The League of Nations from The Keltgious and Moral Standpoint JX 1975 ■9.1.43 The League of Nations FROM The Religious and Moral Standpoint Reprinted from Manufacturers Record Exponent of America Baltimore, Md. Copies of this pamphlet can be obtained at the following prices postpaid : Single copy, 15c. 25 copies or more, 10c. a copy The Reason for This Pamphlet THERE are two classes of people in America who favor the adop- tion of the League of Nations covenant by this country. One class is composed of those who favor the League because they have imagined that it was a religious duty to do it, believing that in some way the League would save the world from wars. The other class is composed of those who favor the League merely because of partisan views, and because it has been advocated by the leaders of their party. This class, however, we believe is in the minority. A large majority of those who favor the League are, we believe, people who have been made to believe that this scheme is in some way a great religious movement for the safeguarding of the world from wars and that, therefore, it must be regarded as Divine in its origin. We have never been able to comprehend how thinking men could permit themselves to take that view; and feeling that the League of Nations covenant has no Divine origin, nor sanction, and that it could not possibly prevent wars, but would be productive of wars, the Manufacturers Record has reprinted in pamphlet form the state- ments of a number of ministers and of Mr. Eugene Thwing, a noted publicist, who, discussing the question from the moral and religious side, show conclusively that the League of Nations is directly con- trary to the teachings of Almighty God. They tear away the claim that the League must be supported on moral or religious grounds, or on the ground of saving the world from wars, and leave not a thread of that garment with which to clothe the creature whose creators definitely refused to recognize the Creator as the over- ruling God of all world affairs. American ministers of the Gospel then in France made a written request that the Peace Conference be opened with some form of Divine service for God’s guidance. This was refused on the ground that there was no time available. This information was first given to the Manufacturers Record by one of the leading bishops of America, who was himself one of the signers of that document. Dr. Cortland Myers of Boston, Bishop Thomas B. Neely of Phila- delphia and a number of other ministers have strongly emphasized their opposition on religious grounds to the adoption of the League of Nations covenant, and some| of the statements which they have put forth, the article by Mr. Thwing and a brief editorial against the League covenant from the standpoint of our country’s welfare will be found in this pamphlet. Everyone who honestly desires to study the League covenant, whatever may be his or her views on the sub- ject, will find this presentation of interest. EDITOR MANUFACTURERS RECORD. Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2017 with funding from Princeton Theological Seminary Library https://archive.org/details/leagueofnationsfOOunse The League of Nations as a Moral Issue By Eugene Thwing. “When an appeal is made to the American people it is a very dangerous thing for a party to get on the wrong side of a moral issue, and this is a moral issue much more than it is a political issue." — The New York Times, July 27, 1919. Serious fundamental truth lies in the words quoted above from an editorial in the New York Times urging the League of Nations. The American people as a whole prefer right- eousness rather than iniquity in its national affairs and in its dealings with other nations. Whatever their religious creed, and even where no religious creed is strictly held, the American people of all sects and all denominations believe at heart that “righteousness exalteth a nation.” “In God we trust” is not an empty phrase, and no political party can safely treat it with scorn or defiance. The League of Nations, as now proposed, is a moral issue, above all else, and it is necessary for the American people to know why and how. I. The League of Nations is a device of Man’s contrivance, which was built without recog- nition of God’s governing hand in the affairs of men; it was constructed without any pub- lic acknowledgment of Him, and without any public appeal for His guidance. During all the sessions of the Peace Conference in Paris, when the most vital and fundamental issues of world policy were being considered ; when the most serious and far-reaching Published in the Manufacturers Record August 28, 1919. 5 problems of humanity were being discussed, amid bitter dis- putes and clashing interests ; when the delegates of many na- tions were groping blindly for conclusions which would mean life or death, slavery or freedom, misery or happiness to hun- dreds of millions of human souls — not once was any appeal made to Almighty God for light and guidance in their coun- sels. Even the President of our own Christian nation went away to his self-appointed task without any public acknowl- edgment of his dependence on God, nor any request to the people of America to seek Divine guidance for him in his mission. No religious service nor public prayer of any kind was allowed in connection with the long, troubled conference. Earnest written petition was presented by Christians outside the conference that there be some invocation of God’s blessing and guidance in the work to be done, but official reply was made that there was no time for such service in connection with the conference. MAN had serious work to do; there was no time to bother with GOD! And Almighty God