The New Zealand Times. MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 6, 1920. BATTLE FOR THE LEAGUE

New Zealand Times, Volume XLVI, Issue 10687, 6 September 1920, Page 4

The New Zealand Times. MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 6, 1920. BATTLE FOR THE LEAGUE

It is indeed good to see that ex-Presi-dent Taft is lining np on the side of right, so far as the League of Nations is concerned, in the Presidential contest that is non- under way in tho United States. In view of his many firfe speeches and articles on record in favour of the League, nothing else could well have been expected of him; but, none the less, in these days of political changes, it is, well to find him measuring up so fully to expectations, as in tho speech reported last week by the Ottawa correspondent of the “New York Times.” Mr *Taft’a declaration, that the refusal of the United States to enter tho League of Nations would relegate her to the limbo of irresponsible nations, unable to make an agreement of any kind, will be most .distasteful to many, if not to tho majority, of tho members of his own party. For tho blame for the shameful fact that America has not yet ratified the Peace Treaty and still stands astride tho League rests unmistakably at the doors of tho Republican Senators. They, in their anxiety to “do politics”i and discredit at all costs President Wilson, have succeeded, tn tho contrary, in deeply discrediting themselves—which is, when all is said and done, a very small matter—and also have ran most serious, risk of discrediting for all time a country which should he in the van. of all movements that make for tho world’s peace and the moral uplift of humanity. Mr Taft’s declaration is one that will rankle in tho Republican breast; and it will rankle all the more because it is undeniably true. Moreover, by his further declaration that tho United States would not lose any of her sovereignty by entering the League, ho ruthlessly tore asunder the glittering tissue of evasions, half-truths, and deliberate lies by means of which tho Republican Senators sought at once to camouflage and to justify their plan of campaign. ' While Mr Taft very rightly pointsout that the result of the Presidential election will not necessarily indicate tho people’s decision whether tho United States should enter tho League, since other issues are involved, and any electorate is notoriously liable to be drawn off tho main point at stake by side-issues, there can be no . doubt, that the ratification of the ■ Peace Treaty, carrying with it America’s entry into tho. League of Nations, will bo the main issue of the Presidential campaign. In line with President Wilson’s wishes, the League of Nations plank was placed first in the Democratic platform at the great National Convention held at San Francisco in July last. Asserting that the Democratic party “fpvours the League of Nations as the su/est, if not the only, practical means of, maintaining tho permanent peace of the world and terminating tho insufferable burden of great military and naval establishments,” the plank emphatically endorses the acts and appeals of President Wilson on behalf of . the - League of Nations. With great force, too, it counters upon Senator Lodge, and his party’s efforts to make a ’separate peace with Germany, by quoting from an article by Senator Lodge' in the “Forum” of December, 1918, in which ho asserted that to “make peace except in company with our AJlies would brand us , with everlasting dishonour, and bring ruin to ua if we undertake to make a separate peace.” President Wilson’s view of the international obligations of the United States in connection with the. League of Nations is endorsed, as is his firm, dignified, and high moral stand against nullifying reservations; and it is assorted that only by “immediate ratification” without such reservations !, may we retrieve tho reputation of this nation among the Powers of the earth, and recover the moral leadership, which President Wilson won, and which Republican politicians .at Washington sacrificed. ’* In short, tho whole League of Nations plank is not only an exceptionally strong statement, but is also an eloquent appeal to American citizens to vindicate at the polls American good faith and honour.

Mr Homer S. Cummings, of Connecticut (temporary chairman of the Democratic National Convention and chairman of the Democratic National Committee), made tho “keynote” speech at tho Democratic Convention at San Francisco, just as Senator Dodge made tho “keynote’* speech at tho Republican Convention at Chicago Reviewing the history of the movement for a League of Nations, up to tho signing of the Armistice, Mr Cummings thus forcefully put tho case: At no noint, at no time, during no period while this history was in the making, was one responsible ' American voice raised in protest. Thus before we. entered the war, w© made the pledge; during the war wo restated the pledge; and when the Armistice was signed, all the nations, ourselves included, renewed the pledge; and it was upon, the faith of thes© promises, that Germany laid down her arms. Practically all of the civilised nations ; of the earth had now united in a' covenant which constitutes tho redemption of tho pledge. We alqn© hare thus far failed to keep our word Others may break faith; the Senate of tho United States may break faith; the Republican party maybreak faith; but neither President. Wilson nor the Democratic party will break faith. As against his straightforward,

statesmanlike,- pledge-keeping stiand of the Democratic party, tho attitude of the Republican party is not only anything but straightforward, anything but statesmanlike, anything but in accordance with pledgee, hut it is absolutely farcical. The Republican platform insults tho intolligcn.ee of tho American people by repudiating “tho existing League of Nation;?” and suggesting the establishment of a competitive league, to be “composed of the nations fhat repudiated the existing League.” As the chairman of tho Democratic National Committee put it, with burning, blistering irony: “What nations stand outside? Revolutionary Mexico, Bolshevist Russia, Unspeakable Turkey, and—the United States of America.” As a substitute for the League of Nations, all that the Republican platform offers is “repudiation, provincialism, militarism, and world chaos,” as payment in full for American approval of the Republican candidates and platform. A favourite “argument” of Republican Senators against the League of Nations was that it violated the Monroe Doctrine. This Mr Cummings neatly and unanswerably countered by declaring that the Covenant of the League is “tho Monroe Doctrine of tho world.” The battle for tho League is now joined in the United States; and, judging by tho grit, tho energy, and tho spirit that the modern “Covenanters” of tho Democratic party aro putting into the work, victory will crown their efforts as victory crowned those -of - the Covenanters of old.