Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

democracy. Under the guiding principles now laid down as the standard of conduct for all nations the peoples of the world may go forward in security and freedom to work out their concepts of democracy and their own ideals of freedom.

"The covenant of the League of Nations, written into the treaty of peace, must meet with the unqualified approval and support of the American working people. It is not a perfect document and perfection is not claimed for it. It does, however, mark the nearest approach to perfection that ever has been reached in the international affairs of mankind. It provides the best machinery yet devised for the prevention of war. It places human relations upon a new basis and endeavors to enthrone right and justice instead of strength and might as the arbiter of international destinies.

"It is, we feel, well to recall the adoption of the Constitution by our own Federal Government in the early days of its life. Perhaps no document in the history of the world was more attacked, criticised and opposed than was the Constitution of the United States when it was first formulated and adopted by the Congress. On several occasions that Constitution has been amended, yet no one would presume to say, because of those amendments, that the Constitution was not good when it was adopted or is not good to-day.

"Opportunity is afforded for amendments to the covenant of the League of Nations in order that the human family may from time to time make such improvements as may be needed and may so readjust its guiding rules of conduct as to make for the highest good of all the world. We declare our indorsement of the triumphs of freedom and justice and democracy as exemplified in the covenant of the League of Nations."

LEAGUE OF FREE NATIONS ASSOCIATION FAVORS COVENANT

AND CHANGES IN TREATY

The executive committee of the League of Free Nation's Association on May 27, adopted the following resolutions:

Resolved that, while the published_summary indicates the presence in the Peace Treaty of certain provisions unfavorable to future peace and incompatible with principles mutually accepted as a basis for the armistice, the one promise of remedy lies in the League Covenant;

Resolved, further, that since the treaty becomes operative when signed by representatives of three nations, and its rejection by the United States Senate would hence exclude us from any part in the im

mediate interpretation of the Covenant in its important formative period and from the execution of the treaty, it is the duty of Americans to work for the ratification of the treaty as finally signed;

Resolved, finally, that because of the acceptance of a settlement that is unsatisfactory in important respects, it becomes a still more pressing duty for American Liberals to continue unceasingly their efforts to make the League of Nations an allinclusive, truly representative, international organization, and thereby to make possible the gradual modification of all those features of the treaty that threaten future strife.

On June 6 the executive committee sent a cablegram to President Wilson which reads:

Regarding the League of Nations as the most promising feature of the Peace settlement, we would call your attention to the fact that the Covenant is seriously endangered by the distrust aroused by certain treaty provisions. Liberal opinion is emphatic on the following points: First, that Upper Silesia should not be transferred to Poland without a plebiscite. Second, that while France may justly claim the produce of the Saar coal mines for some time, there is no warrant for raising the question of sovereignty in connection with that district. Third, that the permanent transfer of Shantung to Japan would be indefensible and that, if the transfer be only nomimal and temporary, this should be made known speedily and authoritatively. Fourth, that a most dangerous feature of the treaty is the indefiniteness of its economic provisions which makes it possible to use these for the prevention of legitimate German efforts at commercial and industrial recovery. Fifth, that assurance should be given that Germany will soon be made a member of the Council of the League.

"If the league were to be composed of the most enlightened nations of the world it might be argued that we could consign to them many questions of importance, trusting to their sense of justice and equity for fair decisions.

"An examination, however, of the membership of this present league will first astonish and then arouse the indignation of every thoughtful man. It will come as a distinct shock, first, that this is a colored league of nations. That is to say, the majority of the nations composing the league do not belong to the white race of men. On the contrary, they are a conglomerate of the black, yellow, brown and red races, frequently so intermixed and commingled as to constitute an unclassifiable mongrel breed." -Senator James A. Reed.

