Richmond times-dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1914-current, 1920-08-02
For or Against tho League?


| a FEW days ago Senator Harding, the
Republican nominee, delivered his
| speech OF acceptance. He devoted the major
part OF that address to the league of ma
tons issue He condemned the league, as
| proposed by President Wilson. He proposed
| an immediate peace with Germany, to be
ccnsummated by the passage OF a peace
resolution by Il Republican Congress- -
After peace should be accomplished in this
summary manner, he would suggest an as
ISOLATION of nations to prevent future wars.
At least this is what nine out of every
ten people who read the Harding speech
assumed he said His language seemed to
be understandable. 1t was little vague
Ill some particulars, but il it had any direct
meaning at all, 1t meant that Mr.. Harding
is unalterably opposed to the league OF ma
tons. as incorporated in the treaty of YER
salles, reservations or no reservations,
amendments or no amendments, nterpre-
tations or no interpretations.
This is what virtually all Republican edi-
tors made of the Harding speech. 1t is
what virtually all Democratic editors made
OF it. 1t is what Senator Hiram Johnson
made of it. himself an rreconcila bic. The
Senator lost no time in offering his con-
gratulations to the Republican candidate
and in assuring the country that at last
the nominee and the party platform were
In accord upon the paramount; issue Of the
campaign. The party platform, it will be
recalled. rs it deals with the league of ma
items. was dictated by Senators Johnson and
Horah, both OF them opposed to any league
Of nations, first, last ard all the time.
Certain Of the Harding campaign man
ayers and certain Of his press agents, prob
ably alarmed over the decisive stand taken
by their candidate. are now making frcn-
lied denals of the statement that Senator
Harding is against any league or against
the covenant negotiated at the Paris peace
conference. They say he made no such
declaration in his speech, that all those
who take a contrary view are incapable of
understanding plain language. and Senator
Johnson is unwarranted in pronouncing the
nominee an irreconcilable. They say that
the Ohioan is for league, even for the
present league. If American sovereignty"
is adequately safeguarded by proper reser-
vations.
This is Il curious state of affairs. 1t leads
one to wonder why Il candidate for Office
cannot employ language in direct discourse,
and cannot say exactly what is in his mind
when he has anything to say, and not deal
always in obscurities. IL Mr. Harding is
against the Wilson league of nations, why
should he not say 20 in Just that many
words? If he is for reservations, why not
say that? If he has better league program
TO offer, why not confide the fact to his
countrymen in terms that even child could
comprehend?
The controversy which is now being
waged over the meaning of the Harding
speech of acceptance could he ended in a
hfty-word statement from the candidate.
He could make his position clear in less
than fifty words if he chose 10 do so. 1t
seems childish that he should remain silent
while one-half of his followers interpret
SDppch q ha tbor
half should interpret it to mean exactly the
opposite.
Perhaps the candidate is deliberately
straddling. He wants to attract the pro-
league vote to his side perhaps, without
giving offense TO the antileague vote No
other explanation can be reasonably offered
for the strange debate that he is allowing
10 proceed as to what is actually in his
mind upon the great peace issue.