not only
this. they actually signed in their
separate and individual capacities, the
treaty of peace and the league of ma
tons and by its very terms in this
first article became original members
of the league
| Equally in error is the president
in his designation of the assembly.
1t is not a mere debating society IT
is not a body of impotency and fulfill
ity. If it were, the league would be
an egregious fraud. 1t would be UNI
l.
world governing oligarchy of the five
great nations. The academic and
( idealistic conception of a great forum
to redress the wrongs of the weak,
would be a mere sham and preteXt
and a shabby diplomatic trick
IF Mr.. Wilson's conception of the
assembly be sound the weak nations
of the earth would forever be in sub
! lection forever on their knees to the
| organized power of the five great ma
lions. If Mr. Wilson's description of
the assembly of the league be correct
| instead or securing self-deterniination
of peoples, and justice to the weak,
we would have all the minor nations
and all the smaller peoples of this
! whole world bound in perpetual
shackles to the five great master ma
| lions. Mr.. Wilson as usual is wrong
in his constructions of the powers OF
/ the assembly. The assembly so far
| from being a debating society is the
reservoir of all the power of the
| league.
THE most important function of
the league of nations is to prevent
war by arbitration of international
disputes, but every dispute between
nations, according to article Is. upon
| the demand of either party to the dis
pute shall be referred to the assem-
bly,. Consequently, the assembly be-
comes not only the court of the first
instance, but the ultimate tribunal to
DECIDE such as well.
LET us see then what would hap
pen ii a dispute should arise between
Great Britain and the United States
and be referred to the assembly as 1t
must be referred If Great Britain de-
mands it. The United States being a
party to the dispute, would have mol
vote in the assembly; Great Britain
being a party to the dispute would
have no vote in the assembly. The
| five British dependencies, however,
would have their five votes in the as
| sembly. There is no conceivable pro-
cess of reasoning by which this places
! the two disputants, Great Britain and
|
Great Britain starts with five votes i'll
the assembly; the United States with
none. The argument is made that so
long as the United States has one
| friend in the council it would prevent
any adverse action by the assembly,
and that If it did not have at least one
| friend in the council, there would be
! enough votes to cast the decision
against the United States without the
| five votes of the British dependencies.
but this argument assumes that
| the United States is the defendant in
| the litigation and that the United
States merely endeavors to prevent af-
| firmative action; but assume that the
| United States is the plaintiff In the lit
| igation and is seeking affirmative re-
| lief from the league of nations, and as
sumo that all the remaining membersl
| of the cotncil favor the United
| States,
| In the assembly, however, with us
| twenty three members, exclusive OF
| the council, Great Britain enters the
controversy with five votes and the
| United States with none. and you may
| ,dded to the five British colonies the
Hedjaz and SIAM Great Britain,
| therefore, out of the twenty-three re-
naming votes of the assembly, has It's
| five dependencies plus Hedjaz and
| siam. making seven out of the TWEEN
| ty-three, In order to win the United
| States must get, therefore, twelve out
of the remaining sixteen And when
Won consider some of the nations that !
| 90 tho iaapua like liz |