The Washington herald., 1920-06-26
CONTINUED FROM PAGE ONE.


denotes a binding obligation. But
there Is an implication that appar-
emily has generally come to be re-
garded as constituting a strong
moral responsibility. Therefore the
real nub of the dissension with re-
gard to the league OF nations is
the question as to whether the
United States shall take any sort
of commitment, moral or otherwise.
to guarantee the integrity of for
eign States and to use its military
resources to carry out the decisions
of the league. This Is fundamentally
the question upon which we are
about to fight on election. The
than caution in a new venture of
American national life. 1t raises a
great problem as to whether the
league itself is not weakened and
it's objects will not be defeated IL
this obligation is continued in its
constitution at all.
1T appears TO me to be time to
raise the question as to whether this
same clause - refer to the guar
antees and the use of military force
= that has brought about the dis
sension in the United States Is not
also undermining the league In Eu-
rope. j put II to the friends Of dhe
league in all countries. Has not
experience and discussion shown
that the time has arrived to recon-
slider this part of the league foun-
dation?
Product of Liberal Ideals.
My own feeling has always been
that the league was the product of
the liberal ideals of the world; that
1t comprised a definite organization
of the moral and economic power
to enforce peace and that this
strength would be even more potent
without the explicit threat of mill
tary force. The other parts of the
league that provide for the continu-
Gus sitting of important men around
an international board, representing
the great nations. planning disarma-
ment, dealing with the major prob
lens which generate conflict, endeav-
oring to find solution by negotia-
tion and the establishment of inter-
national courts. by the public ventil-
alton of the merits of dispute, the
education of public opinion, and
and economic outlawry against Of
tenders, are not matters of conten-
ton.
The essential things about the
league covenant that commend 1t to
me are. first, its recognition that
wars have their springs chiefly in
misunderstan ndings and its provision
for an organization designed to
minimize occasions for distrust by
continuous common counsel; and,
second, its creation of facilities for
converging upon any controversy
wide publicity and to the force OF
the public opinion Of the world.
In these two cardinal things the
covenant differs from ANY previous
attempt at international co-opera-
tion against war.
THE desirability of organizing
these activities by international CO.
operation is supported by both our
political parties. They comprise the
major strength of the league, and
with them alone ii would be in fact
a stronger league than one which
contemplates military force. Rather
than see the covenant fail l have
been ready to accept the proposal
of force, subject on our part to the
approval Of Congress be-
fore 1t could be availed of. although
I have always deplored It's presence
in the covenant.
A Military Alliance.
Through Article X and some ref
erences to II the league covenant
is to a degree a military alliance.
without this power 1t might not
perhaps be as immediate In its ef-
fectiveness against some interna-
tionaI crook. but ] am certain that
no country can long continue In
wsyward action against such moral
and economic, disapproval of the
whole OF civilization. No civilized
nation with our modern n-dependency
upon economic communications will
risk economic boycott for long.
with the possibility of being
summoned to military action. every
member nation will look with sus-
picion and doubt on the body that
may cail 1t to sacrifice of human
life, and every nation Willis ss,tstc
In xupporf of- the otheP StenS of the