Atlanta tri-weekly journal. [volume] (Atlanta, Ga.) 1920-19??, 1923-01-30
PRESIDENT SCOUTS
VIEW Of AMERICAN
WAR RESPONSIBILITY
BY DAVID LAWRENCE
Chicago Daily News-Copyright, 1929
DOWNRIGHT 1922

copyright, 1875
WASHINGTON, Jan. 27.-Presi-
dent Harding has challenged advo-
Gates of American membership in
the League of Nations to prove that
America or the world in general
would have been any better OF today
in the matter of collecting repara-
tfons from Germany if the United
States had joined the league.
For many months since the Euro
pean crisis has been developing
there haec been statements in the
press and by letters on the part of
Republicans and Democrats on the
part of pro-league way of thinking
that the deadlock over Preparations
could have been averted had Ameri-
ca been a full-fledged participant in
stead of a casual observer in Euro
pean affairs.
Harding's Question
The president, without desiring to
reopen the old controversies, has
good-naturedly called the attention
OF these critics to the fact that I'M
der the covenant of the league,
unanimous action is required for ev-
cry important step taken by the
COuuClI. I1OW, ASKS ME. I1dIOIllS III
effect, would France have been per
suaded to give he rconsent to a re-
vision of the Versailles treaty pro-
visions about reparations or any of
the other claims which she feels are
absolutely just? Would the pleas
O. the allied powers in the meetings
of the council of the league have
been any more effective than teh urg-
inc Af iv1O l.
going on for so many months?
Plainly Mr.. Harding doesn't think
the council of the league even with
America actively participating would
have done any more good than the
informal petitions of Secretary
Hughes through diplomatic channels
or Lord Curzon, the British foreign
secretary, through his Spokesman.
The French have shown such tenaci-
ty that Mr.. Harding does not think
they would have yielded to the
league or any other body. In fact,
the conception which the president
and Secretary Hughes have of their
functions and power is one of linn
tied jurisdiction. They do not think
one sovereign nation can make any
other sovereign nation do anything
which the latter doesn't want to do.
At first this was considered to be
the main fault of the covenant of
the league. It was called super
government" on the theory that ev-
cry nation surrendered its sovereign
ty to the council of the league, which
became the supreme government and
could make nations take up arms
against their own will. The de
tenders of the covenant said this
was erroneous and insisted that
unanimous action was required to
make the councils work effective.
Moral Influence
Friends of the League of Nations
covenant have declared that the
greatest value of the league was in
the exercise Of moral influence rath-
er than physical force. They con-
tend today that if America had joined
three years ago, a spirit of concilia-
ton and mediation would have been
brought to European controversies
which would have prevented them
from being brought to a head as they
have been in recent weeks, but their
strongest point is that Germany
would never have dared to resist
France if the action of the league
council had been unanimous and if
Germany were facing the united
opinion of the whole world. In fact,
the argument resembles very much
the speculation that always will eX-
istA as to whether Germany would
have gone to war in 1914 if she had
dreamed that England would enter
the fray at once in defense of Bel
GUM, or if she had had the remotest
suspicion that the United States
could be dragged into the conflict
body and soul.
Nobody will probably be able to
answer Mr.. Harding's challenge to
the satisfaction of the historian.
The truth is, the League of Nations
is today in existence and not inter
ferring in the dispute over the Ruhr.