Omaha daily bee., 1920-02-24
Candor and Forbeardnce
From the New York Times.

/
From the New York Times.
Great Britain, France and the United States
agreed upon plan of settlement for the Adria-
tic controversy on December 9, Assistant Sec
retary Polk representing this country. This plan
was set aside and another plan agreed upon in
London on January 20 between the prime min
isters of Great Britain, France and Italy. In
the proceedings which led to this agreement
the United States had no part. According to
the latest version OF reports many times revised,
it appears that President Wilson withho@ds his
assent from the London plan not merely be-
cause the United States was not consulted in
its preparation but because he does not accept
the principles upon which it was based. Speak
ing in the broadest terms and diSregarding all
matters OF. detail, it may be said that the dif-
ference arises from the conflict of principle
tiations. AS applied to the Adriatic case, the
difference of principle is this: In demanding
control of part of the eastern shore of the
Adriatic, Italy originally set up strategic con-
siderations as the basis. of her demands. This
is the old principle, which has governed in
Mr. Wilson hopes that by establishing the prin-
ciples of the league covenant as rule. of con-
duct for the nations, strategic considerations
may be left out of account. That, we believe,
explains his position.
According to statement Officially, made
in Washington yesterday, the president in his
note or memorandum to the allies informed
them that if the London settlement were in
sisted on, the United States might have to
consider withdrawing the treaty of Versailles
from the senate" These words have been er-
roneously construed as a threat. They are a
formula often used in diplomatic communica-
tions when one nation wishes to impress upon
another the gravity of its reasons for taking a
certain position. 1t hardly need be pointed but
that nations do not threaten each other at that
6 xLa,e, xsoA.- L. Ao.,I
it, the president feels that the Versailles treaty
in its present form might constrain the United
States to act in support of a form of settle
ment in the Adriatic which he does not accept
as just and right. In referring to the possibility
of having to withdraw the treaty from the sen:
settlement and by implication suggests that
some amendment of the treaty might be neces-
sary before it could be accepted by the United
States. This is necessary implication, be-
cause it is not for moment to be supposed
that the president contemplates the withdrawal
of the United States from the treaty and the
league of nations.
For these reasons and many others it is to
be hoped and should be insisted upon by the
people of the, nations concerned, that the stua-
ton which has arisen, critical and delicate as
it obviously is, should be treated not as an oc-
cason for reproaches and widening difference
but one imperatively demanding open minds
patience candor and great forbearance in Lon
don, Paris, Rome and in Washington. States
men prone to error, as MI. Wilson has
pointed out, and statesmen who have been
long concerned with the complexities and per-
pexities of great negotiation may easily go
wrong if they yield to personal impulses when
they should be guided altogether by considera-
tions of the welfare of nations and of mankind.
The people are calm and the questions involved
in this matter are not beyond their powers of
Judgment. The people of Great Britain, of
France, of Italy, of Jugoslavia and of the
United States are profoundly concerned that
the decision reached should be based upon per-
manent principles of justice. They are i'm
medlatey concerned with the statesmen who
are conducting the negotiations should make
no mistake, that they be guided by counsels of
wisdom, that neither. by utterance nor by act
they endanger the relations of amity and trust
and good faith now existing between the allies
and the United States, relations which promise
infinite good to. the world and cannot be i'm
paired without involving the risk of infinite
harm.
There is the risk of harm, of very great mis-
chief in the manner in which the truth of this
chapter in the war settlements has been per-
mitted to come SO imperfectly to the public
knowledge. In reports current in Paris there
has been a persistence in misrepresenting its
spirit and purpose that calls for condemnation
There have been mistakes in Washington, in
nocent enough in purpose, but adding to the
general confusion. Statements have been made
without information and without authority
which should not have been made The great
est mistake of all was in not making a full dis
closure of the truth when ru1uor first began its
evil work The surest preventive of trouble in
such cases is to let the public know the whole
truth. And publication of the note to the al
lies would have put stop to misreprese esentation
Of the allies when received. should be given to
the public forthwith