For the Covenant

ADDRESS BY DAVID STARR JORDAN

DR. JORDAN: I want to use three seconds of my time in protesting against the word debate. I wish not to enter into formal debate, but simply to tell you some thoughts or ideas of mine, and most of what might be called an argument for the affirmative has been given by Professor Robinson.

The League of Nations was not drawn up by me, and there are a good many things in the original draft that I do not like at all. Article X does not suit me, and it is not dead yet, so far as we can tell by the papers, which fact does not prove very much. On the other hand, two things are absolutely certain, that the world cannot be saved unless we can have a community of free peoples as against the absolute anarchy which has prevailed for the last two thousand years. The second thing is that the people of the civilized world are almost solidly in favor of some sort of community of states or society of free peoples or league of nations. There is not, I believe, in Europe a single government that could stand against this will of the people if the question were brought up squarely, Shall we have a league or agreement for peace, or shall we go on as we did before?

I believe that it would be possible for Mr. Wilson, if he were so cruel or so tactless as to do it, to unhorse any ministry in Europe, by accusing it of standing definitely in the way of this society of nations which is absolutely essential to the peace of the world.

Lasting peace cannot be had without some such agreement, either in form such as now proposed, with constitution, by-laws and the like, or in some other fashion. It must be had.

There are two ways of approaching this document. One is to make it out just as bad as possible, and the other way is to make the best of it, because any league whatsoever is better than nothing. Because a league, insofar as it goes, will pledge something or somebody against the anarchy which is a necessary result of the claim of the absolute sovereignty of nations.

The absolute irresponsibility to any law, moral or physical, stood behind the crime of Germany. The German state was a gigantic ideal entity existing in a moral vacuum. Theoretically all other states have existed in the same moral vacuum except insofar as their people themselves have asserted the values of right and wrong. In theory every state that exists as a political organization, some forty-eight of them now, is a sovereign state, recognizing no responsibility of right or duty-only the fear of other states holding it in order.

Now, there are two ideas of government that have struggled for a long time together, one against the other. Lord Bacon defines these as the "empire of man over man" and the "empire of man over nature." The one holds that men should have order, liberty, prosperity as a condition imposed from above. The other that men should co-operate to bring about these desirable things. Democracy stands for liberty, all the liberty there is that does not interfere with the liberty of others; it stands for order, because order means non-interference with the liberty of others; and the purpose of order and liberty both, I take it, is justice—that is, that every man and woman should make the most out of life.

The theory of domination demands that order should be maintained by force, without considering the will of the peoples concerned. And in this it is assumed that the powers above "can do no wrong." "The king can do no wrong," was an idea current for centuries. It was a superstition. Superstition is a belief in something that you know is not true; the kings made such hideous examples of wrongdoing that the formula was gradually shifted. It was then the church that could do no wrong, being responsible to nobody. Then as freedom slowly broadened down, we have the same delusion applied to the state. The state could do no wrong, and with state and church more or less and the king joined together Bismarck created the invincible German empire, which has now fallen to the dust. It was bound to fall, and bound to end in anarchy, because law enforced from above, without either mandate of consent of the people, is no law at all. When the reign of terrorism passes, the reign of terror sets in. Bismarckism and Bolshevism are opposite sides of the same shield. Each calls for the other, as its antidote. Whoever rules in a country sooner or later rules in his own interest. A democracy is a country that is not ruled, but served. The officials in a democracy are servants and not rulers. We use old names, but they should have new meanings. The President of the United States is simply our agent over in Europe to represent our ideas. Because he represents our ideas and the ideas of the democratic people of the world, an authority he wields not on account of his methods of administration, but because he carries the mandate of our people. He is our agent, Republican as well as Democrat. The League of Nations is not of his creation. All through the ages from Isaiah and Euripides down, men have been framing leagues of peace of one form or another. When I was in France in 1913 I saw a draft of the league as conceived by Leon Bourgeois, one of the chief authors of the present draft. His central thought at that time was this, "peace is the duration of law." "La paix est la duration de loi." That is all that

peace means, the duration of law, as against war, which is the defiance of all law. A good many men in this country and in England and in France as well as in Germany and in Austria have worked on covenants of peace in the same fashion and with the same spirit.

Now, the main feature of a league of free people does not lie in the details of its verbiage. Within certain limits it matters little what the language is. It is the spirit which counts. An agreement involving three or four hundred millions of people is governed by public opinion. It is mainly essential that it should start right. If you have a document which pledges a half dozen or a dozen men, the agreement ought to be drawn carefully by a lawyer; but a league becomes a succession of scraps of paper if it does not touch the hearts of the people of the world. In proportion as it meets world needs, it will develop world loyalties. If it is really a war to end war, it will be backed by the spirit of humanity, which no temporary official dare long oppose. Difficulties in the way there may be many, but a difficulty is not an argument against action. It is the duty of statesmanship to master difficulties and by falling into line with the public opinion of the world. The weakness of Germany is that public opinion has been systematically suppressed under the system of Bismarck. The nation under his rule was buttressed inside and out as no nation had ever been before. The league should release public opinion from the shackles of militarism.

