Grand Forks herald. [volume] (Grand Forks, N.D.) 1916-1955, 1919-03-28
HUGHES VERSUS POINDEXTER

HUGHES VERSUS POlNDEXTER
The League OF Nations was discussed on Wednesday
night in New York by Charles E. Hughes. former justice
Of the supreme court, and Republican candidate for pres
idcnt in 1916, and in Cincinnati by Senator. Poindexter Or
Washington. 1t would be difficult to imagine a greater
contrast than is afforded in the treatment given to this
important subject by these two prominent men. Both
men criticised the league constitution as at present formu-
lated, but Mr.. Hughes criticised it from the standpoint Of
one who believes in the principal involved, while the crit-
icism Of Mr.. Poindexter was avowedly based on his OPP
position to this 'or any other league of nations. Mr.
Hughes criticised constructively, by pointing out features
of the document which he believes to be meritorious by
calling attention to defects which he believed existed, and
by suggesting ways in which he believed these difficulties
could be remedied, but MI. Poindexter criticised by. brush
ing aside not only the particular method by which it lis
proposed to apply a principle but the entire principle in
itself. EHs e
The criticism of Mr.. Poindexter may be discarded as
unceremoniously as the speaker rejects the principle in
volved in the creation of a league of nations, and 1t is
practically a certainty that his utterances on this subject
will receive scant consideration by the American people.
Regardless of the declarations of himself and a few
others there is every reason to believe that the American
people are almost unanimous in their desire that peace
shall be accomplished at the earliest possible moment, and
that future war shall be averted SO far as it is possible
for human wisdom to avert it, and in the conviction that
only through the united e1TOrt OF the civilized naC0nS OF
the world through an appropriate organization can this
be obtained. MI. Poindexter has been known as PRO
gressive." 1t is practically certain. that when the world
vanced views of the age Mr.. Poindexter will be classed
because of his attitude on this most important subject be-
fore the world today as a hopeless reactionary.
Mr.. Hughes proposes seven amendments to the con-
stitution. Most of these do not involve change in the
principle at stake. but more clear or explicit statement
of them so that there. may be no doubt as to their appli-
cation. The proposed amendments of this character would
state more clearly the requirement. of unanimity of de-
cision. limitation of the leagues activities so as to exclude
specifically control over the internal affairs Of the states.
and the provision with reference to manufactures. Special
attention is given to features concerning the United States
ir two of the paragraphs. one prohibiting the acquisition
o: possessions on the American continent in any manner
by any foreign power, and the other deserving to the
American nations the right to settle all American ques-
tons for themselves. One provision suggested is that
any member may withdraw at its pleasure and another
that the provision made in article 10 respecting the integ-
rny and independence of nations shall be omitted en-
tlrely.
This is the program of amendments proposed by Mr..
Hughes, not in hostility to the principle of the league of
nations, but in full sympathy with it and in full harmony
with many of the important features of the compact as
it now stands. The merely verbal changes suggested are
not VITAL Some changes are now actually in progress.
1t may occur to some readers to inquire why the sugges-
ton in Mr.. Hughes third proposal that no foreign power
shall acquire possessions on the American continent
should not be amplified and made to include the whole
world, and that there should be added the words: except
by unanimous consent" tj
Mr.. Hughes regards the section relating to the integ-
riy and independence of nations as a trouble breeder
rather than a peace-maker. 1t is difficult to follow him
in this when it is remembered that the article does not
by any means undertake to establish on a permanent
basis the territorial possession or the political status of
any nation, but that it does bind all the nations to defend
each member against outside aggression. There is moth
ing in the clause as written which would prohibit the
transfer of territory or even of political allegiance from
one to another. The only requirement is that this trans-
-+ rr
fer shall not be accomplished by the exercise of exterior
force. .
If the entire discussion of this subject had been con-
Quoted along the line of Mr.. Hughes address a mucn
better situation would have existed than we have today.