New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1919-03-09
Deprecates
Partisan Attitude
On Peace League

Charles Evans Hughes deprecated
last night "the calling of names" and
anything else which injects PARTISAN
ship into the league of nations issue.
Promising to discuss the proposed con-
sttution of the league at an early
date, he told the New York County
Lawyers Association at the Hotel
Astor that whether | am on one side
or the other of this question has moth
ing to do with my politics.
Justice Hughes said that free and
frank discussion, not emotionalism.
made the Constitution Of the United
States success. He warned the Amer
lean people that no obligations should
be undertaken which we're not intended
to be fully carried out
Il do not desire to deal with so i'm
portant topic in desultory or casual
manner" he said ut would be i'll
advised and improper and out of keep
ing entirely with the tremendous i'm
portance to America of the issues
proper settlement.
" III AASSuSS II l|dtcI
'At the proper time | shall discuss
carefully and fully the proposed con-
sttution of the league as it appears in
wish to emphasize certain prelimi-
naries which | think must be observed
IN any discussion worthy of the sub
ject.
1T is utterly wrong to approach this
question from any point Of view as
partisan. 1t is great American ques-
ton, fraught with Importance on our
country's future Whether l am on
one side of it or the other has nothing
whatever to do with my politics.
This matter merits the fullest and
frcest discussion. do not believe
in calling names. l have had my full
share of public discussion, and / have
never yet found it necessary to call
those who disagree with me biassed
or ignorant | reprecate unhesitat-
ingly on either side of this question
the impugning of the motives of the
other side.
Because the Constitution of the
United States was criticised it does
not follow that every document which
IS criticized IS good document.
The Use of Generalities
There are generalities in the Con-
stitutiony of the United States. They
were necessary. But it does not fol
low that because we must express gen.
eralities, it is necessary to defend
every ambiguity which arises in a pro-
posal. There is no need for us to
accept something so general that we
are a a loss to understand even the
generalitles. 1t was not emotionalism
but frank and free discussion, includ-
ing the criticisms of the Federalists,
which saved the Constitution of the
United States
ut is above and beyond question
that we must have new interna-
tional order of things and that we
must establish as firm basis as pos
sible for lasting peace. Our pres
ent duty is to decide, as rational men,
using our own faculties, just what
basis for the new future is just and
wise
1--WE must make no engagements to
which we are not ready to adhere fully
We want nothing which involves a
moral obligation and adds the in
ference that at some future date we
may rcpudiate that obligation. We arc
proud nation and we keep our prom
ises
"Thcrc is nothing to be gained in
weakening in any way the greatest
democracy in the world or mpairine
its integrity. Let us not sink that
love of our country and regard for
our country's welfare which is our only
hope for national safety and our only
real means for being a guarantee OF
the peace of the world, into vague
and empty internationalism.