The Ocala banner. (Ocala, Marion County, Fla.) 1883-194?, 1920-02-27
six VOTES TO ONE

ly and points out many false points
taken by the opponents Of the League
of Nations. The writer is familiar
with his subject from beginning to
end which qualities him to speak with
authority and without fear of contra
diction.
The Press says:
Raymond D. Fosdick, writing in the
New York Times, analyses the oppo-
sition to the Leagne of Nations, and
shows that much Of the opposition is
based on misunderstanding and foster
ed by Misrepresentation of the char
acter Of the covenant itself.
AS an example of gross misrepresen-
tation, he cites the statement recently
made by Senator Spencer of Missouri
to the effect that the expenses of the
League of Nations would amount to
81, 1874, 591, 900 a year; that it would
employ 10000 men and that large
percentage, probably the bulk of this
expense, would have to be borne by
the United States.
Mr. Fosdick, who is under secretary
general of the League and who ought
to and presumably does know what he
is talking about. shows that the Lea
que will employ between 400 and 500
men and women, most of whom are
clerks and stenographers, and that its
total operating expenses will not
amount to more than s4.500,OOO per
annum, of which expense the United
States will be called on to pay six per
cent, or $4,000 a year.
"The whole League could be run for
three years" says Mr.. Fosdick, ION
what it takes to build one battleship."
The most serious misconception of
the nature of the League is that which
regards it as super-goyernment-a
transfer of the seat Of power from
Washington to Geneva. This is the
strain most consistently harped on by
the Borah-Johnson-Reed group of OBJ
structionists.
Now the fact that is most striking
about the organization of the League
is its inability to do anything except
by a unanimous vote, either in the
council or in the assembly. The couu-
Gil is the most important body of the
League and in the council the United
States has permanent seat. Certainly
nothing can be put over on us with
out the consent of our own representa-
tive, and surely we can always be able
to supply representative who can
be relied on to protect our interests
The English are fully as jealous of
their national integrity as we are.
So, indeed, are the French, while the
recrudescence of italian nationalism
has been one of the features of the
war and of the postwar period, yet
England, France and Italy have gone
into the League without reservations
or restrictions.
Obviously none of these nations
would submit to any authority out
side Of themselves the question of
how great military or naval estab-
lishment they may maintain. They
see in the League no power to limit
their ornaments. No such power is
there. The power to discuss the ques-
ton of ornaments is given to the
council and it, by unanimous vote,
may recommend reductions of arma-
ment. Such recommendation may or
may not be followed. They probably
will be followed in cases where the
nations affected feel themselves safe
in following them and in no other.
One other point that sticks in the
Hcraw' of many a patriotic American,
at least, is the way in which it has
been represented.
Now the fact is that Canada, Aus
tralia, New Zealand, South Africa and
India are more like separate and dis
tinct nations than like British colo
mics. They are not only self-govern-
ing, but they are self-thinking and
self-acting They came to the assis-
lance Of the mother country in the
war, it Ii true, but they came of their
own accord. Each determined for it
self the extent and the manner Of
their coming. Canada adopted con-
scription not at the behest of Great
Britain, but of her own free will.
Australia refused to do so at all and
sent only volunteers. 1t is a mistake
to assume that England can dictate
the votes of these people or that she
would try.
Moreover, it is a mistake to assume
that the United States will be with
out influence over any vote but her