turned away from that conference in anger at that and set His curse upon it, as of old, in these words: “Woe to the rebellious children, saith the Lord, THAT TAKE COUNSEL, BUT NOT OF ME.” (Isaiah 30: 1.) And in these words : “Thus saith the Lord : Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the Lord.” (Jeremiah 17: 5.) And so, having rejected the counsel of the Almighty, these delegates of many nations proceeded to build their own devices, regardless of the warning that — "The Lord bringeth the counsel of the nations to nought; He maketh the devices of the people to be of none effect.” ( Psalm 33 : 10.) They constructed an edifice of their own contriving, after many bargains, and mutual threats, and compromises of prin- ciples, and violations of justice, disbelieving or defying the warning that “except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it” And they ornamented their structure with beautiful words, and played before it the music of fine- 6 sounding ideals, making it “indeed appear beautiful outward,'’ while within it was “full of dead man’s bones, and of all un- cleanness.” And they called their edifice “The League of Nations,” dedicated to the “Peace of the World.” And, having ears, they heard not the awful sound which came from the Eternal Throne : “He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh ; the Lord shall have them in derision. Then shall He speak unto them in His wrath, and vex them in His sore displeasure.” (Psalm 2 : 4-5-) II. The League of Nations is in direct dis- obedience to the commands of God as given many centuries ago to His people when He delivered them from their oppressors, and de- livered into the hands of His people those enemies .of His who had defied Him and worked abominations in His sight. “When the Lord thy God shall deliver them before thee, then shalt thou smite them, and utterly destroy them ; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy to them. “Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. “For they will turn away thy son from following Me, that they may serve other gods ; so will the anger of the Lord be kindled against you.” (Deuteronomy 7: 2-4.) The “utterly destroy” in the first part of this command, evi- dently, in the light of what follows, does not mean slaughter, nor utter destruction of property, but complete destruction of power, and complete refusal of political and family alliances. The command is repeated many times, in various forms, em- phasizing the need of separation between the nations whose God is the Lord and the nations who will have none of Him. In the New Dispensation the command was made even more explicit : “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers ; for 7 what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?” (II Cor. 6: 14.) Among the 32 members of the League of Nations are many pagan nations. Their presence in the Paris Peace Conference was one of the things, no doubt, which prevented the recogni- tion of God and a turning to Him for guidance. The United States, a Christian nation, with only one vote in a total of 32, would certainly be ‘‘unequally yoked together with unbelievers,” in disobedience of tbe command of God. The offense would be increased when Germany, that great worker of abomina- tions, is admitted as a member of the League of Nations and a subscriber to and beneficiary of the “Covenant.” No good could come of this unequal yoking together, but only evil, as only evil has come during the first period of that yoke-fellow- ship. This wish and the vote of the United States has been set at naught already by the wish and the vote of pagans. It would be so again and again. All this unequal yoking together has been covered up with finely-spun sentiment and unfulfillable promises; but God’s people are warned against this very thing. “Let no man deceive you with vain words, for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of dis- obedience. Be not ye therefore partakers with them, and have no fellowship with the unfaithful works of darkness.” (Eph. 5: 6, 7, 11.) III. The League of Nations is an instrument of evil and not an instrument of good. It could not be otherwise, since, in its making, the guidance of the God of Nations was not sought and recognition of Him was refused. It could not be otherwise since it yields to, even if it is not dominated by, pagan influences. Its promises have been for justice, and its first definite acts have been acts of injustice. Thus already the world has been “deceived with vain words.” In the concrete example of Shantung, the League of Nations pledges itself to “respect and preserve as against external ag- 8 gression the territorial integrity and existing political inde- pendence of all members of the League,” and following that pledge it appends the name of China as one of its members to whom the pledge is made. Then, after formulating, and agree- ing to, and proudly proclaiming to the world and to China this beneficent purpose of the League, the very men who made the League and the pledge proceeded to tear away from China, one of its own chosen members, a large part of its most important territory and 38,000,000 of its citizens, with the vast interests pertaining to them, and to turn them all over to an external aggressor who demanded them, in order to bribe that pagan aggressor to become also a member of that same League and to subscribe to that same pledge ! Can any more grotesque or preposterous act of injustice and insincerity be imagined? The sponsors of the League of Na- tions, solemnly agreeing to protect one another against any despoiler, deliberately compound with such a despoiler the com- plete violation of their own most sacred pldege and rob