LEAGUE OF NATIONS
James M. Cox is a man of principles; one who has decided opinions with
the courage and energy to fight for them. Altho interested in the wage
workers he has stood for the freedom of the individual; altho
interested in other reforms he has insisted that they be brought about
in accordance with law and order.
He is especially democratic in the old-fashioned sense, and is also a
crusader as his following assailment of the Republican leaders in the
Senate signifies.
“In the midst of war the present Senatorial cabal, led by Senators
Lodge, Penrose and Smoot, was formed. Superficial evidence of loyalty
to President Wilson was given in order that the great rank and file of
their party, faithful and patriotic to the very core, might not be
offended. But underneath this misleading exterior, conspirators
planned and plotted with bigoted zeal. With victory to our arms they
delayed and obstructed the works of peace. If deemed useful to the
work in hand no artifice for interfering with our constitutional
peacemaking authority was rejected.
“Before the country knew, yea, before these men themselves knew the
details of the composite plan formed at the peace table, they declared
their opposition to it. Before the treaty was submitted to the Senate,
in the manner the Constitution provides, they violated every custom
and every consideration of decency by presenting a copy of the
document, procured unblushingly from enemy hands, and passed it into
the printed record of Senatorial proceedings. From that hour the whole
subject was thrown into a technical discussion, in order that the
public might be confused. The plan has never changed in its objective,
but the method has.
“At the outset there was the careful insistence that there was no
desire to interfere with the principle evolved and formalized at
Versailles. Later, it was the form and not the substance that
professedly inspired attack. But pretense was futile when proposals
later came forth that clearly emasculated the basic principle of the
whole peace plan. Senator Lodge finally crystallized his ideas into
what were known as the Lodge reservations, and when Congress adjourned
these reservations held the support of the so-called regular
Republican leaders. From that time the processes have been
interesting. Political expediency in its truest sense dwarfed every
consideration either of the public interest or of the maintenance of
the honor of a great political party. The exclusive question was how
to avoid a rupture in the Republican organization.”
INTERNATIONAL MORALITY
Everyone knows that Senator Johnson has been opposed to the treaty in
any form and objects strongly to us entering the League of Nations in
any way. When Senator Johnson states that the Republican platform is
satisfactory to him and that Senator Harding feels as he does
regarding the League of Nations, it naturally makes the League of
Nations the primary issue of the campaign and places the contest
between Cox who stands for internationalism and Harding, Lodge, Smoot
and Penrose who stand for a strictly nationalistic policy. In this
connection Mr. Cox stated as follows:
“Senator Harding makes this new pledge of policy in behalf of his
party. It is as follows:
“‘_I promise you formal and effective peace so quickly as a Republican
Congress can pass its declaration for a Republican Executive to
sign._’
“This means but one thing--a separate peace with Germany. This would
be the most disheartening event in civilization since the Russians
made their separate peace with Germany, and infinitely more unworthy
on our part than it was on that of the Russians. They were threatened
with starvation and revolution had swept their country.
“Our soldiers fought side by side with the Allies. So complete was the
coalition of strength and purpose that General Foch was given supreme
command, and every soldier in the Allied cause, no matter what flag he
followed, recognized him as his chief. We fought the war together, and
now before the thing is thru it is proposed to enter into a separate
peace with Germany. In good faith we pledged our strength with our
associates for the enforcement of terms upon offending Powers, and now
it is suggested that this be withdrawn.
“Suppose Germany, recognizing the first break in the Allies, proposes
something we cannot accept. Does Senator Harding intend to send an
army to Germany to press her to our terms? Certainly the Allied army
could not be expected to render aid. If, on the other hand, Germany
should accept the chance we offered of breaking the bond it would be
for the express purpose of insuring a German-American alliance
recognizing that the Allies--in fact, no nation in good standing would
have anything to do with either of us.”
HONESTY _vs._ DISHONESTY
“This plan would not only be a piece of bungling diplomacy, but plain
unadulterated dishonesty, as well. No less an authority than Senator
Lodge said, before the heat of recent controversy, that to make peace
except in company with the Allies would ‘brand us everlastingly with
dishonor and bring ruin to us.’
“Then America, refusing to enter the League of Nations (now already
established by over forty nations) and bearing and deserving the
contempt of the world, should, according to Senator Harding, submit an
entirely new project. This act would either be regarded as arrant
madness or attempted international bossism....
