Obrázky stránek
PDF
ePub

poning a treaty because it contains a constitution of a league of nations deemed by the President necessary to the kind of peace which all seek.

. . . In the dark background is the threatening specter of Bolshevism, hard, cruel, murderous, uncompromising, destructive of Christian civilization, militant in pressing its hideous doctrines upon other peoples, and insidious in its propaganda among the lowest element in every country. Confronted with the chaos and the explosive dangers of Bolshevism throughout all the countries of Europe, a League of Nations must be established to settle controversies peaceably and to enforce the settlement

Were the United States to withdraw, the League would be nothing but a return to the system of alliances and the balance of power. We would witness a speedy recurrence of war in which the United States would be as certainly involved as it was in this war. New inventions for the destruction of men and peoples would finally result in world suicide, while in the interval there would be a story of progressive competition in armaments, with all their heavy burdens upon peoples already burdened almost to the point of exhaustion. With such a prospect, and to avoid such results, the United States should not hesitate to take its place with the other responsible nations of the world and make the light concessions and assume the light burdens involved in membership in the League.

No critic of the League, has offered a single constructive suggestion to meet the crisis that I have thus summarily touched upon. The resolution of the Senate does not suggest or refer in any way to machinery by which the function of the League of Nations in steadying Europe and maintaining the peace agreed upon in the treaty shall be

secured. Well may the President, therefore, decline to comply with the suggestions of the proposed resolution. Well may he say when he returns with the treaty, of which the covenant shall be a most important and indispensable part, "If you would postpone peace, if you would defeat it, you can refuse to ratify the treaty. Amend it by striking out the Covenant and you will leave confusion worse confounded, with the objects of the war unattained and sacrificed and Europe and the world in chaos."

. . . Whatever nation secures the control of the seas will make the United States its ally, no matter how formal and careful its neutrality, because it will be the sole customer of the United States in food, raw material and war necessities. Modern war is carried on in the mines and the workshops and on the farm, as well as in the trenches. The former are indispensable to the latter. Hence the United States will certainly be drawn in, and hence its interests are inevitably involved in the preservation of European peace. These conditions and circumstances are so different from those in Washington's day and are so unlike anything which he could have anticipated that no words of his, having relation to selfish, offensive and defensive alliances, should be given any application to the present international status.

Objection is made that the Covenant destroys the Monroe Doctrine. The Monroe Doctrine was announced and adopted to keep European monarchies from overthrowing the independence of, and fastening their system upon, governments in this hemisphere. It has been asserted in various forms, some of them extreme I presume that no one now would attempt to sustain the declarations of Secretary Olney in his correspondence with Lord Salisbury. But all will probably agree that the sum and substance of the Monroe

[ocr errors]

Doctrine is that we do not propose in our own interest to allow European nations or Asiatic nations to acquire, beyond what they now have, through war or purchase or intrigue, territory, political power or strategical opportunity from the countries of this hemisphere. Article X of the Constitution of the League is intended to secure this to all signatory nations, except that it does not forbid purchase of territory.

[ocr errors]

-

In recent speeches in the Senate the Monroe Doctrine has been enlarged beyond what can be justified. Those who seek to set up a doctrine which would make the Western hemisphere a preserve in which we may impose our sovereign will on other countries in what we suppose to be their own interest because, indeed, we have done that in the past should not be sustained. Our conquests of Western territory made for civilization have increased our own usefulness and the happiness of those who now occupy that territory. But we have reached a stage in history when the world's progress should be determined and secured under just and peaceful conditions, and attempted progress through conquest by powerful nations should be prevented.

To suppose that, with the great trade relations between North America and Europe, we can isolate ourselves is to look backward, not forward. It does not face existing conditions.

The European nations desire our entrance into this League not that they may control America but to secure our aid in controlling Europe; and I venture to think that they would be relieved if the primary duty of keeping peace and policing this Western hemisphere were relegated to us and our Western colleagues. I object, however, to such a reservation as

was contained in the Hague Conference against entangling alliances, because the recommendation was framed before this war and contained provisions as to the so-called policy against entangling alliances that are inconsistent with the present needs of this nation and of the rest of the world if a peaceful future is to be secured to both. I would favor, however, a recognition of the Monroe Doctrine as I have stated it above by specific words in the covenant, and with a further provision that the settlement of purely American questions should be remitted primarily to the American nations, with machinery like that of the present League, and that European nations should not intervene unless requested to do so by the American nations.

Objection is made to this League on constitutional grounds. ... The Supreme Court has over and over again, through Mr. Chief Justice Marshall, indicated that the United States was a sovereign nation capable of dealing with other nations as such, and seized of all the powers inferable from sovereignty. It is said that the League will change the form of our government. But no function or discretion which it now exercises is taken from any branch of the government. It is asserted that the Covenant delegates to an outside tribunal, viz., the Executive Council, the power vested by the Constitution in Congress or the Senate. But the Executive Council has no power but to recommend to the nations of the League courses which those nations may accept or reject, save in the matter of increasing the limit of armament, to which, after full consideration, a nation shall have consented. In our case it would be Congress that had considered and consented to the limitation. Neither the Executive Council nor the Body of Delegates, in the machinery for the peaceful settling of differences, does

other than recommend a compromise which the United States does not, under the League, covenant to obey. In all other respects these bodies are mere instruments for conference by representatives for devising plans which are submitted to the various governments of the League for their voluntary acceptance. No obligation of the United States under the League is fixed by action of either the Executive Council or the Body of Delegates.

Then it is said we have no right to agree to levy an embargo and a boycott. It is true that Congress determines what our commercial relations shall be with other countries of the world. It is true that if a boycott is to be levied Congress must levy it in the form of an embargo, as that which was levied by Congress in Jefferson's administration and sustained by the Supreme Court, with John Marshall at its head. It is also true that Congress might repudiate the obligation entered into by the treaty-making power and refuse to levy such an embargo. But none of these facts would invalidate or render unconstitutional a treaty by which the obligation of the United States was assumed. In other words, the essence of sovereign power is that while the sovereign may make a contract it retains the power to repudiate it if it chooses to dishonor its promises. That does not render null the original obligation or lessen its binding moral force. The nations of Europe are willing to accept, as we must be willing to accept from them, mutual promises, the one in consideration of the other, in the confidence that neither will refuse to comply with such promises honorably entered into.

Finally, it is objected that we have no right to agree to arbitrate issues since we might, by arbitration, lose our territorial integrity or political independence. This is a mar

« PředchozíPokračovat »