one of their own weaker members at the command of the despoiler, in order that this very despoiler may be induced to come into the League and join in the pledge to “respect and preserve the territorial integrity and political independence of all members” ! What respect can the creators of the League have for their own pledge after so gross a violation in the very act of making it ? What respect will that nation have for it that violated it as a condition to becoming a party to it ? Even at the very begin- ning of this strange contrivance of men who refused to seek the blessing and guidance of Almighty God on their work, He was making “the devices of the people to be of none effect.” Our own President yielded to this act of gross injustice against, and despoilation of, a friend. He acknowledges that he disapproved and tried to modify it, but felt compelled to con- sent to the wrong in order to get Japan into the League of Nations. What pity he did not have this warning blazoned in letters of fire before his eyes : “When sinners entice thee, con- sent thou not !” The time to remember that the League of Nations “is a moral issue” was just then, when temptations to do wrong for seeming 9 political advantages assailed the maker of the League. The very soul of the League was bartered away at the moment of its birth in order that it might have the appearance of power. And in gaining this appearance of power it showed that it pos- sessed the very essence of weakness and failure. Whatever the temptations, whatever the threatenings, what- ever the troublesome alternatives, one simple rule, one final test, would have settled everything with honor and integrity and established the League of Nations upon a solid rock. It is the rule followed by and emphasized by Thedore Roosevelt : “The choice must ever be in favor of righteousness, and this whether the alternative be peace or whether the alternative be war. The question must not be merely, Is it to be peace or war? The question must be, Is the right to prevail? Are the great laws of righteousness to be fulfilled? And the answer from a strong, virile people must be ‘yes,’ whatever the cost. We scorn the man who would not stand for justice though the whole world come in arms against him.” Only as he is girded and guided by the God of Righteousness can any man be strong enough and wise enough to stand thus at such a time. Only then can he translate into his words and acts of the twentieth century, as Roosevelt did, the proud con- fidence of King David of thirty centuries ago : “The Lord is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear? The Lord is the strength of my life; of whom shall I be afraid? “When the wicked, even mine enemies and my foes, came upon me to eat up my flesh, they stumbled and fell. “Though an host should encamp against me, my heart shah not fear ; though war should rise against me, in this will I be confident.” IV. The League of Nations is foredoomed to utter failure because of its disobedience to God and its own inherent weakness. Many times, through the centuries, nations have tried simi- lar plans, and all have failed. Again and again God rebuked and punished Israel and Judah for seeking to strengthen them- io selves with pagan alliances instead of with obedience to Him. And more modern history contains instances of leagues of na- tions, notably the one that was formed at Aix-le-Chapelle just a hundred years before the present Peace Conference met in Paris. The same idealistic pronouncements then, as now, “seemed to promise the advent of the golden age.” But then, also, the league, formed “as a sign of brotherly good-will,” was merely a smiling mask behind which the great Powers con- tinued their own alliances “by a secret protocol,” and the scheme came to naught. The inherent weakness of this new League of Nations makes its failure certain, if even its actual career shall begin. This weakness lies in — 1. Its composition politically — its membership of jealous rival nations, their historical enmities, their geographical jeal- ousies, their racial and religious hostilities, their trade rivalries and jealousies. 2. Its composition morally — without God as the accepted Leader, and righteousness as the governing principle ; with bit- ter hatred in many hearts. “Everyone, from the least even unto the greatest, is given to covetousness — everyone dealeth falsely,” and “inwardly they are ravening wolves.” Even if this is not true of some of the best, it is true undeniably of others, and no league containing such elements can be for long a federation of peace able to “substitute the court of law for the arbitrament of war.” 3. Its certainty of disagreement and split. No vital ques- tion of magnitude can be decided to the satisfaction of all. No strong nation will allow the others to vote against it with im- punity. (Would we?) Secret intrigues and realignments al- ready are going on. Expulsion or withdrawal of any strong nation is sure to result in a stupendous war. 4. Its wrong basis of power. If any power at all exists, it is the power of strong nations, for the moment acting to- gether to enforce their will upon weak nations. They cannot enforce their will upon one of their own number. They have already failed to do anything more than buy one another’s consent by the giving of the property of the weak in return ii for consent. And this is weakness, not power. Certainly no moral power has been asked for nor conferred upon the League by the God from whom it has turned away. 5. Its inconsistency and insincerity. It plans for disarm- ament while all its members feverishly increase their arma- ments, some members being particularly active in that respect. Claims are made in behalf