The Prince George's enquirer and southern Maryland advertiser. (Upper Marlborough, Md.) 1882-1925, 1919-07-04
Friday, July 4th, 1919
THE PEACE TREATY.

WI C<tAAI IA1SSASAAS VI 4SOP~SN1 GAiAS
indeed, of sympathy from Gen.
Jan SHUTS, whose action in cir
culating protest against certain
clauses of the peace treaty at the
time that he signed that docu-
ment has been somewhat criti-
cized, General Shuts explana-
ton of his action is as follows:
I signed the peace treaty,
not because | consider it a
satisfactory document, but
because it is imperatively
necessary to close the war;
because the world needs
peace above all else, and
nothing could be more fatal
than the continuance of the
state of suspense between
war and peace. The months
since the armistice was
signed, perhaps, have been
as upsetting, unsettled and
ru1nouS to Europe as the
previous four years of war.
| look upon the peace treaty
as the close of these two
chapters of war and armistice
and only on that ground do /
agree to it.
This is an understandable
position. Of all the hundreds of
millions of people on the globe,
the peace treaty does not repre-
sent the precise views of a single
individual. This was inevitable,
because the treaty had to be a
compromise, and no compromise
is wholly satisfactory to any one.
BUTT must always be remem-
bered that the same thing would
have been true, no matter who
made the settlement.
If General SHUTS himself had
made the treaty exactly accord
ing to his liking, the resulting
condemnation would have made
the present criticism seem trivial.
For it can hardly be argued that
General SHUTS represents the
views of the average man in the
Allied and associated nations, as
well as did the official delegates
of those nations to the Paris
Conference. The British Labor
party, at its annual meeting last
week, took a position with regard
to the treaty somewhat similar
to that of the South African.
1t, too, does not like various fea-
lures of the settlement. But it
favored the ratification of the
treaty and urged the people of
the Allied governments to start
to work upon their governments
after ratification, for such
changes, through the nations or
otherwise, as it deems desirable
No one, however imagines that
If the British Labor party had
dictated the treaty there would
have been any the less criticism
than is now being heard. There
would have been dissent, indeed
on the part of some of it's own
members, for they do not all
think alike.
A fundamental rule of demo-
cracy is that the whole people
must give their consent to the
will of the majority at any part
ticular time. If any do not
agree with the majority it is
their privilege and duty to work
by argument and persuasion and
appeal to convert a sufficient pro-
portion of the majority to their
way of thinking, so that their
minority may be turned into a
majority. When that hap
pens, their will prevail; in the
meantime they must Loyalty &C.
cept the verdict of the present
majority.
1t would be a difficult thing,
we think, to prove that the peace
treaty does not represent the
views of a majority of the people
of the governments which fought
Germany during the war, or, we
should say a reasonable compro-
mise of these views. Woodrow
Wilson. we very strongly believe
does represent the views of a
great majority of the American
people with regrad to the kind of
a peace which was desirable.
Confirmation of this opinion is
very STRONGLY suggested by the
fact that many of the individuals
who are now criticizing the
treaty most harshly are object
ing not to Wilson's views about
peace, but to the alleged fact
that he was overruled too often
by his confreres at Paris. That,
indeed, raises another question;
but we think it can be satisfac-
tory met. Can anyone suggest
another individual who better
represents the views of the aver