The Covington leader. (Covington, Tenn.) 18??-current, 1919-07-31
NECESSITY or A
LEAGUE OF NATIONS
Should Eliminate War in Ninety
Nine Out Of One Hundred
Cases.

Cases.
wish to maintain the proposition
that a League of Nations is not only
desirable but an absolute necessity
and for three reasons, any one OF
which would be sufficient to justify
that phrase.
/ First, it is a necessity for winding
up the war. We must not forget that
this war has unsettled almost every
thing; has destroyed nations, and
has created new nations on paper,
such as Finland, Poland, Czecho- SlO-
vakia, Jugo- Slavia, the Ukraine and
THE Balkan States and some semi
independent bodies like Armenia, the
Caucasus, and Palestine. These small
states will be even more at the mercy
iof the great states than Belgium was,
Iif we do not guarantee in some way
their independence.
Then there are the great problems
of the Handlocked countries, which
must have an outlet to the sea, and Of
certain international areas, like the
Phosphorus, which must be admins
tered by league Of nations. Then
there are the German Colonies, which
need, for obvious reasons TO be ad-
iministered internationally.
Finally, as Mr. Taft predicted, this
peace treaty is as long as the moral
Law It will require Interpretation,
and 1t will require enforcement, for
both of which we need league Of
nations.
! Secondly, we need It in order to
avoid recurrence Of what has con-
lstituted a veritable curse even in
times of peace, competitive arma-
ments.
International. cut-throat competition
In armies and navies leaves the ma
tions in the end in substantially the
same relative positions as in the be-
ginning. Yet we must each in self
defense, keep up in this race. To Eu-
rope this will mean economic ruin; to
u.s. high taxes.
There are business men who are
lighting shy of the idea of league
of nations with the thought that 1t is
going to unsettle trade internationally
afraid, perhaps, that the tariff will
be disturbed in some way But any
possible gain. that could be had by
maintaining the status quo would be
cancelled many times over by the loss
from the taxes enormously high
which would be required to keep up
our end in this international compe-
tition in ornaments. Our own coun-
try, in spite Of It's wealth, would be
reduced a long way toward poverty.
This world would be scarcely 1T to
live in.
We have reached the parting Of the
ways as to our policy on ornaments.
Eikher we must compete with the rest
Of the world, or combine with the
rest Of the world.
The third and most important rea-
son for a league is TO prevent the re-
currence Of a world war
A league should eliminate war in
80 out of 100 cases, because it af-
fords another way than war to settle
the inevitable disputes. A collective
police force takes the place Of ma
tional military forces. The national
pride which so cften leads to war win
be transferred to keeping treaties.
No longer will nation need to go to
war to save its face rather than re-
lcede from an untenable position; for
the award of the third party win pre-
serve its self-respect. Furthermore,
whatever disarmament takes place
will tend to diminish the danger OF
war and reduce its scale II It comes.
Many people are Indifferent to or
scornful of the idea of league Of
nations chiefly because they lack the
imagination to realize the horrible
alternative.
In order then to wind up this war,
to prevent oppressive taxes in times
Of peace, and to prevent future wars,
we need League of Nations.
But besides these three reasons,
which are purely selfish, there is 9
reason which outweighs them all. Ir-
respective of our interests, irrespec-
tive OF tbs fortunes OF any man or
party, we are in honor bound to do
this thing. Our boys went abroad, to
make the world "safe for democracy"
and to do it forever. We owe it to
them that their labors shall not have |
been in vain. We are talking about
erecting monuments to them-memo-
rial arches, and bridges, and build
ings. Let us first erect monument
which viii not only commemorate but
perpetuate their work, the monument |
of a League Of Nations.
IRVING FISHER,
Professor Yale University, |
Dept. Political Economy. |