Great Falls daily tribune., 1919-06-27
ARTICLE X (Continued.)
Chances of War Remote.

There is third answer to people who
object that Article X is likely to involve
us In wars all over the world +.
Those who look to the successful op-
GRAFTON of the league do not expect war
at all. The obligation of the members
of the league to impose in the first in
stance a universal boycott against a
recalcitrant faithless member constitutes
most formidable threat against any
member seeking to violate Article X or
the covenants OF the following Articles.
Such boycott will be withering os
tracism and isolation of q nation that
few could endure. No single nation, un-
less it be the United States or some of
the greater South American nations,
could live if denied food and raw mater
ials from the rest Of the world and if
forbidden the use of foreign market
for the sale of their products.
"Minatory" Influence.
Second, no nation would willingly face
the overwhelming force of the world or
ganized to punish it for violation of its
covenants. The minatory influence Of
world league, with its members obli-
gated to unite in economic and military
pressure, if need be, can hardly be ex-
aggerated. OF course if a number of
nations entered into a conspiracy to fight
and subdue the rest of the world, then
this minatory influence might not be con-
trolling, but in that case all the members
of the league would wish TO join in the
war, just as they did in this, and defeat
such a conspiracy and vindicate the power
of the league for its useful ends.
What we are now answering is the
objection that there will be lot of
little wars all over the world, in which
we shall be engaged which will claim our
money and our men. 1t is in restraint
of the smaller war in which a large ma
ton attempts TO bully weaker on that
the minatory effect of the league will be
so controlling. The result will be that
the league having the power completely
to suppress the bullying nation will not
need to exercise that power. Indeed it
is hardly too much to say that the nations
Of the league win never need to go
beyond the effective discipline of a uni
versal boycott. But if such war does
break out in which we shall deem it our
duty to intervene under Article y, or
the other articles, one instance of sup
preston by the joint forces of the league
will be lesson for the world, not need
ing repetition. 1t will be worth all it
costs in demonstrating that the way of
the transgressor who breaks the coven-
ants of the league will be hard.
Lessons From History.
This conclusion as to the minatory ef-
feet of the covenants of the league and
the organization of it's members to en-
force them does not rest merely on an
a priori reasoning. We have in our own
history striking confirmation of it. In
1923, the Holy Alliance consisting Of all
the powerful nations of Europe, except
Great Britain, gave indication of an in
tention to aid Spain in recovering her
lost colonies in this western hemisphere.
We had recognized the independence of
those colonies. Canning, the British min
lister for foreign affairs, urged upon
President Monroe and John Quincy
Adams, the secretary of state, the wis
dom of uniting with England in league
TO resist the Holy Alliance in overthrow
ing the independence of these new Amer
lean states. Thomas Jefferson was con-
suited, and he advised making league
with England, which he said would not
be an entangling alliance against which
he had warned his countrymen, but would
be justified by its great purpose. Mon
roe and Adams, however. thot it wiser TO
act alone. John G. Calhoun, the secre-
tary of war, advised strongly against
sole action. Nevertheless. President
Monroe in his message of that year, made
the declaration which has since been
known as the Monroe Doctrine, and no.
titled the members of the Holy Alliance