Evening star., 1920-03-09
An Appeal to the People.

IresldeEt llSon, mcaSurably re-
stored to health, is vigorously militant.
His peacetreaty letter is a ringing
oeriaration of war against all oppO-
nents, whether at home or abroad. of
the league of nations that is created
by the original covenant, as construed
by him. He attacks the French gov
ernment, as he has already denounced
Italy, rs militaristic opponents of the
spirit or letter of the covenant. He
condemns the Senate reservationists,
mild or strong. republican or demo-
cratic, as nullifiers of the covenant.
He appeals on this issue to the people.
His letter clears the atmosphere and
makes the issue definite and distinct.
There is not much that is new in this
presentation of the case save possibly
the attack on France as militaristic
and reactionary and also his classifi-
cation of all the reservationists, mild
and otherwise, as nullifers. On the
score of the effect of the letter on the
fate of the treaty, no speculation is
safely possible. The situation may re-
solve itself quickly-may even at this
hour be in development.
OF immediate interest and impor-
tance, however, is the political effect
or significance of the letter 1t may
be interpreted as bid for the con
tinued control of the democratic party
and through the party an appeal to
the country for Endorsement on the
score of the league of nations. The
letter either puts the President into
the field again as nominee or it gives
him control to pick the nominee at
San Francisco, if his party is willing
again to follow his leadership on the
terms he now lays down as the domi-
mating democratic issue.
This letter, coming so closely upon
the statement of Mr.. Bryan, urging
the. ratification of the treaty with
reservations, puts the two men in dis
tinct opposition. Mr. Bryan evidently
can see no. political advantage in the
treaty issue. Mr.. Wilson plainly re-
CARDS it as the paramount question for
the American public
In the appeal to the country which
10 thus begun through the medium of
the Presidents letter dependence is
doubtless placed in the belief that a
majority of the American people-per-
haps a very great majority-undoubt
edly want the treaty ratified on some
terms. But, there remains the ques-
tion of responsibility for failure. The
President, in his statement of the case,
assumes that there is no other course
open honorably than the ratifying with
out reservation, in fulfllment of
pledges and in compliance with prin-
ciples upon which the United States
entered the war. There is risk in this
position. 1t is assumable that there
are many desiring treaty ratification
and peace again who do not subscribe
unreservedly to the league of nations
principle as set forth in the covenant
and who want reservations. mild or
otherwise, and who now regard the
President as responsible for the fail
ure of the treaty, if it should fail,
and who, therefore, on the issue of the
treaty and the failure of peace, may
vote the other way, other things being
equal.
A combination of liberal prohibition
enforcement-"th damp, plank which
is now proposed-and an "anti- multi
fication" Of the peace treaty plank
may suggest itself as one On which
the Presidents party, possibly under
his leadership, may have winning
chance. The President, in any event,
will have the prestige of adherence to
his initial position