The Pensacola journal., 1919-11-24
Florida Representative Voted
Against Ratification With
Lodge Reservations and Tells
Why.
SPEECH BEFORE SENATE
WAS COMPREHENSIVE
Lodge Reservations Would Place
u. S. in Position of Accepting
Benefits Without Assuming
Responsibility, Senator Says.

Washington, d. c. Nov. 23.-Sen-
ator Fletcher, of Florida, voted against
the ratification of the treaty of peace
with Germany with the Lodge reser-
vationists because he believed that to
favor adoption on those conditions
would put the United States on record
before the world as willing to enjoy
all of the benefits arising from the
League of Nations without manifesting
the necessary courage to assume any
of the burdens involved in the con-
tract
Just before the roll was called on
the Lodge program of ratification,
Senator Fletcher made the following
speech in explanation of his vote:
MIR. President, in reference to the
resolution now before the senate, it
must be distinctly understood that
those who oppose the resolution in its
present form are not thereby com
mitted to the proposition that they are
opposed to any reservations whatever
to the treaty. 1t must be understood
that there are reservations involved in
the resolution which are regarded by
those who are friendly to the treaty
as unobjectionable.
There are quite a number among
u, L
who would really raise no question
concerning quite few of the reserva-
tions embodied in the present resolu-
ton, but it is perfectly plain also that
the resolution includes reservations
which make it as IL stands practically
destructive of the very life and heart
of the treaty, and it is on that account
that many of us-I do, speaking for
nd
to support the resolution.
1T seems to me an illustration may
be made of the position in which the
United States is sought to be put by
this resolution by this simple state
ment: Suppose four gentlemen on the
other side and / are about to enter
upon important enterprise Ger
tain arrangements are needed-the
supply of a small amount of capital
with certain supervision and direc-
ton, details of management to be pro-
vided, and certain obligations are to
be incurred. Finally the agreement is
reduced to writing and 1t is submitted
to each of us. The four parties sign
IL and then bring it to me-
| say ! am perfectly willing to enter
into this arrangement. I make this
contract with you; l embark upon this
great enterprise with you, but upon
the condition and the understanding
that L am to get out when l get ready
that am to do what / like to do about
IL; that L will pay in as much capital
as l see fit TO put in; that I will cam
eel all obligations when / get ready to
cancel them; that / am to be the sole
judge of when / shall rescind that con-
tract and in what way 1 shall recede
from it and the right TO abandon the
undertaking when 1 like
In an ordinary, everyday business
transaction If that sort of proposition
We're put up as between five men, the
other four men would have absolutely
no respect whatever for the selfish in
dividual who desired to have entirely
in his control and at his own option
the right to quit whenever he desired
and to determine for himself alone
on what terms and conditions he
would get out or continue. No man
with decent self-respec- would put
himself into such a position. No in
dividual with any sense of justice and
honor and duty and proper considera-
ton for his associates would under
take to make such a contract with his
fellow citizens. It would be regarded
as rank absurdity to even offer to
enter into covenants whereby one OF
the parties would reserve TO himself
the unconditional and absolute deter
mination as to now m5ch he would
contribute to the joint enterprise; that
if it proved profitable and worth while
he would go on with it: but If there
were troubles and difficulties ahead he
would get out wherever it suited him
to do SO. Such a proposition as that
would in itself brand any individual
who suggested il as selfish and de-
signing, il not dishonest, and certain