The Columbia herald. [volume] (Columbia, Tenn.) 18??-1935, 1919-12-05

was attended by some four score OF
editors and publishers, principally the
latter, the writer took occasion to dis
cuss with many of the members the
league of nations covenant and treaty
Of peace. He was surprised to find
SO few of those with whom he discuss
ed the question who favored the UNI
conditional ratification of the Paris
treaty with the league of nations cove
nant.
So far as the writer could ascertain
every newspaper represented at the
meeting with one exception, is dem
ocpat or an Independent democrat.
The Knoxville Journal and Tribune
is probably the only out and out re-
publican having membership in the as
sociation. Hence the question was not
considered from a partisan viewpoint.
The opinions expressed by the editors
and publishers were their private
views and not infrequently were not
in accord with the editorial express
sions on the subject of their papers,
This latter fact is of course not sur
prising. Many editors of the great
metropolitan dailies do not always ex-
press their own opinions on public
questions. Again there are many pub
fishers and business managers who
have nothing to do with the editorial
policies Of their papers.
But it was nevertheless rather I'M
expected to find among the editors
and publishers of newspapers that
with very few exceptions have been
ardent advocates of unconditional rat
ification, SO few who in private dis
cussion are really welded to the trea-
ty or more particularly to the cove
nant of the league of nations The
writer did not find single editor or
publishers who approves of article 10
as written in the league covenant, nor
did he find single one who had a
good word to say for Part XIII, the in
ternational labor provisions of the COW
enant. These men, all good and loyal
Americans, were simply expressing
their own personal views privately,
but they were emphatic in declaring
that if theirs had been the RESPONSE
! bility they would not have voted for
unconditional ratification, but would
have supported all or the majority of
the reservations proposed by the for
eign relations committee.
All agreed that some of the reser-
vations were unnecessarily harsh and
| that the effort made in drafting some
of them to reflect upon the dignity of
the presidential office was a display
of mean, petty politics that was utter
ly indefensible. Not single one
would have voted for the so-called
Shantung reservation declaring that
neither they nor the American people
cared rap whether Shantung went
to Japan or China. All agreed that
the the American nation should have
the unconditional and unqualified
right to withdraw from the league and
that it should be made equally plain in
the resolutions of ratification that no
domestic question nor the Monroe
doctrine should ever be subject to the
jurisdiction of the leagne.
The sewspaper men also generally
agreed that the President himself
was not wholly without blame for the
apparent deadlock in the senate He
made grave mistake when he ignor-
ed the senate completely in the nego-
tiation of the treaty, several newspa-
per men suggesting that had he NAM
ed as commissioners to Paris one
strong republican senator and an
equally strong democratic senator,
Lodge and Williams being the favor
ties mentioned, his pathway would
have been much easier and the treaty
would have been speedily ratified.
These observations are submitted ,
as interesting sidelights on the great 4
issue before the American people
They show that not little of the vo-
ciferous support given to the league
covenant by Southern newspapers :
has been as partisan as much as the
opposition expressed by Northern and (
Western senators. Democratic news 4
papers in more than one case have
supported the covenant because they
thoght it their duty to stand behind
democratic administration that nego- 6
tiated the treaty, just as many repub-
licans have opposed it because they 1
hoped to reap some party advantage (
by repudiating democratic Presi- 4
dent