Evening star., 1922-02-23
The Consent Of the Senate.

President Harding's capacity for
teamwork and the frank, friendly
way in which he sought the Senate's
cooperation have won the fight for
ratification of the conference treaties,
in the opinion of most American
papers The Harrisburg Patriot
(democratic) pictures the President
as "cringing before the Senate" in
his personal appeal to that body for
ratification. and. in milder phrase. the
New York Times independent demo-
cratic) represents him as beseeching
the senators to behave. and mot to
be so unreasonable. so captious. 30
partisan as they were two years
ago." The Pittsburgh Chronicle-Tele-
graph republican). however. ex-
presses a more widespread estimate
Of the Presidents address when 1t
says that 1t had in it neither suppli-
cation nor dictation, that it was in
fact the personification of one
branch of the federal government
speaking to another possessing equal
authority in Il spirit of the utmost
friendliness and confidence and in
viting cooperation in a noble and
necessary work"
There is much recalling of another
scene in which an American Presi-
dent presented treaty for the ap-
proyal of an American Senate, but
strong contrast Is noted by many
writer's, especially, of course. among
republican papers. Mr.. Hardings ap-
proach is in striking contrast to MI.
Wilson's. says the New Haven Jour-
al-Courier independently, the former
seeks ratification" the latter de
manded it," In the Presidents ad.
dress there is no order to sign here.
and more important. to both tho
Manchester Union independent. re-
publican) and the Boston Transcript
(independent republican,. because
the treaties as they go to the Senate
are accompanied by all the onciai
documents bearing on them: there Is
also mo steel box"
However. in presenting them Mr.
Harding used some "very bad arSu-
ments," the New York World (demo,
cratic) thinks. to support very gooo
treaties" or, as the Christian Science
Monitor Gndependent expresses tne
same idea, 'the treaties are muSa Sa
more admirable than the argument ne
advanced in pleading for favorabie
action on them" The arguments thus
called into question are those IN
which the President emphasizes the
assurance that nothing in any o!
these tredtleS COHihtltS tho .
States. or any power, to any kind OF
an alliance, ENHANCEMENT or involve
ment." and that there Isl mo surren.
der of sovereignty" That is pure
makebeleve." declares the Newark
News Gndependent); spells and in
cantations," the World adds. to secure
votes. "If we take the words OF the
President to mean what they mean IN
everyday English" the Charlotte
News (democratic) thinks we must ar
rive at the conclusion that the en-
tanglements Of the Versailles treaty
we're not more intricate and involving
in any detail than is this pact" since
on the Presidents own testimony.
ait makes the United States answera.
Bile in any enterprise" growing out or
an effort to q signatory- In fact'
the Winston-Salem Journal tdemo-
cratic), interprets the new treaties as
definite surrenders" than those ne
But the New York Herald dnde-
nendent), and the Philadelphia Bulle-
tin independent republican, insist,
in the words of the former. that each
nation Is left as free from entangling
alliances and as sovereign in its
bowers as on the opening day OF the
conference" However, as the Nash
Vile Tennessee independent demo-
cratic) sees it, there should be no
ty is surrendered;" that would better
be admitted, but it should not oper-
ate to defeat the agreement that has
been reached" for, the Rocky Noun
tain News fDenver, independently
maintains. "entangiing alliances" as
. political warcry has been worked
pretty hardSef lstss and Il does not