The Bridgeport times and evening farmer., 1920-06-28

the terms of the armistice and fprmu- lated the terms of peace. If such a | result could be achieved by an in | formal and temporary agreement, why 1 should not the association be contin- ! ued in a more definite and binding 1 ! form2 What plausible reason can be l ] suggested for wasting the one great | asset which has come out of the war; How else shall we provide for in ternational arbitration2 How else 1 shall we provide for a permanent | court of international justtce7 How
 else shall we provide for open diplo- l macy? How else shall we provide | for progressive disarmaments How 1 else shall we check the spread of Bolshevism2 How else shall industry | be made safe and the basis of re- l construction established2 How else
 shall society be steadied so that the | processes of healing may serve their
 benefcent purpose? Until the critics | of the League offer a better method
 of preserving the peace of the world.
 they are not entitled to one mom-
 ent's consideration in the forum of I the conscience of mankind. Not only does the covenant guar
 antee justice for the future but it
 holds the one remedy for the evils
 of the past As 1t stands today, war 1 is the one way in which America can ! cApTcSS SyIaHdSAy loI tA1C oppA CS- sed world. The League of Nations re- | moves the conventional shackles of l diplomacy. Under the covenant, it is | our friendly right to protest against | tyranny and to act as counsel for the | weak nations now without an effec- 1 tive champion
 The Existing League
 The Republican platform contains | a vague promise to establish another l different 9SSnciati0n | amongst nations of a tenuous and l Shadowy character. Our proposed
 co-partners in such a project are un-
 named and unnamable- It is not
 stated whether it is proposed to in
 vite the nations that have established
 the present League to dissolve it and
 to begin anew, or whether the pur- pose is to establish a new association of a competitive character, composed
 of the nations that repudiated the
 existing League The devitaliZinS
 character of such an expedient re-
 quires no comment Fatuous futil-
 ity could be carried no farther There
 is no mental dishonesty more trans
 parent than that which expresses fealty to League of Nations while
 opposing the only League of Nations
 that exists or is ever apt to exist
 Why close our eyes to actual world
 conditions? A League of Nations all l ready exists It is not. a project, it
 is a fact. We must either enter it | or remain out of it.
 What nations have actually signed
 and ratified the Treaty?
 l Brazil, Bolivia, Great Britain, Cam
 ada, Australia, South Africa, New
 Zealand, India, Czcho-Slovakia, Guat- emala, Liberia, Panama, Peru, Ura- quay, Siam, Greece, Poland, Japan,
 Italy, France and Belgium
 What neutral states invited to join
 the League have actually done so? Norway, Venezuela, the Neither
 lands, Denmark, Colombia, Chile, Ar
 gentina, Paraguay. Persia, Salvador,
 Spain, Sweden and Switzerland. , Even China will became mem
 Der when she ratifies the Austrian
 treaty.
 : Germany has signed and is prepar- , ing to take the place which awaits her in the League of Nations.
 } What nations stand outside? RexS olutionary Mexico, Bolshevist Russia, Unspeakable Turkey and-the United States of America.
 , It is ont yet too late. Let us stand with the forces of civilization. The choice is plain. It is between the } Democratic Party's support of the ; League of Nations, with it's program of peace, disarmament and world fra l leTHltyy anu the fIepuDilcdn faTly 5 platform of repudiation, provincial 7 ism, mi1itarism and world chaos.
 Equality of Voting
 | There is great pretense of alarm . because the United States has bur t one vote in the international assem- ) bly, against the six votes of Great g Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zea- s land, South Africa and India This popular argument against the League of Nations inSincaro iS l superficial. It ignores the fact that g the Executive Council and not the s Assembly, is the governing body of 8 the League, and that our country is
 one of the five countries having per 0 mament membership in the Council s The colonial votes exist only in the s Assembly.
 e Nor should we forget that France d has but one vote; Italy has but one f vote; and Japan has but one vote. If f 1 there were any injustice in the ar e. engagement, surely these nations
 | would have sensed it and objected to S it. No affirmative action can be talk t en in any essential matter without @ a. unanimous vote of all members of l, the Council of the League. No de- It cision of the League, if America d joined it. could be made effective .or e even promulgated without our con- '; sent. Like every other nation, we @ have a veto power upon every res e olution or act of the League. We
 can be involved in no enterprise ex.
 cept of our own choosing; and if we y are not satisfied with the League d we can sever our connection with ii 6 upon two years notice. The risk l. exists only in the imagination, the .- service is inca1cu1able.
 eI Moreover. the United States in n sisted that Cuba, Haiti, Liberia, Pan 1t anna, Nicaragua, Honduras and Guat $ emala should each be given vote d as well as the nations of South Amer s- ica, great and small. Including tht
 nations which are bound by vital in F. terests to the United States, or, in S. deed. directly under our tutelage, VI y have more votes in the League O n Nations than any other nation. Hov IS could we, in good faith, urge tha IT these nations be given a voice ant of deny a voice to such se1f-governin! i- | nations as Cahada Neu Zealand an,