South Bend news-times. (South Bend, Ind.) 1913-1938, 1920-06-29

vague promise to establish another
or a different form OF association
amongst nations OF a tenuous and
shadowy character. Our proposed
co-partners in such a project are
unnamed and unnama BILE. II is not
stated whether IL Is proposed TO in
vite the nations that have estab-
lished the present League 10 dis
solve il and TO begin anew. or
whether the purpose is TO stablish
new association OF a competitive
character. composed Of the nations
that repudiated the existing league.
The devitaliZing character OF such
an eXpediert requires no comment.
Fatuous futility could be carried no
farther.
There f. no mental dishonesty
more transparent than that
which expresses fealty TO
League of Nations while OppOS-
ing the only League OF Nations
that exists or Is ever apt to
exist. Why close our eyes to
actual world conditions? \
League of Nations already cX-
lists. IL is not "A project, il IL
fact. We must either enter II
or remain out OF il.
What nations have actually signed
and ratified the treaty?
Brazil, Bolivia. Great Britain,
Canada, Australia, South Africa.
New Zealand, India, Czecho-SIo-
vakia, Guatemala, Liberia. Panama,
Peru, Uruguay, Siam, Greece. Japan,
Poland. italy, France and Belgium.
What neutral states. invited 10
join the League, have actually done
so?
Norway, Venezuela. the Neither
lands, Denmark, Colombo Chile,
Argentina, Paraguay. Persia, Saliva
dor. Spain, Sweden and Switzerland
Even China viii become a mem
Der when she ratifes the Austrian
treaty.
Germany has signed and is pre-
pairing TO take the place which
awaits her in the League of Nations
What nations stand outside? Revo-
lutionary Mexico, Bolshevist Rus
STA, Unspeakable Turkey and-the
United States Of America.
1t is not yet too late. Let US
stand with the forces Of civilization
The choice is plain. 1t is between
the democratic party's support of
the League of Nations, with its pro-
gram of peace, disarmament and
world fraternity and the republican
party's platform Of reputation, pro-
vincialism, militarism and world
chaos.
Equality of Voting.
There is great pretense of alarm
because the United States has but
one vote in the international as
sembly, against the six votes of
Great Britain, Canada, Australia,
New Zealand, South Africa and
India. This popular argument
against the League Of Nations is as
insincere as Il is superficial. 1t ig
nores the fact that the executive
council, and not the assembly, isl
the governing body Of the League,
and that our country is one Of the
five countries having permanent
membership in the council The
colonial votes exist only in the as
sembly.
Nor should we forget that France
has but one vote; Italy has but one
vote; and japan has but one vote
If there were any injustice in the
arrangement, surely these nations
would have sensed il and objected
10 il.
No affirmative action can be
taken i'm any essential matter
without unanimous vote of all
members OF the council of the
League. No decision of the
League, il America Joined IL,
could be made effective or even
promulgated without our con-
sent. Like every other nation,
we have veto power upon
every resolution or act of the
League. We can be involved I'm
no enterprise except of our own
choosing; and If we are not
satisfied with the League, we
can sever oar connection with
il upon two years notice. The
risk exists only in the magma
ton. the service Is incalculable.
Moreover, the United States in
sisted that Cuba. Haiti, Liberia,
Panama. Nicaragua, Honduras and
Guatemala should each be given
vote. as we'll a the nations of South
America, great and small. Includ-
ing the nations which are bound by
vital interests to the United States.
or. indeed, directly under our
tutelage, we have more votes in the
League of Nations than any other
nation How could we. in good
faith, urge that these nations be
given a voice and deny voice 70
such self governing nations as Can
ada, New Zealand and the rest,
which relatively speaking Ildut AdA
more sacrifices in the war than our
own country? IL is desirable that
all countries should have an oppor-
tunity 10 be heard in the League;
and the safety Of each nation re-
sides in the fact that no action can
be taken without the consent OF all.
Responsibility For Defeat Of Treaty.
II was the design Of Sen. Lodge,
from the outset. to mutilate the
treaty and TO Illustrate the purposes
OF the administration And yet Sen.
Lodge. with the help Of the irrecOn
cilables. having torn the treaty 10
tatters and thrown it's fragm ents in
the face Of the world, has the eff
frontery 10 suggest in his address
at Chicago, that the president block
ed ratification and postponed peace
The trouble with the treaty OF
peace IS that il was negotiated by
a democratic president It is not
difficult 10 assess the responsibility
for its defeat The responsibility
rests. not upon its friends, but up
on its enemies.
The foreign relations committee. |
imm ediately following the last cleo
ton. was recognized with g person
mel consisting OF the open foes Of
the treaty Amongst the number
was Sen. Borah, who declared that
he would not be for a League OF Ma
tons. were the Savior Of mankind
20 advocate IL. Sen. Johnson, sen. |
l. 4