From the Congressional Record, June 9, 1919

Mr. WILLIAMS [John Sharp Williams of Mississippi]: Mr. President, unlike the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Lodge) and unlike the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Borah), I do not view this [the treaty of peace] as a party question. The Senator from Massachusetts has already indicated that he did view it as a party question by issuing a pronunciamento to his followers upon two different occasions to wait until they could hear further from some indefinite source, supposed to be a Republican caucus. The Senator from Idaho has indicated his view that this ought to be a party question by contending that the Republican Party ought to throw itself as a party into the breach against the covenant of peace. If I am wrong about either one of these statements, I should like to be corrected right now while I am on my feet. (A pause.)

Mr. President, there was a time in the history of the United States prior to this when a great President of the United States, who had been also a great southerner and leader of the armies of the Colonies in their revolt against Great Britain, had a history written of him by the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Lodge). The Senator from Massachusetts is uniformly accorded the praise of being a very learned and very scholarly man, and what he says and what he quotes is to be received with due accord by lesser men. I am sorry to see the Senator from Massachusetts, after a conversation with the Senator from Idaho-apparently an intense conversation-has disappeared from the Chamber.

At this previous period Gen. George Washington, of the Revolution, and Pres?dent George Washington, of Virginia and of the American Union, has this said about him by the Senator from Massachusetts. I am quoting from volume II of the Life of George Washington, by the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Lodge):

In fact, his general view of the opposition

was marked by that perfect clearness which was characteristic of all his opinions when he had fully formed them. In July, 1798, he wrote to Henry Lee

These are the words of Washington which I am about to quote:

That there are in this as well as in all other countries discontented characters, I well know.

Of course, George had no regard for the Bolsheviki or the Irish-American vote or the German-American vote, but with his usual foresight he foresaw things of their ilk.

That there are in this as well as in all other countries discontented characters, I well know; as also that these characters are actuated by very different views; some good, from an opinion that the general measures of the Government are impure; some bad, and, if I might be allowed to use so harsh an expression, diabolical

Think of that adjective coming from the serene Father of his Country: diabolic! It sounds like the Wilsonphobia of to-day— inasmuch as they are not only meant to impede the measures of the Government generally, but more especially as a great means toward the accomplishment of it, to destroy the confidence which it is necessary for the people to place, until they have unequivocal proof of demerit in their public servants.

Mr. President, if Gen. George Washington, afterwards President, had had in immediate contemplation the Senator from Massachusetts and the Senator from Idaho, he could not better have expressed himself when describing their conduct toward and their words about the present Chief Magistrate, to wit:

Not only meant to impede the measures of the Government generally, but more especially as a great means toward the accomplishment of it, to destroy the confidence which it is necessary for the people to place, until they have unequivocal proof of demerit, in their public servants.

What are these men, united only on this issue, trying to do? "Not only to impede the measures of the Government generally," be

cause the Government in matters of negotiation of treaties is constituted of the Executive, but more especially, to quote the language of George Washington:

As a great means toward the accomplishment of it, to destroy the confidence which it is necessary for the people to place, until they have unequivocal proof of demerit, in their public servants.

The present Chief Magistrate of the United States is Woodrow Wilson, elected by the people, in whom sovereignty dwells. These men have been engaged for days and weeks and months in trying to destroy the confidence the American people ought to have in him as their representative. Without waiting until they have "unequivocal proof of demerit," to quote the language of George Washington, they and their foolish followers have been nagging, have been bedevilling, have been on the outside taking advantage of every little uncrossed "t" or undotted "i," or a "q" not followed by a "u," in order to arouse distrust of our representative in Europe our representative, whether we are Republicans or not; my representative, our representative; the representative of all of us, elected by us to bear our standard abroad. Where did you get your authority to represent the American people in matters of negotiation-from the State of Idaho? Not a bit. She never had any. If you had been from the old State of Virginia, I could have told you that even she never had any. You have full power to make or to amend or to modify a treaty, but you have no power to negotiate one at all.

I will not enter again into the wearisome business of quoting the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Lodge), former Senator Spooner, President Taft, and George Washington upon that question. That is too clearly settled for dispute by any man with the intelligence of a Bronx Hill goat, who recognizes no higher ambition in life than eating a tin can.

