Arizona republican., 1919-07-08
Unsound Arguments


 The irreconcilables against the League of Ma tfons are unfortunate selection of their argu rents against it. They adopt theories which are surprised that men of so great intellectual attanments would entertain. They might find more cOnvcing asons opposing the league but the fact that they do advance the childish ones gives out inevitably the impression that no others are available
 With much reason. opposition was offered to the original draft of the leagues covenant It was certain terms that it would have been productive uf friction that could have arisen from other cstuse. A league formed under it would therefore have been worse than at all. Many of the ob- iections to that covenant have been removed by amendment but there still complaint of it's danger ous vagueness. Honest opposition may be made even to the present form But the Root reservations pro- pose the removal of that objection that may have a covenant interpreted in plain language to mean precisely why it's friends say it and what the original awkwardly worded covenant meant.
 That the majority of the people want League of Nations believe to be evident. Some regard it, foolishly doubt, a specific against Others believe more sensibly that it will reduce the chances of war, and others still cautious look upon as an experiment worth trying. If it can do no good genee -ofs the majority.
 Those who are opposing league in any form and offering captious objections it are flying in theace of the majority and by the of the objections they are offering an insult to the ineli- the majority.
 One argument which across so frequently the literature of the antis which was put for ward more recently in statement by Senator Borah given to the public Sunday. is that many the articles of the covenant based on a theory of That is true; half the articles of the covenant aH of them except those relating to purely of administrative detai.are based on the theory of in ar,of them war.is regarded as contingency Otherwise there would be need of a League of Nations other precautions for the preservation of peace. Pasteur's vaccine is based on theory of rabies; Koch's anti-toxin, theory of dphtheria our laws against murder, theory of homicide Every reform curative device ever conceived was based a theory of an evil which called for it's remedial effect
 If war was not possible contingency it would be waste of time and money to take preventive meas ures or to prepare against it. So in the organization ot any League of Nations, war is the basis of all calculation. ..............
 There are two principal things be taken into afount- first the extent of the guaranty against war which the League of Nations offers; and next, the price must pay forthe guaranty If we were sure that the guaranty is absolute, could afford to makea considerable sacrifice forthe league But even then, there would be limit of our sacrifice We could not then give up nationaism and sub init to super government. There are some things worse than there is too high price to be paid for peace. Peace is no more valuable now than it was 15O years ago when Patrick Henry inquired whether it worth the price of chains and slavery"
 But we are now in no danger of having to pay such price, That price is not fixed in the covenant and though the covenant in it's present form might lead to some after chaffering towhat should or should not surrender, the Root reservations establish precsely what to give up under the covenant and what to for ourselves. They leave nothing to subsequent dispute. They leave us abso- lutely safe.
 1.-the reservations should not be accepted by the powers then it would be the objectors on principle, to League of Nations to arise and declare that it intended be destructive of our sov- ereignty and that it was provocative of war.
 And if the reservations should be rejected in the senate it will be the work of politicians republicans and democrats and the league would have failed