Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1919-05-22

bard" Undoubtedly, the fact that Ger
many was ahead in the race of armament,
that Russia was slow in the execution
of its plan for strategic railways, and
France had not perfected its new purpose
in respect to artillery and conscripton,-
held Germany to accept the Austrian
Serbian difficulty as the occasion for the
use of its perfect military establish
ment to realize its dreams of empire.
Without its success in the race of
armament, 1t never would have conceived
such dreams. In this sense, therefore,
this race of armament caused the war.
The fifth great evil from this COMPETE
tive system was the enormous destruc
tveness of the war and the savage
character which this German preparation
gave it. 1t was war of the German peo-
pie against other peoples. 1t was a war
in which the extensive scope of the Ger
man weapons included non-combatants-
men, women and children-in its bloody
purpose, and in which the permanent
devastation of countries with the Interior
object of the successful industrial and
commercial advantage of the conqueror
was clear
When such suffering, such immense loss
of life, such worldwide disaster have
grown out of this race of armament, are
we not justified in assuming almost any
burden and restriction to prevent it's in
evitable recurrence, If we do not now limit
it?
How are we to limit It? We limit it, in
the case of Germany. by compulsion-by
compulsion of League of Nations. Those
nations which dictated the peace must
unite TO maintain it. The only way we
can limit it among the allies is by agree
ment, and it is that agreement which Ar
ticle VIII in the league provides for.
| What is the objection? 1t is that IL we
limit our armament, we paralyze our
government in its defense Of our liberties
and our institutions against external ag-
erosion, and we expose ourselves naked
to our enemies. The objection is entirely
without weight. We limit our arma-
ment in consideration of the other nations
of the league limiting theirs. Our limit Is
adjusted proportionately to theirs, having
due regard to the more or less exposed po-
sition of each nation, it's obligations to
the league and its need for domestic use
of armament. In other words we do not
expose ourselves any more naked to our
enemies than they do to us, in accord
with a fair and just plan of common dis
armament upon which we have agreed.
Secondly if other nations can safely
agree to dsarm, cannot we? We have an
ocean between us and Europe where the
greatest danger Of disturbance is, and we
have an ocean between us and Asia. III
France and Great Britain and Italy. with
their recent enemies just across the Dor
der from them. can agree to limit arma-
ment. why cannot we?
Again, is it not rather absurd and
humorous for us to be so sensitive now
in respect to the proportionate re-
duction of our armament under the
general plan, when never in the his
tory of the country have we had an
adequate armament at the beginning
of any war or until we could make
hasty preparation for that war? l
venture to prophesy that If the league
is ratified and the agreement to dis
arm is made, and limit fixed Tor us.
we shall never reach that limit until
war is on us and that the limit i'm
posed will not constitute the slightest
embarrassment to Congress.
Again, the Emperor of Russia sum-
moned conference at The Hague, and
one of the chief purposes of that con-
gress was to secure mutual and
common limitation of armament among
the nations of the world, and 1t was
prevented by the obdurate refusal of
! Germany to give the slightest support
to such proposal. Our own delegates
were instructed to press in favor of it.
The public opinion of this country
undoubtedly supported that instruc-
ton Now these DIRECTORS propose
that we shall take the place of Ger
many by our refusal to join in COM
mon limit of armament, and defeat
the whole plan. Can it be that we are
to be such a marplot in a scheme of
world necessary and so
: beneficial to ourselves and mankind?
1t is further objected that an agree
} ment to limit armament in a treaty on
! our part, is unconstitutional. The treaty.
= making power has been held by the
Supreme Court to include that of making
any contract for our nation with an
5 other relating to any subject matter
| which is usually included in treaties be-
I tween nations, save only that we may
not change the form of our government
! or cede land of a state without it's con-
sent. The limitation of armament is one
, of frequent occurrence in peace treaties,
T and has always been. Therefore, 1t comes
within the definition of the Supreme
= Court as a subject matter proper for
contract by our treatymaking power.
More than this, we made such treaty
2 with Great Britain more than one hun
Y dred years ago, in which we agreed to
G limit our naval armament on the Great
/ Lakes in consideration of her doing the
\ same thing, and we have kept that treaty
alive and maintained it for more than a
- century. 1t was not thought to be I'M
e constitutional then; it has not been dur
Y ing that one hundred years of it's life; and
= we have all been proud of the fact that
, we made it and kept it. Certainly II au-
= thority and precedent can establish con-
t stitutional validity, they do in this
y case. If it be objected that the council
n must increase the limit of armament If
n it be needed in the ten years, and that
d therefore it leaves it to an outside au-
Ithority to govern our course in this re-
n aspect 1t Is sufficient to answer that as
( we have the full authority to make an
= agreement for ten years. the mere fac,
= that the agreement may be made less
J., stringent by the action of the council
n during that ten years, cannot invalidate
= the agreement. especially in view of the
t fact that as the council must act
n unanimously, no change can be made In
o the proportionate reduction of armaments
unless by the consent or our representa-.
d tive on that council; and Therefore by oul
s own consent. So much for the first grea,
n step in the covenant
= THE OVERFLOW MEETJNC