What is your right to interfere with the negotiation of a treaty? Whence proceeds it? From your State and from the Nation or from the Constitution? It proceeds from no whence. Of course, you have the general right of an American citizen to express

your views; that is a different proposition; but you force upon the Senate now, with a partisan majority and with a few men on this side of the Chamber who are seeking reelection and think it is popular, an official utterance of the Senate of the United States as a body interfering with the negotiation powers of the President. But I believe I will go on and quote the balance of what George Washington had to say. George Washington continued:

In this right I consider myself whilst I am an occupant of office, and if they were to go further and call me their slave during this period, I would not dispute the point.

Friends, do you appreciate the full pathos of that? That comes from George Washington.

If they were to go further and call me their slave during the period I would not dispute the point.

It is the habit of Senators and Presidents to call themselves public "servants," but George Washington is the only one of us who ever consented to be called a public slave, and he did it out of intellectual humility and the great magnanimity and modesty that made up the greatness of the man. I do not do it; you do not do it. I am not the slave of Mississippi; I am not the slave of the American people; I am not the slave of American public opinion. I am its servant -its hired servant, if you will-with the right to quit the job whenever I get ready. But such was the pathos of the situation presented to George Washington under circumstances like those which now face Mr. Wilson that he confesses himself a public slave.

If they were to go further and call me their slave during this period I would not dispute the point.

He further says:

But in what will this abuse terminate?

What is the abuse to which he refers? It is the abuse of the interference of other people with the constitutional right of the Executive to negotiate with foreign countries. He further says:

For I have a consolation within me that no earthly effort can deprive me of, and that

is that neither ambition nor interested motives have influenced my conduct.

Will the Senator from Idaho say, will the Senator from Massachusetts, who has retired from the Chamber, say that either "ambition or interested motives" have influenced Woodrow Wilson's conduct? Will they dare face the American people with that assertion? Will the two wings of the Republican Party coalesce with that assertion? They dare not; and neither one of them dares by itself to make it. George Washington goes on further:

The arrows of malevolence, therefore, however barbed and well pointed

Are there any two men in the Senate that are more capable of better "barbing and well pointing an arrow" than the leader of the majority of the Republican side and the leader of the minority upon that side-both probably candidates for the Presidency?

The arrows of malevolence, therefore, however barbed and well pointed, never can reach the most vulnerable part of me, though whilst I am up as a mark they will be continually aimed.

So much for George Washington.

Now I come to the lesser light-the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Lodge). Perhaps I ought to apologize for saying "the lesser light," because when he undertook to write a biography of George Washington, in a great number of particulars, he made himself the greater light. He was descended from the Cabots and Lodges and the old Federalists in Massachusetts, and their chief aim in life was to keep the Irish from getting control in Massachusetts when they began to come in there very early, which heredity was very much at variance, by the way, with the vote he cast here the other day. But the Senator-the lesser lightsays of George Washington:

He was not much given, however, to talking about his assailants.

That is Woodrow Wilson again, is it not? He did become human once when he defied that infernal Irish-American in New York and told him that "he knew more about disloyal votes in America than he himself did.” He became human again when he refused to

receive a leader of the Irish-Americans who called on him to give him instruction and advice, and who previously had by language insulted him. I wish he would become human oftener. I like for a man to become human every now and then and lose his temper.

Thomas Jefferson said of George Washington that he was very human after all; that now and then he got into a towering passion, and somebody said about him that upon the field of Germantown he "swore like an angel of the Lord." A man ought now and then to swear like an angel of the Lord. My only quarrel with Woodrow Wilson is that he does not do it oftener, better, and more strongly and more virulently, especially when he represents the American people and his opponents represent all of the hyphenates in America-all of the enemy hyphenates in America.

You have not yet introduced any resolution against Japan providing for the independence of Korea, lately conquered and very much oppressed. Why? Because you know Great Britain will be good-humored with you and Japan will not be, and because there are a lot of Irish-American votes in America, and there are no Korean votes in America. That is the honest God's truth about you. But to go on with "the lesser light." Lodge says of George Washington:

"The

He was not much given, however, to talking about his assailants. If he said anything, it was usually in the way of contemptuous sarcasm, as when he wrote to Morris: affairs of this country cannot go amiss. There are so many watchful guardians of them and such infallible guides that one is at no loss for a director at every turn."

