New Britain herald., 1924-11-20

retralned from going to Eurore to
 oe'p settle the problem of peace at 'he sourco of its difficulties. If is sald that had he entrusted his 'deals 10 Col. House or other trained dip'omats or politico.statesmen he would have received just as much credit for any successes and mIcbt not have been blamed for the folI- urcs' II, c, Wells Is among tho prominent historians who have raIlcd against the Wilson pleasure party" 10 Europe at the close of the war. and there are others who seem 10 share his views, and the views of Stced.
 Yet when it Is granted that tho war president male a serIous blunder in injecting his personality and his fralltIcs into the maelstrom ot Versailles ignohle bickeringq, if remains fact tha. after all tho mistakes were chaDkcd upon the blackboard - and those Of Wilson were no more serious or numerous than those Of Lloyd-Georre and Cleihenceau-- Wilson brought back what he considered the crownine achievement Of his idealism - the League of Nations covenant. Just as the promulgation Of his Fourteen Points had brought the Germans 10 willingness to accept peace, so was he successful in bringing 10 fruition the idea of League to conserve peace. rehabiitate war wrecked nations and provide machinery for the future settling Of international disputes without re. course 10 the sword.
 Wilson's greatest fault was that he deceived himself as 10 the char acter of the political cabal in the senate. He did not think that it was in human hearts to sink to such depths as to attack the League idea for purely partisan reasons; hs perhaps ealized there would be ! opposition to the League in some sections Of American opinion, but he believed If necessary a campaign of, education could have nullifed such opposition. He did not expect . opposition on political grounds; he did not expect opposition by sona- { tors merely because the League had been engineered and created by a Democratic president. whereas they would have been glad to embrace 1t . had it been produced by a Repub- lican president.
 And that is the crux of the whole opposition that developed in the senate. It was not so much A oues- tion of a super-state and the fan cied loss of American sovereignty: the chief fact that bothered League opponents in the senate was that Wilson was a Democratic president, and the League was his product, and to accept Ii would have lent . additional prestige 10 his name, fame and party.
 Had Charles F. Hughes been elected in 1916 instead Of Wilson, and had Ve entered the war under the aegis of a Republican adminis- tration. and had Hughes returned from peace conference with q League Of Nations covenant as- suming he would have possessed the idealism and faith in humanity of Wilson 10 force such a scheme from reluctant European states men the case would have been ; entirely different. The same sena- torlal plotters who rigged up all manner Of petty objections to the League would in such case have been supporters Of every line and ?, word Of it; not one would have sus- pec"ed the existence of q super erote Or the loss Of sovereignty. I
 Steed, Wels, Page and the rest ot them can wear out typewriters in writing books about the sad aftermath Of the war. or tf.ey can dictate their books until their tongues drop out; but they cannot alter this self-evident fact.
 And what Of the suForhcatod rpli,ica) arguments Of the Lodges, Braudcg"es and other reconrtl- ahics as to the League? If they ar- pue4 in America they applied equally well 70 those nations who joined the League, Either, by s7urnirg the League, we monopo- lzod the worlds wisdom, or other nations. hy joining it, had moro wisdom.
 Only a for nations are outside of the League --- 'hc United States, Germany Mexico Russia, Afgani- san and feu small municipalities. Germany has made application to cvter; NeTjco has followed tha course or tho United States; Russia las been o7 the outs with the rest of tho world: Afrhanistan probably fears the foague hecauso Of its in h'hitions against the slave traffic.