Weekly journal-miner., 1919-03-19

are about Il we will reply 10 that chal.
 lenge, too.
 Article l. section 8, of the constitu-
 ton of the United States says:
 The congress shall have power:
 To regulate commerce with for
 eign nations:
 To define and punish offenses aga inst the law of nations:
 To raise and support armies;
 To provide and maintain navy. l These four clauses are all violated by the provisions of the proposed lcopstitution of the League of Nations (which transfers from the congress of the United States to an executive council, the majority of which would fl be British, French, Italian and Jap anese representatives:
 l. The power to regulate com merce with foreign nations''-which is done by Articles XVI, XVIII. xxx, XXI, and XXI of the proposed con stitution of the League of Nations; i ?. The power ito define and pun iish offenscs against the law of the nations"-which is done by Articles ! XI, XVI and XVII of that document. ] 3. The power "to'raise and support armies which is expressly taken from our Congress and transferred to this foreign fody by Articles VIII and Article XVI. of that document
 A. The power ito provide and maintain a navy'-which is taken from the congress by these same Ar ticles VIII and XVI.
 The constitution not only clothes our congress with the powers to do these acts of sovereignity, but it makes the authority Of the congress. SOLE and supreme in these matters, and by clear implication forbids the exercise of these powers to any but ! the congress.
 The congress cannot constitution ally divest itself of these powers or transfer these powers beyond its Jurisdiction if any congress wanted to do it.
 Much less can the president, nor yet the senate which is but part of the congress. lawfully strip the congress of these powers and transfer them to any other body, domestic or for eign.
 Only the reserved, ultimate power of the whole people, in convention, amending, altering or abolishing the constitution, could achieve such re- suit.
 We affirm that not only does the proposed constitution of the League of Nations conflict with some ex- press mandates and prohibitions of our own constitution, but that it con- flicts with the spirit of the whole constitution, and that it would nulli- fy the most vital provisions of our great charter of free government by which, under God. we and our ia liners before Us have been so long guided in the ways of lib- erty. justice and peaceful and won derful national growth and prosper ity.
 It is amazing that a lawyer and a judge and an ex-President of the United States should deliberately af- firm that the constitution of the Lea que of Nations and the constitution of the United States do not conflict.
 Because they do conflict at every point of contact.
 What. Are we to believe that an instrument which proposes to take away our very national sovereignty over our own army, over our navy, our own commerce and our own de- cision as to war or peace does not conflict with the constitution which commands the congress of the United States SOLELY lto exercise those great powers and authority of sover- eighty and independence! It will take very much abler and more convincing arguments than any we have yet heard to convince sensible American- that we can surrender our sovereignty and keep it, too: that we can eat our cake and have it, too. Or, rather, that we can let Great Britain eat our cake and still retain it for ourselves.
 We will follow no Reclamation, no academic rhetoric no sentimental bathos in the path of surrender, abdication and abasement of the au- thority, the dominion and the great name of the republic