La libera parola. [volume] (Philadelphia, Pa.) 1918-1969, 1919-07-12
London secret treaty


1t is assumed that Italy cannot base
her claims on the London Treaty be-
cause the secrecy of the treaty must
render it 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. 1t could be noted that even
if this law existed, no law can ever
have a retroactive effect; and the
Treaty of London was signed more
than two years before the proclama-
tion of this law by President Wilson.
1t could be stated that the London
Treaty was not signed by America,
but only by the European nations
which, being then at war, were inter-
ested in it, and therefore the Ameri-
can President has no right to inter-
fere with it, forcing the signatories
to make of it, in a German way,
scrap of paper. 1t could be remem-
bered that the Treaty was necessarily
secret, because it was impossible to
communicate to the world, and thus to
the enemy, the intentions of the AL
lies. 1t was also impossible to COM
municate it to the Jugo- Slavs, be-
cause they were fighting for the en-.
emy'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 to pretend
that they were Jugoslav.
But there are still better reasons:
it is impossible to condemn a treaty
merely because it is secret. 1t is the
provisions of the treaty that must be
taken into consideration. If the pro-
visions are moral and Just, even the
adversaTies of secret treaties must ac-
cept it. And nothing in Italy's claims
is against the principles already ap-
piled to England and France, and, it
is possible to say, to America itself
And this is still stronger: In con-
sequence of that treaty Italy entered
the war. She has done fully what the
Treaty asked from her, in blood,
money. and sacrifices. Is it possible
to conceive that the Treaty must have
had force regarding Italy's obliga-
tions and can be nullifed in that part
which concerns Italy's compensations?
The Adriatic Coast.
1t is not necessary to affirm again
the Italianity of the Adriatic Coast
those lands are Italian by ethnology,
I by geography, by tradition, by history,
by religion, by art, by literature, by
character. They would also be Italian
by ethnography, but for the violent
Standardization carried on by Aus
tria. In fact, those lands are more
Italian than Alsace-Lorraine is
French.
Nobody thinks Of a plebiscite or
arbitration for Alsace-Lorraine, and
the legitimate refusal of Italy to sub
init her identical claims to a plebiscite
or an arbitration is represented as an
act Of Imperialism and oppression. If
no contrary plebiscite could take away
Alsace-Lorraine from France, so no
contrary plebiscite could take away
the Adriatic lands from Italy. In
both cases the possible majority of
contrary votes could only be a conse-
quence Of violence, and violence is not
Right!
Arbitration is possible only when
right is doubtful; but when all the
rights are on one side and none on
the other, the latter has all to gain,
the former all to lose, from arbitra-
tion. 1t is especially true in this case;
the arbitrar should have been Presi-
dent Wilson, but everybody can see
how prejudiced he is against Italians,
only by looking at page 212-14 of his
History of the American People, Vol.