New-York tribune., 1919-03-03
GUARAN T E E
Better Than the Covenant

who object to the so-called covenant of
Paris offer nothing different or better.
This assertion is false and partisan in
vention put forward to stife intelligent
consideration of great theme and to
distract public attention from the weak
ness of the covenant. For long time,
not only in this country but in Europe,
alternatives have been clearly sketched.
But whatever excuses for the misrep-
resentation have been heretofore pos
sible, they can no longer be pleaded in
view of the definite declarations by Sen.
ator Knox in his luminous speech in The
Senate-a speech so informing that q
Democratic Senator, on it's conclusion,
was impelled to say he much regretted
the country did not have at Paris 'the
services of so distinguished, able and
we'll equipped statesmen" rs Senator
Knox.
In lieu of the vague and practically
non-understandable instrument which the
President himself did not. seem to com-
prehend Senator Knox outlined three
substitutes, any one of which would be
better than the covenant
The first way, if the world is not ready
for a super-sovereignty or this country is
averse to all alliances, would be to rec
ognize the principle of compulsory arbi-
tration as contained in treaties This
country has already negotiated, but
which have remained unratifed. Expert
ence has shown that if nations can be
induced to come into court they invari-
ably accept the award, and even though
Il compulsory arbitral system did not
function through league t would .end
10 lessen the danger of war.
The second way is to enter into a firm
alliance with nations deemed worthy Of
trust to maintain peace of justice
This plan has the merits Of simplicity
and effectiveness. 1t is generally con-
ceded that if Great Britain, just before
the war began had been willing, as
SazonoF urged to make common cause
with France and Russia, Germany would
probably have drawn back Scarcely
would she have dared to attack. However
this may be, it does not seem open to
successful challenge that if now the five
nations who won the war would perpetu-
ate their present association they could
and would maintain the peace Not in
form, but in fact, we have such an alli-
ance now, and except for it and it's
pressure Europe would be exploding into
new wars.
The third way is to form in an honest
way super-sovereign league of all ma
tions, equipped with power to enforce it's
DEGREES. War under any circumstances
would be declared an international crime
and there would be sheriff to arrest
and confne any nation guilty Of it. The
league would have teeth and a strong
bite, whereas the league President Will
son favors, while it invades sovereignty
and opens the door to all sorts of dis
putes, has no force under its direct con-
>trol, and this is a court without con-
stable
OF the three plans the second seems to
commend itself most to those who have
passionately supported the present war
as one to end war. 1t probably would
have gone through if it had not en-
countered the unaccountable opposition
Of President Wilson. France, Italy and
Japan all much want it, and so does
Great Britain if America would Join.
Such a coalition would, of course, not
be in accord with the letter Of Washing
tons Farewell Address, but would be far
more in accord with its spirit-at least
far more than the pending covenant,
which Is entangling to an extraordinary
degree. 1t would conform TO the adyic
OF Jefferson, as contained in his famous
letter to Monroe, wherein he expressed
great JOY over an alliance with Great
Britain to uphold by joint labors Amcri-
can ideas Of liberty. In certain sense
we have had an alliance--at least an
entente cordiote--for nearly century to
defend the Monroe Doctrine, which mas
often leaned, an Canning foresaw, more
on British power than our own. II an
alliance with one nation 10 keep war out
OF one hemisphere lis "a good thing, Il ig
not easy 10 Eee wherein an alliance with