Obrázky stránek
PDF
ePub

against the criminal and the unjust, and to maintain the guaranty of life, liberty and property. The analogy between the domestic community and that of nations is sufficently close to justify and require what is in fact an international police force. The attitude of those who oppose using force or a threat of force to compel nations to keep the peace is really like that of the modern school of theoretical anarchists, who maintain that if all restraint were removed and there were no government, and the children and youth, and men and women were trained to self-responsibility, every member of society would know what his or her duty was and would perform it. They assert that it is the existence of restraint that leads to the violation of right. I may be permitted to remark that with modern fads of education we have gone far in the direction of applying this principle of modern anarchy in the discipline and education of our children and youth, but I do not think the result can be said to justify the theory if we can judge from the strikes of school children or from the general lack of discipline and respect for authority that the rising generation manifests. The time has not come when we can afford to give up the threat of the police and the use of force to back up and sustain the obligation of moral duty.

The third objection is that it would be unconstitutional for the United States, through its treaty-making power, to enter into such a League. This objection is based on the fact that the Constitution vests in Congress the power to declare war. It is said that this League would transfer the power to declare war away from Congress to some foreign council, in which the United States would only have a representative. This objection grows out of a misconception of the effect of

a treaty and a confusion of ideas. The United States makes its contract with other nations under the Constitution through the President and two-thirds of the Senate, who constitute the treaty-making power. The President and the Senate have a right to bind the United States to any contract with any other nation covering the subject matter within the normal field of treaties For this purpose the President and the Senate are the United States. When the contract comes to be performed, the United States is to perform it through that department of the government which, by the Constitution, should perform it, should represent the government and should act for it Thus, the treaty-making power may bind the United States to pay to another country under certain conditions a million dollars. When the conditions are fulfilled, then it becomes the duty of the United States to pay the million dollars. Under the Constitution, only Congress can appropriate the million dollars from the treasury. Therefore, it becomes the duty of Congress to make that appropriation. It may refuse to make the appropriation. If it does so, it dishonors the written obligation of the United States. It has the power either to perform the obligation or to refuse to perform it. That fact, however, does not make the action of the treaty power in binding the United States to pay the money unconstitutional. So the treaty-making power may bind the United States under certain conditions to make war. When the conditions arise requiring the making of war, then it becomes the duty of Congress honorably to perform the obligation of the United States. Congress may shirk this duty and exercise its power to refuse to declare war. It thus dishonors a binding obligation of the United States. But the obligation was

entered into in the constitutional way and it is to be performed in the constitutional way.

It is said that to enter into such a compact would require us to maintain a standing army. I do not think this follows at all. If we become, as we should become, reasonably prepared to resist unjust military aggression, and have a navy sufficiently large, and coast defenses sufficiently well equipped to constitute a first line of defense, and an army which we could mobilize into half a million trained men within two months, we would have all the force needed to do our part of the police work in resisting the unlawful aggression of any one member of the League against another.

Fourth, it has been urged that for us to become a party to this League is to give up our Monroe Doctrine, under which we ought forcibly to resist any attempt on the part of European or Asiatic powers to subvert an independent government in the Western Hemisphere or to take from such a government any substantial part of its territory. It is a sufficient answer to this objection to say that a question under the Monroe Doctrine would come under that class of issues which must be submitted to a Council of Conciliation. Pending this, of course, the status quo must be maintained. An argument and recommendation of compromise would follow. If we did not agree to the compromise and proceeded forcibly to resist violation of the Doctrine, we should not be violating the terms of the League by hostilities thereafter. More than this, as Professor Wilson, of Harvard, the wellknown authority upon international law, has pointed out, we are already under a written obligation to delay a year before beginning hostilities in respect to any question arising between us and most of the Great Powers, and this neces

sarily includes questions relating to a violation of the Monroe Doctrine. It is difficult to see, therefore, how the obligation of such a League as this would put us in any different position from that which we now occupy in regard to the Monroe Doctrine.

Finally, I come to the most formidable objection, which is that entering into such a League by the United States would be a departure from the policy that it has consistently pursued since the days of Washington, in accordance with the advice of his farewell address that we enter into no entangling alliances with European countries. Those of us who support the proposals of the League believe that were Washington living to-day he would not consider the League as an entangling alliance. He had in mind such a treaty as that the United States made with France, by which we were subjected to great embarrassment when France attempted to use our ports as bases of operation against England while we were at peace with England. He certainly did not have in mind a union of all the Great Powers to enforce peace; and while he did dwell, and properly dwelt, on the very great advantage that the United States had in her isolation from European disputes, it was an isolation which does not now exist. In his day we were only three and a half millions of people, with thirteen States strung along the Atlantic seaboard. We were five times as far from Europe as we are now in speed of transportation, and many times as far in speed of communication. We are now one hundred millions of people between the two oceans and between the Canada line and the Gulf. We face the Pacific with California, Oregon and Washington, which alone makes us a Pacific power. We own Alaska, the northwestern corner of our continent, a dominion of immense extent with

natural resources as yet hardly calculable and with a country capable of supporting a considerable population. This makes us a close neighbor of Russia across the Bering Straits; while ownership of islands in that sea brings us close to Japan. We own Hawaii, 2,000 miles out to sea from San Francisco, with 75,000 Japanese laborers constituting the largest element of its population. We own the Philippine Islands, 140,000 square miles, with eight millions of people, under the eaves of Asia. We are properly anxious to maintain an open door to China, and to share equally in the enormous trade which that country, with her 400 teeming millions, is bound to furnish when organized capital and her wonderful laboring populations shall be intelligently directed toward the development of her rich natural resources.

Our discrimination against the Japanese and the Chinese presents a possible cause of friction, since the resentment that they feel may lead to untoward incidents. We own the Panama Canal in a country which was recently a part of a South American confederation. We have invested 400 millions in that great world enterprise to unite our Eastern and Western seaboards by cheap transportation, to increase the effectiveness of our navy and to make a path for the world's commerce between the two great oceans.

We own Porto Rico, with a million people, and we owe to those people protection at home and abroad, as they owe allegiance to us.

We have guaranteed the integrity of Cuba, and have reserved the right to enter and maintain the guaranty of life, liberty and property and to repress insurrection in that island. Since originally turning over the island to its people we have had once to return there and restore peace and order. We have on our southern border the international

« PředchozíPokračovat »