Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1919-07-23
Wednesday, July %, 1919.
Please Note the Difference

Washington says Col. House is needed
at the national capital to explain thu
peace treaty. The dispatch neglects t
state who will receive the explanation
but 1t is assumed that President Wilson
Will be the lucy man, as the W. X
lie ought to oe glad to get it secone
hand.-Kennebec Journal.
But YOU know all about it. don't
you. Chad? At least. you've been
advising us to accept it as the only
way out of our troubles. While the
most of us have been a bit suspicious
of this International Pig in a Poke
you've been urging its acceptance
with an earnestness that has caused
many who had confidence in your
Judgment to wonder If white were
not really black after all. To admit
now that the public ought to be glad
to get information. even at second
hand. injects another disturbing fac
tor into the problem.-Biddeford
Journal.
Yes. Deak. for long time we've
been advocating acceptance Of the
League Of Nations plan-ever since
the revision was made public. You'll
remember how we stood up to that
time-for open. non-partisan discus
sion Of the principles involved. with
out giving weight to the proved and
admitted grievance Of the Z. S. Sem
ate, every diplomatic and law au-
thority bringing out the weak points
and the strong points of the docu-
ment.
After the revision we gave care
ful study to the document with the
analysis and advice of keen legal tai
emit. and decided that the demands Of
critics had been met. We still think
50. despite the palsied protestations
Of those vehement shouters for po-
litical profiteering purposes.
But for this OTHER thing to
which you refer. we think a more
careful study Of your K. ]. files will
show you that we have never advo-
Gated acceptance Of a pig-in- a-poke
Sometimes we can't help thinking
that some Of these leather lunged
leaders whom you seem to be follow
ing, have not a much clearer grasp OF
the difference between TREATY to
which we referred in the para
graph you quote. and the LEAGUE
which you seem innocently to think
we meant.
We hope there was no sarcasm In
your suggestion that WE know all
about 1t, Deak. We must frankly
admit being still several notches
from letter-perfect on the TREATY,
but every time we read some of the
bunk put out to confuse the public
on the LEAGUE. we feel that it is
not SO much Of a job to know as
much as Borah, Johnson, or any 9TH
er of the political denunciators OF
that document. And especially
since these all wise critics have sud-
denly discovered that after all it is
not Article x Of the League, which
Mr.. Root said must come out, root
and branch. and which has been par
roted all over the country, but Arti-
Gle XXI which is the unregenerate
sinner that must be slaughtered.
In day or two We expect to pub
lish an article by DR.. Morton Prince
from Tuesdays Boston Herald. We
hope that at least our friend Deak
has read or will read it.
Honestly Deak. we are of opinion
that if you would study the Johnson
Borah addresses. noting their incon-
sistencies and unfounded pretenses,
you would admit American good for
tune that they had no hand in the
treaty making. Seeking comfort in
retrospection for loss of your conf
dence in our judgment. we remem-
Der that even the brilliant minds you
are now so confidently following
have not always held your faith, and
that other minds more brilliant do
not now agree with them. To us IL
appears. Deak. that if you always
agreed with US and We always agreed
with you, 1t would be no compliment
to either Of US.
We do hope. however. that you will
give sufficient attention to this i'm
portant subject to have clear in your
mind the vast difference between the
Treaty" and the League" Indeed
We have been anxious to get the
League out Of the way so that the
Senate could take up the Treaty. We
are convinced that this magnifyine
Of mole-hills into mountains has been
clear and studied waste of time:
that the League Of Nations provides
its own machinery responsive to the
q. 8. ssnate) for such amendments
- are necessary or desired by the
most axacting Of our now straining
critics; that the del&y il unpardona-
BILE when acceptsd for what it Is:
Partisanship. 51slonsy and resent
ment Of the Prsst1snt's exasperatine
aiscourtesy and bisotsd assumption