Omaha daily bee., 1919-01-09
The League of Nations
From Address by A. Lawrence Lowell,
President Harvard University.

From Address by A. Lawrence Lowell,
| President Harvard University.
There are one or two difficulties which con-
| front US when we consider the formation of a
| league of nations People ask "Of what ma
| tons shall such league consist" The organ
| ization which belonged to for three and half
| years has taken great pains not to answer that
question, believing that the answer would de-
pend largely upon the issue of this war-and
! | believe that the war has settled that issue
A perfect league of nations, in perfect
world, would undoubtedly be. one where all
| mankind was organized into free nations and
all were bound together in a great, league of
lection. One begins with existing things, and
it is surely obvious today that the only nations
| that can initiate league Of nations are nations
| that have won this war. They may let in others
| whenever they prove themselves trustworthy,
and we hope that many. nations will prove
themselves trustworthy, but it is not necessary
to go too far at once.
Now want to take up two or three objec.
tons very commonly suggested to league Of
nations. One is that Washington never did so
| in his day." Now what did George Washington
do in his day? He tried to prevent war. For
mind you, before the adoption of the consttu-
ton, we were very close to war between many
of the states. and doubtless war would have
come. He tried to prevent war by welding
those states together in such way that they
would not fight with one another. That was
as far as it was wise for him to 20.
But, do you realize that at that time New
Hampshire was further from South Carolina
and less likely-I mean in terms of travel and
methods of communication and distance and
time for covering that distance-New Hamp-
shire was less likely, if we had been separate
states, to be drawn into war between South
and North Carolina than we are to be drawn
into war between Russia and Germany today?
1t has happened. That is just what we are talk
ing about at this moment.
We were drawn into war which began be-
tween Russia and Germany. We are nearer
nowadays, and there Is scarcely any part of the
world so remote as the two ends of those IS
colonies were. Let me say this: Washington
was great man. because he looked at the facts
of his day in the face, and we are only worthy
to be his descendants if we look the facts OF
our day in the face.
The second objection which is raised is this;
1t will interfere with our sovereignty. 1t has
nothing whatever to do with our sovereignty.
People say congress has not the power to de-
clare war or refuse to declare war. Congress
power to declare war or not to is not in any
way affected. We simply agree that in certain
conditions we will declare war, but congress
is not bound to do it. It does not interfere with
congress in the least. 1t does morally bind
congress to declare war, yes, certainly, every
treaty morally binds the country to do some
thing.
A great change that has come from the
middle ages is the change from status to con-
tract; from the time when the relation OF things
was fixed by the accident of birth, to the time
when man regulates his relations to neighbors
by contract. Contract means limiting your
freedom of action in consideration of some
one else limiting his freedom of action. And it
is by reason OF contracts that the world is able
to advance
More treaties each of them binding the
country to do or not to do certain things have
been made in the last so years than in all the
history of the world before Why? Because
countries have found it was worth while to bind
themselves if others were so bound also.
Now, there is third objection that want
to take up which is always brought forward
How about the big and little natons7 Is it
seriously supposed that any one is going to al
low nations in league of nations to allow ma
the same, votes as the United States? 1t is easy
enough, in consideration like that to say it is
absurd and throw it down. But no sensible per-
son would believe that was to be done for one
moment.
We are told again that our men will have to
go and fight in every broil in Europe. But,
surely the object Of the league of nations is to
prevent brols in Europe. # the league will not
prevent them then it is a failure. But does any
one doubt that league made of the great ma
tons of the earth can stop any broils in Europe?
The object of such league is to prevent war
Of course, i the league will not prevent war
then it is failure. But it will.
A man cannot be an orderly citizen in a dis
orderly community, and the trouble with us in
the present day is that certain nations are try
ing to be orderly and decent in disorderly con-
dition of the world. The nations of the world
are in just the same situation that you would
have been in in frontier town of the olden
days, when it was necessary for you to carry
pistol. There is only one way to stop it, and
that is to make the world an orderly one
And I want to ask you, are the resources Of
civilization exhausted? Is rhis sort of thing
bound to repeat itself every little while? Are
the most civilized races in the world going to
try to exterminate each other with ever increas-
ing ferocity and ever increasing ingenuity of
weapons? Is the manhood of the next century
to be devoted to seeing how much more wicked
we can be?
Are we to develop the one horror that did not
take place in this war, but was talked of, and
that is dropping poison bombs from airplanes on
undefended citizens? Or, is it possible. is it
inconceivabe. is it folly, to say that the world
can be brought to state of peace and orderli-
ness in which scraps between the nations occur
no more than scraps among the inhabitants of
the town of New York? Is that part of Dreams
OF fancy? And if that can take place, shall we
stand by and say, "Civilize if you can but don't
trouble u.s.?