The New Zealand Times. THURSDAY, MARCH 18, 1920. THE QUITTERS

New Zealand Times, Volume XLVI, Issue 10541, 18 March 1920, Page 4

The New Zealand Times. THURSDAY, MARCH 18, 1920. THE QUITTERS

The cablegrams leave no room for doubt as to the attitude of the American Senate in regard to Article Ten of the Covenant of the League of Nations. This Article is undoubtedly the" keystone of the Covenant, just as the League of Nations is the keystone of the Peace Treaty. Article Ten reads as follows:—''The members of the League undertake to respect and preserve as against external aggression the territorial integrity and existing political independence of all members of the League. In case of any 6Uch aggression or in case of any threat or danger of such aggression the Council shall advise upon the means by which this obligation shall be fulfilled." Manifestly, as President "Wilson stated in a recent letter to Senator Hitchcock, the Democratic Leader in the Senate, "Any League of Nations which does not guarantee the independence and integrity-of its members will be a futile scrap of paper." The Republican Senators cannot but be aware of that fact. They cannot, but bo fully aware, also, that to jettison the League of Nations is, in effect, to throw overboard the, whole Peace Treaty. "When this becomes so clear that •it can no longer bo denied and the position can no longer be successfully camouflaged, the Senators, thus guilty of treason to humanity, may plead ignorance of the inevitable results of their action. But, even if the plea were bona fide, their ignorance could be no excuse, for in so crucial a matter such ignorance on the part of men in so responsible a position is in itself inexcusable.

The Republican Senators must, therefore, ibo held to will the inevitable result of their actions. Failing to accept Article Ten, they render of none effect the Covenant of the League of Nations; they reduce to a "futile scrap of paper" the whole Peace Treaty; they write themselves down for all ti mo as absoluto quitters, the very worst of quitters. Indeed, when the full history of the matter 'comes to bo written, thero can bo littlo doubt that the Republican Senators will bo pilloried as Treaty-break-ers alongside of Kaiser Wilhelra, von Bctbmann Hollweg, von Jagow, and the rest. The guilty Senators may plead that they are actuated by the very 'best intentions, but the steepest and the slipperiest paths to perdition are ever paved with such; and, whatcvor their intentions, thero is littlo doubt that by their intransigcant action, delaying and imperilling the ratification of the Peaco Treaty by tho United States, the Senators have markedly encouraged and stimulated the militarist and monarchist elements in Prussia. By nullifying the Peace Treaty, the Be-

! publican Senators may yet make themselves responsible for the outbreak of a second world-war, on an oven greater scalo and more disastrous in its consequences than tho first. Meantime, they cannot 'be held clear of bloodguiltiness in regard to the recent horrible massacres by the unspeakablo Turk of tho hapless Armenians and others subject to his accursed rule; for, the Turk being what he is, such massacres were the natural, the inevitable result, of the failure of the League of Nations, hamstrung by. the "United States Senate, to take prompt and effective action to protect the non-Moslem minorities in tho late Ottoman Empire. iixoept upon the assumption that they are ''doing politics" at imminent and obvious risu to tho world's peace, it is difficult to account for the attitude towards the League of Nations and towards the Peace Treaty as a whole adopted by the Republican Senators. Tho Republican party is, indeed, the Tory party of America, tho Imperialist party; and that being tho case, an explanation of their action might bo found in President Wilson's statement that "Article Ten represents the renunciation by Britain, Japan, Italy, and Franco of political conquest and territorial aggrandisement." The Republican party may be unwilling to join Britain, Japan, Italy and Franco in this renunciation. The Republicans may cherish Imperialistic designs against Mexico, even against Canada; but, without very clear evidence on the point, we should hesitate to accept that view. Such designs are too utterly futile. It is, in effect, difficult to seo what more could be gained by Imperialistic action, even of the moat succesful, than could be readily achieved by establishing absolutely free itrado relations with these countries. Such relations could bo set up with no risk and at no cost whatever, except perhaps to the profiteers in each of tho countries concerned; but Imperialistic designs could only be accomplished, if at all. a-t enormous cost of blood and treasure, to say nothing of the immense moral and spiritual loss involved. It has been suggested in some of tdio more radical American journals that the object of the Republican Senators in rejecting the Treaty is to keep international affairs in a state of great uncertainty so as to afford an excuse for maintaining conscription, not with a view to external aggression, but with a view to suppressing tho internal discontents arising from the trust system which is so mercilessly exploiting tho American people. It is difficult, however, to believe that for such a purpose tliev would wreck tho Treaty and endanger the world's peaco. , Be that as it may, the rejection oi Article Ten is tantamount to the wrecking of the Treaty; and the votes cast on the -various reservations have, it must be confessed, a very sinister look. It is true that the amendment of (Senaitor Frelihghuysen—a Dutch, not a German name, if we mistake not—to Artiole Ten, disavowing, all obligations on the United States under the Article, was rejected toy 69 vctes to 17. But, as against that, the Ts-ft "sub-reservation," disavowing tho legal, but retaining the moral obligations under Article Ten, was rejected by 44 votes to 20; and the Simms reservation, offering the friendly offices of the United States in ease ot international aggression, was rejected by 51 votes to 27. Even Senator Walsh's motion, "deploring the aggression which led to a breach of the world's -.jeace," was defeated by 44 votes to "34; and, finally, the Republican Le:iaor's amcudment, denying tho obligations under Article Ten, was adopted by 56 votes to 34. Article Ten is clearly gone; with it, the League of Nations; and with the League, the Peace Treaty itself. So much for the United States Senate. But in the United States the Senate is not supreme. Tho decisive vote rests with the sovereign people. During the sensational debate on the Treaty, it has appeared from time to time that a number of tho intransigeanfc Senators fear—as we hope pi id i believe they have good reason to fear J —the vote of the people. President Wilson, we are convinced, will appeal against the Senate's decision ..to the American people; and, though unreservedly writing down the Republican Senators as quitters a "d the very ! worst of quitters, we refuse to write down the great American people as such unless ajtd until thoy themselves do so by endorsing by their votes the action of the Senate. Tho Washington cablegram, dated March 16th, published in this morning's paper, goes to show that the Republican Senators have simply been "doing politics, '' and that a number of Domoaratici Senaitors have fallen into the trap set for thenf. "It is pointed out/' states the cable message, "that tho Senate's action in ratifying tho Lodge 'substitute reservation' on. Article Ten indicates that at least twothirds of the Senators want the Treaty ratified; and if tho same number of Democrats vote to ratify the wholo Treaty as voted to ratify tho reservation on Article Ten, tho defeat of the Treaty would rest squarely upon President Wilson." Clearly, it is now for President AVilson to appeal from the Senate to the American people; and wo trust that the people will give the President, tho League of Nations, and the Peace Treaty tho staunch support and the Senate the stern rebuke that tho situation so emphatically demands.