The Washington times., 1920-01-10
LOWELL BECOMES
EOE OF ART|CLEX
President Of Harvard Changes
Stand-Avers Real Strength
Lies In Clause is.


League OF Nations covenant are mot
we'll adapted to promote peace" ac-
cording to President A. Lawrence
Lowell. OF Harvard University, In a
letter to Senator Walsh. OF Massa-
ohusetts.
Lowell was one OF the leading pro
covenanters" In the country and has
led the night for the ratification OF
the treaty In behalf OF the League TO
Enforce Peace. During the early days
OF the treaty debate he was stanch
supporter OF Article 10. which Presi-
dent Wilson has termed ''the heart OF
the treaty"
''The real strength In the covenant
TO prevent war rests In Article 16 and
not in Article TO-" Lowell said. His
letter was read into the Congress
sionsl Record today by Senator Walsh.
The new attitude OF the President
OF Harvard is in opposition to his
original stand on the league.
Leweips Letter.
His letter follows:
"As one of the stumbling blocks In
the way of a compromise OF the treaty
appears to be article 10. / take the
liberty of writing to you about It.
The more so as / was the person who
introduced into the program Of the
league to enforce peace the third
article. declaring that the 'signatory
powers shall jointly use forthwith
both their economic and military
forces against any one OF their num-
ber that goes to war or commits acts
of hostility against another of the
signatories before any question aris-
ing shall be submitted to arbitration
II say this to show you that from
the beginning / was in favor. and al
-. - t. - ka .xE
q forcible sanction to maintain peace
under the league. For this purpose
1t seems to be that the real strength
of the covenant to prevent war rests
upon article 10, and not article 10.
"The latter seems to me to proceed
from the wrong end. Instead of seek
ing to prevent war directly. II strives
to do SO indirectly by making pre-
datory war Improbable, but the diff
ficulty in this lies in the fact that II
would be virtually impossible to
snatch the prey from the jaws Of
victorious belligerent.
''Nor would a great nation, like
Germany, be deferred from going to
war by any agreement among the
members of the league to prevent her
from annexing territory in case Of
victory, because she knows very
well that If defeated she would have
no chance to seize territory. and II
victorious she would not be prevent
ed from doing SO.
Moreover. as the treaty Of peace
leaves Europe, there are cases where
article X would lead to mischievous
results. For example a tract Of coun-
try in the Tyrol, inhabited exclusive
ly by German speaking people, has
been given to Italy.
IF German-Austria should have a
grievance against It&1y-let us say
about the treatment of shipping
should bring 1t before the council OF
the league and have a unanimous de-
cision in her favor with which Italy
refused to comply, she would have a
right to go to war with Italy. II In
this war she were victorious, and then
should propose to take back this Ger
man speaking region, we would be
obliged by article X Of the covenant
to go to war with her to prevent It..
Not Adapted to Peace
Neither we nor any other nation
would do so, therefore. that article.
1t seems to me, therefore, that article
X is not we'll adapted to promote
peace, and does involve obligations
which it is not wise to accept.
II say this because many of the
force at the back of the league lies
in article v. and Senator Hitchcock
has said this to me.
II think. however. they are mis-
taken. The real strength in prevent
ing war lies in article XVI, and the
agreement to Loycott as it stands. II
not a strong as we should have
liked, seems to me not adequate, for
such boycott would be completely
effective with a small nation, and
ately lead to war. For these reasons
II seems to me that 1t would be a
mistake for the Democrats to stand
too firmly against a reservation on
article X"