Evening journal., 1919-05-24


Is dlnleult for people without
thorough knowledge Of the question to
understand what the real situation Is
Even among Tie conflicting pros and
cons, very often confusion Is artinclally
created I'm The matter IN order TO spread
an unjust and undeseryed prejudice
against Italy.
For these reasons It Is perhaps worth
while 10 epiiomize the main points OF
The whole question.
London Secret Treaty.
II Is assumed that Italy cannot base
her claims on the London treaty be-
cause the secrecy OF the treaty must
render II null and void
But there is not yet an International
law against secret treaties; that law is
only President Wilson's words. which
do not constitute laws for the universe.
II could be noted that even II this law
existed, no law can ever have retro
active effect, and the treaty OF London
Nvos not signed by America, but only by
tho European nations, which, being
then az war, were Interested In IL: there
fore tho American president has no
right TO Interfere with 10, forcing the
slgnatorles 10 make Of II. IN a German
way. a scrap OF paper. 70 could be re-
membered that the treaty was necessar-
fly secret because Il was impossible to
communicate 20 tho world, and thus to
the enemy, the Intentions Of the Allies.
II was also impossible TO communicate
Il 10 the Jugo-Slays because they were
fighting for The enemy's cause, and The
lands with which the treaty deals were
then considered by all the ALLIES TO be
Italian. and Mr.. Wilson was not there
Co pretend that they were JugO-Slav.
But there are stlll better reasons. II
Is impossible 10 condemn a treaty
merely because Il Is secret; It is the
provisions OF the treaty that must be
taken into consideration: II the pro-
visions are moral and Just even the adj
versaries OF secret treaties must accept
lt and nothing I'm Italy's claims is
against the principles already applied to
England and France, and, II Is possible
20 say 70 America itself.
And this is still stronger. I'm conse-
quence OF that treaty. Italy entered the
war: she has done fully what the treaty
asked from her, IN blood, money and
sacrifices; Is u possible To conceive
that the treaty must have had force re-
gardlng Italys obligations and can be
nulllned in that part which concerns
lialy's compensations2
The Adriatic Coast.
Il is not necessary to affirm again the
Italianlly OF the Adriatlc coast; those
lands are Italian by ethnOlogy, by
geography. by tradition, by history, by
religion. by art, by literature, by char
acter. They would also be Italian byl
ethnography. but for the violent de-
naturalization carried by Austria. In
fact. those lands are more Italian than
Alsace- lorraine is French.
Nobody thinks of plebescite or arbi-
tration for Alsace- Lorraine, and the le-
gitimate refusal OF Italy TO submit her
identical claims TO a plebiscte or an
arbitration is justified. An act OF
contrary plebescite could take away
Alsace-LOrraine from France. but con
irary plebescitc could take away the
Adriatic lands from Italy. In both
cases Tie possible majority Of contrary
votes could only be a consequence Of
violence, and violence is not right
Arbitration Is possible only when
right is doubtful, but avhen all The
rights are on one side md none on the
other. the latter has all 10 gain, the for
mer all TO lose from arbitration. II is
especially true in this case: the arbt-
trar should have been President VIII
son. but everybody can see how prelu-
diced he Is against Italians, by looking
at page 2i2-ii OF his History 0f Ameri-
can People, Vol V.
Fiume.
Fiume is denied to Italy for two main
reasons:
f.-Fiume is necessary TO the peoples
of its hinterland as an outlet on The
Adriatic. 10 is very hard TO understand
why the peoples OF the hinterland, in
order 10 use the seaport of Flume. must
possess Il. This is a new and danger
ans theory. Switzerland has no out
let on the sea and uses freely, the port
OF Genoa; must Italy yield Genoa TO
Switzerland Trieste can be natural
outlet for German Austria in the Adri-
attic: must Italy give back Trieste to
Austria? Why cannot the countries OF
Fumes hintorland use Fiume seaport
should Il be assigned TO ltaly2 Why
must Il go TO JugO-Slavia, not being
mro- Slay. and not 10 Hungary for in
stance. not being Hungarian, but being
necessary for Hung3ry's outlet on the
Adriatic? In this argument ~ has been
forgotten that Fiume is Italian. ana
nstice demands that It must not be
given 10 Jugo-Slayia or to Hungary or
anvbodv else. but TO Italy. ltaly
democracy and sentiment Of freedom are
The best guarantees that Fiume VIII
really and freely be used by all nations
concerned. -,
And a is not true that. without Flume'
tho 1ugo.slavs have no outlet on tle
Adriotic This false statement Is apt 10
create a wrong impression or inc JUS
tice ~ italy. Notwithstanding the liai-
,anifN, Of Tho eastern coast OF the Adrl- !
alic Italy has sacrificed great deal ID |
order 40 give 10 JugO-Slavla what "
,.aaI,, needs and more Outside ol
Fiune moi less than five ports are leit |
a. Croatia south Of that port, from
p',ocarl a. Carlopago, and II. as now
,o.,,s cerialn. Croatia will be part OF ]
1ngo-Slavia, JugO-Slavia Will have tnese
fve harbors, IN addition TO moro .ia .t
t,yo-thlrds Of the Dalmatlon coast WV"
AZ least four more ports
9-Fiume Is not included IN the Lon- L
don treaty. that Is true; but u Is NerS
dlfncult TO see how this can pc Boou
reason for refusing Italian fiuhe "
italy. During the war everypouy hlcM
that among the aims or the Wa,, Na'
tbe restitution OF Alsace- Lorraine 10
France, nobody knew that France Was
Going to get the Saar Valley ana ~ y
s,,.,, hard 10 persuade Italians that II y
rlght to give. by a quite new asreel"o.,',,
,,e csrman saar Valley TO France ana
,he, az a. Is moi right to give, by quite
new agreement. the Italian finihe "
Italy. -, sor