“The League of Nations has claimed the best thought of America for
years. The League to Enforce Peace was presided over by so
distinguished a Republican as ex-President Taft. He, before audiences
in every section, advocated the principle and the plan of the present
league. Regarding Article X, our own Monroe Doctrine is the very
essence of Article X of the Versailles covenant. Skeptics viewed
Monroe’s mandate with alarm, predicting recurring wars in defense of
Central and South American States, whose guardians they alleged we
need not be. Yet not a shot has been fired in almost one hundred years
in preserving sovereign rights on this hemisphere.
“These reactionary Senators hypocritically claim that the League of
Nations will result in our boys being drawn into military service,
when they know that no treaty can override our Constitution, which
reserves to Congress alone the power to declare war. They preach
Americanism with a meaning of their own invention, and artfully appeal
to a selfish and provincial spirit, forgetting that Lincoln fought a
war over the purely moral question of slavery, that McKinley broke the
fetters of our boundary lines for the freedom of Cuba, and carried the
torch of American idealism to the benighted Phillipines. They lose
memory of Garfield’s prophecy that America, under the blessings of
God-given opportunity, would by her moral leadership and coöperation
become a Messiah among the nations of the earth.”
APPEALS FOR BROTHERHOOD
James M. Cox is essentially a man of broad outlook, big-hearted and
anxious to serve. Altho criticized by some as an idealist, his ideals
seem to be of the highest as if propelled by the righteousness of the
causes which he represents. When referring further to the League of
Nations, he said:
“These are fateful times. Organized government has a definite duty all
over the world. The house of civilization is to be put in order. The
supreme issue of the century is before us and the nation that halts
and delays is playing with fire. The finest impulses of humanity,
rising above national lines, merely seek to make another horrible war
impossible. Under the old order of international anarchy war came
overnight, and the world was on fire before we knew it. It sickens our
senses to think of another. We saw one conflict into which modern
science brought new forms of destruction in great guns, submarines,
airships, and poison gases. But scientists tell us that the next war
will be much worse. Chemists have already perfected gases so deadly
that whole cities can be wiped out, armies destroyed, and the crews of
battleships smothered. The public prints are filled with the opinion
of military men that in future wars the method, more effective than
gases or bombs, will be the employment of the germs of diseases,
carrying pestilence and destruction. Any nation prepared under these
conditions, as Germany was equipped in 1914, could conquer the world
in a year.
“The question is whether we shall or shall not join in this practical
and humane movement. President Wilson, as our representative at the
peace table, entered the League in our name, in so far as the
executive authority permitted. Senator Harding, as the Republican
candidate for the Presidency, proposed in plain words that we remain
out of it. As the Democratic candidate, I favor going in.
“To me the Harding proposal means dishonor, world confusion and delay.
It would keep us in permanent company with Germany, Russia, Turkey and
Mexico. It would entail, in the ultimate, more real injury than the
war itself. The Democratic position on the question, as expressed in
the platform, is ‘We advocate immediate ratification of the treaty
without reservations which would impair its essential integrity, but
do not oppose the acceptance of any reservation making clearer or more
specific the obligations of the United States to the League
associates.’”
RESERVATIONS THAT COX FAVORS
When discussing with Mr. Cox his attitude on the treaty reservations,
he said:
“The captious may pretend that our platform reference to reservations
is vague and indefinite. Its meaning, in brief, is that we shall
state our interpretation of the covenant as a matter of good faith to
our associates and as a precaution against any misunderstanding in the
future.”
As to these “interpretations,” Mr. Cox felt that some statement should
be made and suggested the following two:
(1) _In giving its assent to this treaty the Senate has in mind the
fact that the League of Nations, which it embodies, was devised for
the sole purpose of maintaining peace and comity among the nations of
the earth and preventing the recurrence of such conflicts as that thru
which the world has just passed. The coöperation of the United States
with the League and its continuance as a member thereof, will
naturally depend upon the adherence of the League to that fundamental
purpose._
(2) _It will, of course, be understood that in carrying out the
purpose of the League the Government of the United States must at all
times act in strict harmony with the terms and intent of the United
States Constitution, which cannot in any way be altered by the
treaty-making power._