The daily Alaska citizen., 1919-12-05
THE HOUSE UNCONCERNED

house of representatives has not the SIight- est intention of getting itself mixed in the effort of the republican senators under the leadership of NcS~r~. Lodgc Johnson, Borah, Knox, ct al to sIur over tine peace treaty, destroy the league of nations and attempt to restore peace by simply passing a resolution with the concurrence of the house declaring the war with Germany to be at and end. It k not conceivable that the house could have taken any other course. and none but those blinded by their own desires and hatred could have believed that 1t would agree to any such resolution.
 The stand taken by the house forcigu relations committee, as announced by Chairman Porter, that it will not report out of committee room any such concurrent resolution is directly in line with cousti- tutiona requirements. At no time has the house of representatives had any hand in establishing a peace treaty. The executive of the government is charged with the duty of troaty-mabing and the senate with its ratification. As Mir. Porter points out this fight on the German treaty iN a matter Ul- voIying the President and the senate alone as principals It is evident that the house has neither the authority nor the desire to butt into the mess which has been brot about by the failure of the senate to rati- fy the treaty.
 The decision of the house of represent tatives seems to leave the situation drawn battle Senator Lodgc after the adjourn ment of the special session two weeks ago, stated that one of the first actions of the present congress after converting would be to declare peace by concurrent resolution. This is now an impossibiity. Peace, if ii comes, can come by treaty only. So far there is but one reaty-that of Versailles and there are three courses open for its disposition. First it can be ratified con taining only mild reservations or none at all; second, it can be definitely rejected and the republican majority has sufficient votes to accomplish the rejection; third, 1t can be held up until next year, even tho 1t be a risky proceeding to do so, and made an issue in the national election of 1920. At first thot, the first named alternative seems the least likely to happen. Opponents of the treaty in the senate have committed themselves too far to back down now with out a prolonged fight unless a change of heart is produced by external happenings. That they are indifferent to the wishes of their constituents is shown by Senator JOhnsOn's maltered course of opposition despite the protests of the big majority of California people against his policy. The second path leads to such doubtful fields that even the most astute politicians of the opposition may hesitate before taking 1t, and there is a question as to whether the mild reservationists will not vote for mre- served ratification before they will commit themselves to absolute rejection. The third choice may appeal to the opposition as the line of least resistance and ii may take il in the expectation of being able to square themselves with the American people by oratOricaI Outbursts containing half truths and doses of political bull which they are experts at administering.
 But there is danger in delay. Ger many, encouraged by the failure of the sen ate to ratify the treaty and the attempts of some of the senators to stir up antagonism between the United States and Great Brit ain, is growing defiant Her refusal to acknowledge responsibility for violations of the armistice terms indicates her view point and presents a striking illustration of American influence upon the European Ho,, roioctiO, of tho 1lrotocal tO