The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1932-01-27
Bakers League Statement

Whether we who believe in the league like it or
not, a vast educational process must be accomplished
before America makes up her mind about entering the
League of Nations.
Nothing could be more futile than participation
which represented divided America, with a narrow
technical margin one way or the other. That has
been the trouble with prohibition. No great national
policy is effective unless it carries with it the I'M
questioned sanction of public sentiment.
Accordingly, Newton D. Baker is sensible and prac-
tical when he says that he would not take the United
States into the league, if he had the power to do so,
until there is an informed and convinced majority
sentiment in favor of that action in the United
States"
AS a nation, we have been %laboring under a lot
of illusions about how our people view the League
of Nations.
The illusions run back to 1920, when Cox made
the league his chief issue against Harding. Cox lost
by a large margin. Harding's victory was hailed by
opponents of the league as a decisive defeat for the
league and for Wilsonianism.
AS a matter of fact, if we will recall 1920, we will
remember that the election of Harding was chiefly
one Of a return to normally" and I'VE want a
change"-sentiments altogether domestic in their i'm
pulse.
The league issue, which Cox so energetically at
tempted to make outstanding, bored most voters, who
reacted at the ballot box on emotions entirely disaS-
sociated from the league.
Cox tried to make his campaign stand on a single,
unified league slogan. Cox failed. And any one who
voted in that year. if he will recollect the political
circumstances then prevailing, will admit that the
league did not dominate the 1920 campaign, but was
a comparatively minor factor.
Since then, however, league opponents assiduously
have attempted to set up as gospel that the league was
voted down; that the American people Spurned the
idea; and that, accordingly, it should be buried for
ever,
The farther away 1920 gets the more they are in
clined to get away with their argument.
But the true picture has shown the two parties
divided on the league question. as they have been oil
vided on that other great party-splitting issue-pro-
hibition.
Many Democrats are for it; many Democrats are
against it; many Republicans are for it, and many
against n
IsoIationism and internationalsm are not bound
ed by party lines.
Baker, the most intense apostle of the league, in
his statement, recognizes the realities. He comedies
that much observation and education are called for
before the nation can be a united nation on an in
ternational question over which, if we are divided.
we tall.
fne educational process. unfortunately, after all
these years, must be a long one. Long, because dur
ing most of the time since 1920 we have been en-
crossed in the trivialities of prosperity. and still bored
by anything which diverted us from the enjoyment
of them.
we are now, however, up against adversely and
threats OF another World war, and accordingly are
most susceptible to a serious consideration of such a
question as the league. The time for education is
ripe.
The recent Manchurian happenings have been do
ing an educational Job in showing that the issue is
one. not Of Manchuria, but of peace machinery; that
If the only available peace machinery fails we are
hack where we were before 1914; that such failure
inevitably will be spelled in terms of another Euro
pean conflict into which we will be drawn, and the
probably resultant suicide of white civilization.
Of all the peace machinery equipment, the League
OF Nations is tarthest advanced. AS contrasted with
the Kellogg pact, the nine-power treaty and other
pacts, it alone has teeth.
SO what it all boils down to is-do we use the
league. and play our part in 1t. and take our risks
along with it. or do we stand BY and shirk ii, and