The Ontario Argus. (Ontario, Or.) 1???-1947, 1919-09-18
THE DEBATE

of the League of Nations, declaring that the
issue is not a political one it is never-the-
less true that every man or woman should
form some opinion on the merits of the ques-
ton. The question involved is of too great
moment to be relegated to the discard of UNI
essentials and left entirely with the officials
TO settle. The future life, liberty and hap
piness Of every American is bound up in
the proper settlement of the question.
Unfortunately during the past week
there has been evident a tendency upon the
part of both the President and the Senators
to cast aside the dignity of their offices and
to stoop to the use of personalities. In doing
so each has weakened his position in the
minds of the thinking public. The mere
calling of names never advanced cause.
Nor have the dcbaters stopped at the
mere characterization of each other. Both
have resorted to the use of eXtravagant
statements that are so extreme as bring the
conclusion drawn therefrom absurd
A middle ground between that of the
President and the Borah-Johnson-McCor-
mick position must be found if the question
is not to degenerate into mere political
squabble.
That the rancor now shown by the Sen
ate leaders would not have been communi-
Gated to the people had the President taken
that body into his confidence and followed
his declaration of "open covenants, openly
arrived at" is the belief of most critics, as
well as the Presidents friends.
1t is likewise true that in their spirit of
resentment at the treatment accorded them
by the President, Senators BOrah and John
son have overlooked the object which the
league of nations was supposed to attain,
says Senator McCumber, and there is u
measure of truth in his observation.
Historically speaking there is no foun-
dation for the belief that the league of ma
tions could attain the idcalistic condition
which its proponents claim for it. The peo-
pie of the world have not achieved the re-
quired standard of morality to make a
league completely effective. The trainers of
the present proposed league recognize that,
and in fact are playing fast and loose with
the English language in describing their
as The "league of nations" 1t is !
not that, but merely an entente of the fivel
great powers and ~ others they have select
ed for membership.
But that is not the principal objection
made to the league What is more serious
is the evident ambiguity of the language of
given rise to such serious disagrccmcnts as
to what the terms really mean. From the
debate in Congress and the discussions of
the league that have taken place in the
British Parliament and the French House of
Deputies it is evident that these three pow
ers are not in accord in their Interpretation
Of cardinal points in the covenant That
does not look well for the success of the
league.
Take the case of the Monroe Doctrine
Tor example. When interrogated as to what |
would happen in ease of n dispute arising
concerning that American policy, a British
cabinet member told the British parliament
the league is there to settle it,"
Now it is true that the Monroe doctrine
has long been defended by the British navy. /
In fact suggestion of such policy for
America was made by British statesmen
)rior to its prOnouncement by President /
the American people have not
'et determined to abandon it, or make its
subject to amy body but them
selves.
The ease of Shantmg, too, contains the
ees of future trouble for the United States,
md it would be well to know exactly what
Japan has promised with respect to that
important piece of land.
Certainly the United States can not con
titute it self Don Quote and start out to
emake the world and undo all the wrongs
hat have been done in the past-but the
american people need not be asked to place
heir stamp of approval upon Japan's in
luitous grab of Shantung.
So taken all in all there is plenty of