The Barre daily times. (Barre, Vt.) 1897-1959, 1919-05-22
TAFT ADDRESSES
GREAT MEETING
Continued from page five.)

ing IOELn III MS SHINING aTnOI, OF Dy
rafting the sword in his scabbard.' I'm
doubtedly, the fact that Germany wal
ahead in the race of armament, that
Russia was slow in the execution of it:
plan for strategic railways, and France
had not perfected its new purpose in re
spect to artillery and CONSUMPTION, LED
Germany to accept the Austrian Serbian
difficulty as the occasion for the use OF
its perfect military establishment tc
realize its dreams of empire. Without
its success in the race of armament, il
never would have conceived such dreams
In this sense, therefore, this race OF
armament caused the war.
"The fifth great evil from this com
petitive system was the enormous de.
structiveness of the war and the savage
character which this German preparation
gave it. 1t was war of the German
people against other peoples. 1t was a
war in which the extensive scope of the
German weapons included noncombat-
ants--men, women and childrenin its
bloody purpose, and in which the perma
nent devastation of countries with the
Interior object of the successful indus
trial 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 arma-
ment, are we not justified in assuming
almost any burden and restriction to
prevent its inevitable recurrence, if we
do not now limit it,
"How are we to limit it? We limit
it, in the case of Germany, by compul-
sion--by compulsion of a league of ma
tions. Those nations which dictated the
peace must unite to maintain it. The
only way we can limit it among the al
lies is by agreement, and it is that agree
ment which article VIII. in the league
provides for.
"What is the objections 1t is that if
we limit our armament, we paralyze our
government in its defense of our liberties
and our institutions against external ag-
gression, and we expose ourselves naked
to our enemies. The objection is entirely
without weight. We limit our arma-
ment in consideration of the other ma
tions of the league limiting theirs. Our
limit is adjusted proportionately to
theirs, having due regard to the more or
less exposed position of each nation, its
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 fair and just
plan of common disarmament upon
which we have agreed.
Secondly, if other nations can safely
agree to disarm, cannot wei We have
an ocean between us and Europe, where
the greatest danger of disturbance is,
and We have an ocean between us and
Asia. If France and Great Britain and
Italy, with their recent enemies just
across the border from them, can agree
to limit armament, why cannot wei
Again, is it not rather absurd and
humorous for us to be so sensitive now
in respect to the proportionate reduction
of our armament under the general plan,
when never in the history 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? ] venture to prophesy that If the
league is ratified and the agreement to
disarm is made, and limit fixed for us,
we shall never reach that limit until war
is on us and that the limit imposed will
not constitute the slightest embarrass-
ment to Congress.
Again, the emperor of Russia sum
moned conference at The Hague, and
one of the chief purposes of that congress
was to secure a mutual and common
limitation of armament among the ma
tions of the world, and it was prevented
by the obduate refusal of Germany to
give the slightest support to such pro-
posal. Our own delegates were instruct
ed to press in favor of 1t. The public
opinion of this country undoubtedly sup
ported that instruction. Now these OBJ
jeotors propose that we shall take the
place of Germany by our refusal TO join
in a common limit of armament, and de-
feat the whole plan. Can it be that we
are to be such marplot in a scheme of
world progress so necessary and so bene-
fetal to ourselves and mankind?
ut is further objected that an agree
ment to limit armament in treaty on
our part, is unconstitutional. The treaty
making power has been held by the SUI
preme court to include that of making
any contract for our nation with another
relating to any subject matter which is
usually included in treaties between ma
tions, save only that we may not change
the form of our government or cede land
of state without its consent. The
limitation of armament is one of fire.
quent occurrence in peace treaties, and
has always been. Therefore, it comes
within the definition of the supreme
court as subject matter proper for con-
tract by our treaty making power.
treaty with Great Britain more than 100
years ago, in which we agreed to 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 CEN
fury. 1t was not thought to be uncon-
stitutional then; it has not been during
that 100 years of its life; and we have
all been proud of the fact that we made
it and kept it. Certainly if authority
and precedent can establish const .tu-
tional validity, they do so in this case.
If it be objected that the council must
increase the limit of armament if it be
needed in the ten years, and that, there
fore, 1T leaves it to an outside authority
to govern our course in this respect, it is
sufficient to answer that as we have the
full authority to make an agreement for
ten years, the mere fact that the agree
ment may be made less stringent by the
action of the council during that ten
years, cannot invalidate the agreement,
especially in view of the fact that as the
council must act unanimously, no change
can be made in the proportionate reduc-
tion of ornaments unless by the consent
of our representative on that council;