Oh, they come from Massachusetts-these infallible guides-they come from Idaho; they come from Missouri; they come from all around the country, as you know. They are such "infallible guides" that "one is at no loss for a director at every turn." One may be at a bit of a loss about following the directions if he is a good American, an unhyphenated patriot, and devoted to his own country, without any regard to a "fatherland" in Europe-if he is just an American and nothing more, and spews out hyphens. Washington continues:

. But of these matters I shall say little.

That is the end of the quotation from Washington. Then, says "the lesser light"— and I apologize for the phrase:

If these attacks had any effect on him, it was only to make him more determined in carrying out his purposes.

I guess that is what you mean when you say Wilson has got a "stiff, long lower jaw," that he is "stubborn" and does not listen to what you are saying. Who else is listening to it? Do you imagine France is listening to it? Do you imagine Italy is listening to it? Germany is listening to it, and Germany is making the most out of it that she can, with the hope of getting better terms-poor, foolish Germany, catching at straws.

Mr. President, there is not a great deal of much importance connected with what I have just read, except the fact that it comes from the Senator from Massachusetts. If the Senator from Idaho had been a great scholar and had written a great many books of one sort or another, I expect perhaps I would have found something from him to quote. I have served with the Senator from Idaho for a long time, and have very high regard for him; in fact, personally, I am very fond of him.

I do not want to put myself in the attitude of a preacher and of reading him a lecture. God knows I have got no right to take that attitude toward any human being on the

face of the earth; but I would in a friendly way counsel him to consider more the atmosphere of the world and the atmosphere of the United States and a little bit less the atmosphere of Washington Post and Washington Republican bosses and of the Senate Chamber.

Some time ago the Senator from Idaho said that ex-President of the United States Taft was a sort of walking corpse. Taft came back in his inimitable, good-natured way and said "yes"; he recognized that, but he was trying to keep from having more walking corpses on the surface of the earth. I would advise the Senator from Idaho that, if his real ambition is to be President of the United States, he had better study the opinion of the people of the United States and not the opinion merely of the partisan majority of the Senate of the United States at this time. Even that will change before the vote is cast, because the people will by then be heard from, and even Senators are just politicians.

MR. BORAH: The Senator from Mississippi would not want me to take the advice of ex-President Taft as how to become President, would he?

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, the advice of the ex-President as to how to become President would be very bad advice; but the advice or the example of the Senator from Idaho as to how to be the next President would be infinitely worse advice.

"My Republican friends are, I believe, making a grave tactical mistake when so many of them array themselves against President Wilson's leadership in their treatment of the League of Nations. I am not for President Wilson politically, and have twice voted against him. I regret exceedingly that President Wilson did not invite two of our biggest Republicans to go with him to Paris-men like Mr. Root and Mr. Taft, or Mr. Root and Mr. Hughes, or Mr. Root and Mr. Knox-for in that case the country would have felt a double assurance of confidence in the treaty, whatever its nature may have been. But the treaty has been made with the League of Nations an indestructible part of it, and there are two reasons why the whole world should acclaim it and support it.

"In the first place, the purpose of the

League of Nations is benevolent, and not evil. It is meant to do good to every people and not to oppress any. If the time should come when it should be construed with a hostile or unfriendly motive it would dissolve by its own terms, and we in America would always have a potent voice in every interpretation of its meaning, with the unquestioned right of rejecting a disadvantageous construction of its terms. In the second place, its sole aim is to avoid war, and we know now that another war, with the art of race murder developing with such frightful progress, will destroy the world and all it contains. If a partisan opportunity is needful it surely cannot and should not be found in this League of Nations, but it exists abundantly in other causes."-Samuel Harden Church, President of the Carnegie Institute, Pittsburgh.

« AnteriorContinuar »