The New York herald., 1921-03-25


of checking international aggressions.
He had reached this conclusion as a
logical result Of his acceptance OF the
principle underlying Article X. OF
the covenant. This principle made its
first appearance in connection with
the discussions in 1915 relative to a
proposed Pan-American treaty. Mr..
Lansing holds that the President was
entirely logical in his attitude, since
the guaranty against physical agrees
sion upon which Article =. rests would
be worthless il il were not sustained
and enforced by physical power. From
that time President Wilson clung TO
this principle as the controlling one in
any international association that
might be formed, and he Incorporated
a general reference To it in the last
paragraph of his Fourteen Points. con-
tanned in his address TO the Congress
on January s. 1918.
Mr.. Lansing differed with. the Presi-
dent on this point. and here one APP
pears to put his finger upon the be-
ginning of their subsequent wide di-
vergences in opinion and in policy.
President Wilson's view had a large
measure of support among the Amer
lean people, particularly among those,
many of them prominent Republicans
who were earnest advocates of the pro-
gramme brought forward by the
League to Enforce Peace. In taking an
opposite stand Mr.. Lansing ranged
himself with such prominent Republi-
cans and students OF international af-
fairs as Elihu Root, Joseph IL, Choate,
Andrew d. White and David jayne
Hill, who declined 70 support the pro-
gramme OF the League TO Enforce'
Peace just because of its inclusion OF
the proposal to end war by force. The
difference was fundamental, and it is
that difference which has wrecked the
peace treaty and thrown the world,
into confusion. If President Wilson
had given way and had taken Mr.. Lam
sings advice there can be little ques-.
tion that he would have carried the,
Peace Conference with him and that,
the resulting treaty would have been,
promptly ratified by the United StateS
Senate. Such treaty as Mr.. lansing
was urging was in entire accord with
American principles. with American
diplomatic history and with innumera-
BILE acts of the Government and of the
Senate of the United States. Such a,
treaty as President Wilson was urging
involved departure from all these and
invited precisely the bitter opposition
and acrimonious debate that followed.
Why did President Wilson persist
in his view, and what were his reasons
for believing that if that view pre-
vailed at Paris it would command the
assent OF the Senate and the people of
the United States? Mr.. Lansing
throws a great deal OF light upon these
two questions. In the first place.
President Wilson had, and frequently
had expressed, a distrust of the legal
profession and a dislike of legal meth
ods of procedure. Some interesting
illustrations of his feeling on these
points might be drawn from his per-
sonal history long before he became
a candidate for public office. He dis
trusted opinions and judgments based
upon what he considered mere tech
nicalities and an undue regard for
precedent. As Mr.. Lansing puts II:
II do not say that he was lawless
He was not that, but he conformed
grudgingly and with manifest dis
pleasure to legal limitations. 1t was
thankless task TO question a pro-
posed course OF action on the ground
of illegality, because he appeared TO be
irritated by such an obstacle TO his
will and to transfer his irritation
against the law to the one who raised
it as an objection" (P. 42)
Having this feeling, President Will
son not unnaturany looked upon the
judicial settlement OF international
disputes with disfavor. He esteemed
very lightly the work of the two
Hague conferences. and he positively
declined TO consider any plan which
would build an international associa-
ton upon the foundation of an inter-
national high court of justice. For
the principle of judicial settlement
President Wilson wished to substitute
political expediency tinctured with
morality" as the standard of deter
mination of an international contro-
versy. (P. 49,
Here again we have the kernel of
the whole matter and il will greatly
clarity the thinking of the American
people as they consider what steps
are now to be taken to put into prac-
tical effect their frequently declared
policy Of international cooperation to
hasten disarmament ard to prevent
future international wars II they see
clearly that the two opposing policies
offered for their choice are. one based
on political expediency tinctured with
morality and one based on the ascer-