I do not defend the document as it stands. Its authors call for criticism of its words, not of its purposes. It is undoubtedly behind the times, perhaps a hundred years behind, as has been urged, but it is a thousand years ahead of the anarchy which has prevailed in Europe. ever since the fall of the Roman Empire. It may not be a very good agreement, but any world league is better than none.

I think it is a mistake for us to insist on the Monroe doctrine as part of the league, and for this reason, that it is asking for something. We went into this war asking for nothing whatever. Just as soon as we insist on our supposed interests somebody else will do the same, asking for concessions we think should be denied. Most natural demands are selfish. The document itself, as Mr. Wilson said some time ago, includes the real Monroe doctrine. It extends it over the whole world. If you should read, as some of our senators have failed to do, the messages of Monroe bearing upon this subject, you will see that this is true, The proclamation of the doctrine followed the "Holy Alliance" of the four great absolute monarchs of that time. Its lofty pretentions degenerated, naturally, into secret treaties, which provided that the forces of the four great dynasties should be used absolutely to crush out democracy wherever that heresy appeared on the continent of Europe. The

idea that the common people, owned by the king, should have a word to say in his government, was to be utterly stamped out. In accord with these secret treaties, the autocrats crushed out democracy in Spain, democracy in Hungary, in Greece, and for the time being in France as well. But the Premier of England, Canning, refused to join the "Holy Alliance." It was he who suggested, to John Quincy Adams, I believe, our minister at London, that if this Holy Alliance would not allow democracy in Europe, then America should say, "We will not allow autocracy to extend its hold in America." Thus this document was written by John Quincy Adams with the endorsement of Canning, and with the help more or less of Madison and Jefferson, of Monroe, who became responsible for it. The doctrine said, in fact, in two or three different sentences with the same meaning: "It is impossible that the allied powers should extend their political system to any portion of either continent without endangering our peace and happiness." The complete verbiage of it I shall not venture to quote, but this is the substance and this is all that we have the right to call the Monroe Doctrine or to attribute to President Monroe. It does not mean that he have an overlordship over these countries; it does not mean that we have a right to prevent a Japanese from leasing a rice field in Sonora or to fish for turtles in Magdalena Bay; it does not mean the right to make an international issue out of things that are none of our business. It means nothing except that no autocratic government is to extend its power over American states. The League of Nations asserts that autocratic rule shall no longer exist on any continent. To insist on the "Monroe Doctrine" in addition is as though we should apply the prohibition edicts to the United States and California, or any other district already included. I know that various propositions, with or without authority, have been subsequently added to the Monroe doctrine, but the genuine Monroe doctrine must be limited to the actual words of Monroe. My objection is not to the doctrine itself, nor even to its inclusion in the form proposed, however unnecessary that may seem to be. I would not have the United States ask for something special to itself. It weakens our own position while giving some other nation the right to ask for a concession it should not receive.

I think it is not true that the League of Nations has delayed the treaty of peace. That is a common expression, but apparently not wellgrounded. No one seemed ready for rational terms of peace. It would have been well to have had the war ended at once, to "heal by first intention," as surgeons say of deep wounds. To close it right up will save a lot of trouble. But it was not possible to do that, because certain of the states that are associated with us wanted certain things outside

of the fourteen points on which the armistice rested, while to others. had been made promises at total variance with the policy of the United States. We entered the war in the hope that we might end war. We did not go in with the intention of putting three million Germans under the control of Poland, nor to give the long stretch of rocky inlets along the Dalmatian coast to Italy. We had no mandate to define strategic boundaries for one nation or another. The League of Nations, if it becomes a reality, provides for something stronger and better than any strategic boundary. You cannot have the two things at once; you cannot mix up military power, strategic boundaries and invincible fortresses with the idea of moral forces governing the world. It is the failure to agree on the peace terms that has delayed the peace, and not the attempt to build up a society of nations.

And in this long delay this conference has been forced to consider many matters with which it had nothing to do. It has no mandate to deal with the Irish question; it has nothing to do with Korea; it had nothing to do with the equality of Japan, beyond the formal admission on equal terms of Japan to its councils; it cannot deal with the problems of the Japanese emigrant. I am informed by Japanese friends that the democratic group of Japan, now in power in Tokyo, were very much opposed to raising irrelevant matters, useful in local politics, but having no pertinence in the Paris conference. Internal questions as to immigration and tariffs and the like, must be settled by the nations concerned. In a broad way, the better the nations understand one another, the less likely they are to have friction over questions of this type.

But it is not for a little group in Paris now to settle these internal questions. The things they ought to settle are of international import. The first of these to get rid of autocratic government, that is government for which the people are not responsible, the turn of events has already accomplished.

It seems to me that the only real cause of war lies there, that the other causes and incentives will fade away when it is no longer possible for a few men or even one to make war "at the drop of the hat." The greatest day in modern history is the 11th of November, 1918. On that day some two or three hundred kings, princes and dukes, grand or otherwise, were swept into the scrap heaps of history. These ranged from the grandiose Hohenzollerns, Wettelsbachs and Wettins down to little dukelets in debt each week for their laundry bills. These constituted the framework of autocracy. They are gone forever. Whatever may happen to Germany or Austria or Russia, nothing can bring them back again; nor can any condition as bad ever reappear. Even if all