Obrázky stránek
PDF
ePub

shall be done now or later is a question that can be determined on the ground. Even if it is not determined now, the step that is taken by creating this smaller league to achieve its purpose of maintaining peace, where peace is more doubtful and where the problems are so much more difficult than in a normal world at peace, will be a long step towards the possibility of a general League of Nations. Heretofore this has been an academic question. People have been interested in its discussion, but the war seemed remote and peace seemed remote. Now the question is live; it is before us; since the President will bring back with him this treaty with a provision for a league of nations in it.

If the President does come home with a treaty like this, then it behooves us all to unite in support of it; if there be difficulties in it, to suggest how the difficulties may be overcome; but to appreciate the purposes of that League, to appreciate the fact that the world is longing for it and the oppressed and suffering peoples of the Allies are longing for the machinery that shall prevent a recurrence of the dread disaster through which they have passed. We should look at it from a progressive standpoint, should realize that something has happened since the war began, that the assumption that everything which has occurred in the past is going to recur, that there is no hope of change, is the doctrine of pessimism and fatalism. This war has been fundamental in its character. It has shaken the foundations of society. And people who look forward, who look for better things, are not discouraged because something like that which is now proposed has been tried before and failed. They refuse to assume that it will therefore fail again. Progress is not made without some risk. We never enter into new experi

ments without realizing that there may be a failure. But is that a reason why we should not go forward? Eloquence is all right, platforms are all right, declarations of ideals are all right, provided they are accompanied by willingness to make sacrifices and run risks to accomplish the ideals. But they must not be treated as things of substance, their mere declaration an end in itself, imposing no obligations on those who have uttered them to go on and do the things they extol.

I have heard it said that this League of Nations takes away sovereignty. Now, if we say to a nation we are going to keep you within the bounds of international law by this organization, do we limit its independence any more than we limit our own independence under a system of laws that are enacted for the benefit of society and for our own benefit? Every time we make a treaty by which we bind ourselves to do anything we limit our sovereignty. Sovereignty is only a matter of definition and degree. The question is: how far are we willing to go in yielding that entire freedom of action and that license to wage war for aggressive and selfish purposes. We need not be frightened by a definition. We agree to arbitrate; we agree to abide the result of an arbitration. That limits our sovereignty, does it not? Well, is that so heinous? We have agreed not to put warships on our great lakes. That is a limitation of our sovereignty, is it not? If we were a jingo nation which insisted on doing everything it wanted to do, right or wrong, we ought to be able to put men of war on that water boundary; but we have agreed not to. Are we ashamed of that limitation on our sovereignty? Are we not on the contrary, proud of it? We know that England and the United States will never get into a war. Everybody knows that; we have got the habit of arbitrating. It took us fifty years to get it

and then we had each to lose a case. England lost the Alabama Claim and we lost that Fisheries Case. They said we had stolen five millions worth of fish and apparently they proved it. They got a judgment and we paid it just as they paid the judgment against them. Well, that limited our sovereignty. Was it so disgraceful? We learned to play the game. You can't go into an arbitration and play it on the theory of heads I win, tails you lose; that unless you do win you won't play. You have got to be good losers. When we go on and say that we are going to have this great court lay down the law and that we are going to enforce the judgment, of course that interferes with our freedom of action to the extent that we cannot escape execution of the judgment exactly as a man's freedom is limited when he agrees to pay a thousand dollars and does not pay it and his creditor comes into court and gets a judgment under which an execution is levied on his property.

Now I am ready to answer any questions concerning the League that may occur to the audience.

A VOICE: I would like to have you state, if you will, what membership you would begin with, and what limitations, if any, you would impose upon it.

MR. TAFT: That is a very apt question. I think it is wise to begin with the Great Powers. When you organize a club and you want clubable members you make your selections with care. There are a lot of nations that are irresponsible. If you call them all into a convention at once, they will insist on having equal voice with the most responsible and powerful nations, and I am not in favor of that. I am in favor of a practical arrangement; and this peace creates the opportunity for it. These five nations are an initiating nucleus that is most valuable in creating a

real league of all nations which are responsible nations. If we call convention of all then every one will want to be heard and they will object if they are not given full representation. Now you have got to make a practical arrangement. Every nation ought to be heard in a congress that lays down the rules of law. What the proportion of representation should be is a matter of expediency and justice. You cannot fix it according to population alone, because China would then have four times as many votes as the United States. There ought to be a proportionate representation on some fixed basis, depending on importance and power, and perhaps on the average intelligence of the people; but you can fix that when you have a managing committee that passes on qualifications for admission. Such a league is going to be a great boon for the small nations. It is going to give them protection; and therefore it is going to be such an advantage that they will be glad to come in under reasonable conditions. But if you consult them all at once they will not be able to agree. We have had experience in that matter. In arranging the framework of an international court of admiralty prize, a court to deal with captures at sea, we were able to agree upon the membership because there were a lot of nations which had no navies and no merchantmen and which were therefore not concerned about naval prizes. But just as soon as we tried to establish a world-court, passing on general disputes between nations, then every nation wanted a judge on that court. That would have made the court worse than a town meeting, and it became impossible.

I am not in favor of letting in Germany for a long time. She must show herself worthy. She is a criminal before

the bar of justice. When you arrest a criminal and find a pistol on him you take it away. That is why, in this matter of reduction of armament, we have the right to say to Germany, "we will draw your teeth," and that is what we have been doing. I do not know whether you share my feeling, but nothing has occurred since the armistice that has given me more satisfaction than the delivery of those great war vessels at the Firth of Forth, and of those submarines at the mouth of the Thames. The punishment was richly deserved.

FROM AN ARTICLE IN THE PUBLIC LEDGER, JAN. 1, 1919

The League of Nations, to be useful, must command the respect of the world as upholding right and justice. The United States is the least interested of all the nations of the League in the terms of peace from a selfish standpoint. Our membership in it is, therefore, of the highest value. It will give confidence to the peoples of Europe in the purity and sincerity of the League's intentions to secure the good of all. President Wilson's trip has shown clearly the weight the United States has in this respect. It is not too much to say that he is stronger to-day with the people of Great Britain, France and Italy than are the respective Premiers of these countries. The longing of these peoples for a league of nations to maintain peace and his championing of such a league have had much to do with bringing about this result. It has secured the support of Lloyd George and Clémenceau for the League. This phase of the situation imposes the

« PředchozíPokračovat »