The Washington times., 1935-01-29
BACKERS
SHUN TALK Of
PROTOCOLS
Leagues Terms for U. S.
', Entry Not Those Voted
BY Senate in 1926
BY JAMES T.. WILLIAMS, JR.

By JAMES T.. WILLIAMS, JR.
Concerning the confusing col
lection of intricate foreign docu-
ments upon which the Senators
of the United States will today
or tomorrow vote "yeS" or mo"
when their names are reached
on the roll call of the Senate,
there has been little enlighten-
ment by the advocates of Ameri-
can entrance into the League
Court.
1t has for the most part been
a one-sided debate and this for
the reason that the Senators op-
posed to plunging the United
States into the League of Nations
through the trap door of the
League Court, and on the League
terms, are the only Senators who
have shown any enthusiasm for
real discussion.
Reluctant to Debate
The supporters of the ratifica-
ton of the pending protocols
apparently have been reluctant to
debate them for one of two
reasons:
Either the Senators know full
well that these are not the con-
ditions upon which the Senate
reluctantly adopted under cloture
a resolution of ratification nine
years ago this month;
Or because the Senators, know.
ing this, did not wish their fellow
Senators to find it out.
The truth is the record that
walking delegates of the League OF
Nations in this country have for
the last six or seven years been
engaged in an effort to deceive
the Senate and the American
people regarding the Vaccinations
of the members of the League who
dragged the United States into
that war.breeding alliance by
means of the fly-paper protocols
now nearing a vote in the Senate
Instead of meeting the terms
upon which the United States
Senate had agreed, under duresS
to accept condition membership
for this country in the League
Court, the pending protocols are
merely counter-proposals of the
League which set forth the terms
upon which the member nations
of the League graciously agreed
to accept Uncle Sam as mem
ber.
Not Convention Terms
These are not the terms upon
which the national conventions OF
either the Democratic or the Re
publican party in 1928 or 1882 OF
in any years ever consented tc
give endorsement even to partial
American membership for this
country in the League Court.
These are not the terms upon
which some thousands of Amer
leans deceived by walking dele
gates for the League have affixed
their signatures to petitions that
the pending protocols be ratified
These are not the terms upon
which Calvin Coolidge ever sci
the seal of approval, and the use
of his name as we'll as that OF
the names of Theodore Roose
welt and William Mckinley to
bolster up these spurious foreign
documents, is merely additional
evidence of the false pretenses tc
which the "internationalists" in
our midst have been willing tc
stoop in order to tempt the Sen
ate to send to the junk heap the
traditional foreign policy of the
American people from George
WaShington'S time until the pres
ent.
Facts in Record
In the face of these facts, which
are all in the record where Sena
tors may read them, it is fatuous
to pretend that the pending pro
tocols are merely a "reincarna
ton" of the Senate'S ratifyine
resolution of January 81, 1926, with
its reservations, conditions anc
understandings.
No Senator who voted for the
terms fixed by the American Sen.
ate in that resolution upon the
ground that they were essential to
the protection of the United
States, can in good conscience
now vote to put this country in
the League Court on the Leagues
terms set forth in the pending
protocols.
And no Senator who has op
posed in the past or opposes in the
present the ENHANCEMENT of the
United States with the League OF
Nations can in good conscience ad
wise and consent to bring about
this entanglement by putting thil
country into the League Court or
the Leagues terms, offered to the
Senate by the League after the
League had contemptuously re
jected the terms of the Senate
set forth in its 1925 resolution.