The Richmond palladium and sun-telegram. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1907-1939, 1920-10-28

oiSio, oSl Sc-IudIlcS
Z. Hughes. speaking before the Co
lumbia club today. sharply criticized
the league of nations and the stand
OF President Wilson and Governor
Cox.
Mr.. Hughes said in part:
With respect to the league of ma
tions, the issue submitted to the peo-
pie in this great and solemn refern-
DUN was perfectly clear and definite.
1t was whether the covenant on
which Mr.. Wilson insisted should have
been accepted by the senate. 1t was
not whether the covenant had certain
good features, but whether it had bad
provisions which made it unaccept-
able.
In the opinion of its author and
champion. the distinctive feature of
the covenant was Article X. Mr.. Will
son said that Article X was "un-
doubtedly the foundation of the whole
structure" Certainly the Republican
party cannot be blamed for testing
the structure by its foundation.
Vicious Principles in Article X.
What is meant when it is said that
Mr.. Wilson did not insist on the COW
enant without change? Is it meant
simply that Mr. Wilson was willing
to agree to reservations or interpre-
tations which did not affect the sub
stance or true import Of the covenant
as he submitted it?
If so, the issue remains precisely
the same, for the Republican party OBJ
jects to the covenant in substance as
he submitted it, and especially be-
cause that covenant contained in Ar
ticle X a provision vicious in its sub
stance and true import. Is it meant
that Mr.. Wilson was willing to agree
to reservations which eliminated the
obligation to be assumed by Article
X? If so, to use their own mode of
expression, the assertion is false, de-
monstrably false.
l understand that the basis of the as
sertion is, that President Wilson wrote
to Senator Hitchcock, stating that he
was willing to accept reservations, and
it is now pretended that these reser-
vations met every objection sincerely
urged by Republican critics"
No Analysis Necessary.
It is unnecessary to analyze Senator
Hitchcock's statements or proposed
reservations, or to go through a de-
tailed argument showing their purport,
for we have the high and conclusive
Vi MI. "llSOH ulluScll dS W
the reservations which he was willing
to accept and as to the utmost limit
to which he would go. Our friends on
the other side cannot complain that in
determining Mr.. Wilson's attitude by
Senator Hichcocks reservations, We
should measure these reservations by
Mr. Wilson's own yard-Stick. Nor is
it necessary to review the discussion
in the senate, for we have Mr. Will
sons letter to Senator Hitchcock as
late as March s, 1920. which so clearly
states his position that it is beyond
any possibility of cavil. Did his letter
state that Mr.. Wilson was willing to
accept reservation which in any way
impaired the obligation to be assumed
under Article X? Not at all. He stat
ed the exact contrary.
Heart of Covenant, Said Wilson.
Let me refer to what Mr.. Wilson ex-
plicitly said about Article X in this
letter, written almost at the close OF
the debate. He said: ANY reservation
which seeks to deprive the League of
Nations of the force of Article X cuts
at the very heart and life of the Gov
enant itself" Again, ''If Article X is
not adopted and acted upon, the gov
ernments which reject it will, / think.
DC vi Ddu IdIlh III lACll pSopIC
Again, IF we were to reject Article X
or so to weaken it as to take its full
force out of it, it would mark us as
desiring to return to the old world of
jealous rivalry and misunderstand-
ings." Again, 81 hold the doctrine OF
Article X as the essence of American
ism. We cannot repudiate it or weak
en- it without at the same time repudi
ating our own principles" Again,
The enemies of a League of Nations
have by every true instinct centred
their efforts against Article X, for it
is undoubtedly the foundation Of the
whole structure"
After reading these assertions, not
the less emphatic because seriously
we are prepared to find that
Mr.. Wilson was not willing to agree to
any reservation which would impair
the obligation of Article X. Do his
supporters say that he was willing to
sacrifice the heart and life Of the
Covenant" To weaken or destroy its
foundation? To repudiate the
essence of Americanism" To be gull
ty of bad faith with respect to a
matter in which he had been the prin-
cipal actor? Those who most strenu-
ously oppose Mr.. Wilson will not lay
this charge at his door. They are con-
tent to show his serious error, but do
not impute to him such an attempt to
deceive the people as would be involv-
ed in the pretense that he favored a
reservation eliminating the obligation
CT Article X. Upon this Article, as his
own child, he centred his affection.
From his determination to compel the
American people to accept it he has
never wavered for a moment. 1t is
this determination which, as Mr.. Hoo
Yer has said, shows the most serious
failure in craftsmanship that we have
mad since the Civil War.
When we come to the reservations
which Mr.. Cox is willing to adopt, we
find exactly the same attitude as that
of Mr.. Wilson, a willingness to state
the unnecessary and superfiuous, but
a determination not to impair the obli-
cation of Article X. Mr.. Cox says that
he is willing ito accept reservations
that will clarity, or will be helpful.
that will reassure the American peo-
pie" Does he think, now that this
issue has been presented, to escape
Continued on Page Fifteen,