New-York tribune., 1920-01-12
Treaty Referendu,ns

President Wilson has urged turn
ing the next Presidential election
into a great and solemn referen-
dum' on the question Of ratifying
the Treaty of Versailles. On this
point he finds himself in complete
harmony with the anti-ratification-
lists in the Senate-the so-called "bit-
ter enders." They are ultramontan-
lists. So is he.
But if the next Presidential cleo
tion is to be converted into treaty
referendum, how is clear and NOR
ally binding decision to be reached? :?
How is the question of unconditional
ratification, rejection or ratification
with reservations to be divorced
from party politics? Is one party
to nominate an advocate of ratifica-
ton without qualifications, another
an advocate of ratification with the
Lodge reservations, another a cham
pion of ratification with compromise
reservations milder than those which
the Senate has attached to the treaty,
and still another some leader of
the Knox Borah-Johnson group who
favors the rejection of the treaty
and the restoration of a peace status
by joint resolution?
Manifestly, there aren't enough
parties to go around. Moreover,
there are millions of voters in both
the Republican and Democratic par
ties who want to see the approach
ing campaign fought on domestic
issues and who are only mildly in
terested in the treaty controversy.
These voters are mainly concerned
with party victory. They don't care
to be scattered into four different
new groups in order to express their
preferences as between ratification
and rejection and as between three
or more modes of ratification. They
would revolt against a referendum
which tied the result up with the
fortunes of the various Presidential
candidates.
Even if a referendum could be
taken in advance Of the Presidential
election it's value would be dubious
so far as developing the real senti-
ment of the country is concerned.
Each party would be maneuvering
to draw partisan advantage out of
It. A plurality might be given for
ratification cf some sort. But there
is a chance that the vote for re-
lection might be greater than the
vote for any one of the three or more
different modes of ratification. Thus
nothing would be settled.
Some Democrats in Washington
have been talking about ordering ar
immediate national referendum, ir
order to take the treaty question out
Of the Presidential campaign. But
on what basis would a straight-out
appeal to the people be made? Were
the Democrats to advocate nation
wide referendum the restrictions or
the suffrage in the South would al
once become disturbing factor. Il
the result were determined by the
states, voting separately, with repre-
sentation equal to their representa-
ton in the Electoral College, mi
nority Of the people might easily
overrwie a majority, or a deadlock
might result such as happens wher
there is no majority in the Electora
College and the election of a Presi
dent is thrown into the House O.
Representatives.
In the national field we are yer,
firmly committed to the principle O
representative action. National ref
erendnms don't fit in with check
and balances of our system of dis
tributed powers The President ant
the Senate are charged with making
treaties. 1t would be a grave con
fession Of unedaptability on thei,
part if, not being able to come to q
rational understanding, they should
try to shift the burden of a decision
q the people at large.