of the League which are far from true. Its founders and advocates profess principles to govern its operation which they discard in its formation. It is urged as a means to world peace, but it contains the threat of in- numerable wars. It is offered as a protector of weak nations against strong aggressors, and it begins by helping the strong aggressor to ravish its weaker neighbor. Therefore, “be not deceived, God is not mocked; for whatsoever a man (or a nation) soweth, that shall he also reap.” The whole scheme of the Godless League is summed up in I Thessalonians 5 : 3 : “When they shall say ‘peace and safety,’ then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.” This was true in 1914; it is true in 1919. The new forces of “sudden destruction” are in preparation at this very moment, some of them in the plain sight of men, and some of them hidden away in the dark. Some of the preparers are in the League, and some are without, scheming to get in, so that they may carry on their preparations more expeditiously and effectively. The superficiality and futility of the whole glib and glitter- ing program, with all its ceremony and theatrical display, is ex- pressed in the sad lament of the prophet Jeremiah: “They have healed the hurt of the daughter of my people slightly, saying, peace, peace, when there is no peace.” The League of Nations is only a splendid appearing struc- ture, with no real living soul to hold its form together. It is an offense to the Living God. It will crumble and disappear when the shouting and the tumult die. God keep America out of it ! God turn the hearts of Americans to seek His guidance and accept His leadership ! “The counsel of the Lord standeth forever. Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord.” 12 Ministers Warn Nation Against League of Nations as Contrary to God’s Word Dr. Cortland Myers, pastor of the Tremont Temple of Bos- ton, is one of the foremost ministers of America. It has been said that he is one of the only four ministers in the United States whose preaching can always be depended upon to fill the Ocean Grove (N. J.) auditorium, which has a seating capacity of 10,000 or over. The Asbury Park Press of August 23, in a column and a half report of Dr. Myers’ sermon of the preceding day, in which he referred to the League of Nations Covenant, said : “Dr. Myers * * * deplored the absence of any mention of God either in the treaty or among the Peace Conference attendants and apparently no thought on the part of anyone in regard to offering prayer for its safe conclusion. Dr. Myers was making the point that the nation that forgets God will go down in ashes. This applies to America, he said, as to any nation that takes no cognizance of the Almighty, and is behind every war and every calamity. This great nation of the Western world he believes is at present in deadly peril, and people who dismiss the lessons of past nations lightly from mind are merely fooling themselves. The word is God’s and must stand true, whether applying to modern nations and cities or those of past centuries. “Failure to recognize God among the allied representatives to the Peace Conference, Dr. Myers continued, has resulted in the League of Nations being almost forgotten and the treaty of peace not worth the paper written on. The League of Nations, he said, has been kicked to England for an election, then to France for an election, and now to America for another election, all part of a huge political game. The peace treaty he branded as an infidel document, since there has never been a bit of information forthcoming from any quarter to the effect that prayer was offered for its ultimate acceptance by the nations.” Voicing the same thought as that expressed by Dr. Cortland Published in the Manufacturers Record September 2, 1920. 13 Myers is a letter to the Manufacturers Record from Rev. John J. Wicker, pastor of the Leigh Street Baptist Church of Richmond, in which he says : “To my mind, the ‘League of Nations’ is one of the most impos- sible things ever undertaken in the history of the world. It is estrange, indeed, that any minister of the Gospel or student of the Bible should give such a league his endorsement. Aside from the direct teaching of the Bible, which has been so aptly quoted by Mr. Eugene Thwing and published by the Manufacturebs Record, the whole scheme of the League of Nations is thoroughly impracticable. “Peace is impossible and every man must realize this unless he is blinded by a foolish idealism making the wish for peace father to the thought and issuing in a manufactured ‘League of Nations’ that can never obtain except in mere words. “The President of the United States in his address before the Meth- odist Centenary said : ‘Let no man suppose that progress can be divorced from religion or that there is any platform written for the ministers of reform other than the platform written in the utterances of our Lord and Saviour.’ Where, oh, where did you, Mr. President, pigeon-hole this splendid utterance when you sat down at the table around which the platform for ‘The League of Nations’ was drafted? At that table God was refused a seat. The presiding officer of that notable body does not believe in God, and around the table sat repre- sentatives of the heathen and idolatrous nations of the earth. In our own country a little while ago there was a gigantic effort at a great Interchurch Movement. The Christian denominations who had some real conviction and declined to go in this movement ‘put over’ their own drives in triumphant success. The League of Churches, on the other hand, was a dismal failure. If a league of Christian churches cannot succeed, how, in the name of common sense, will a league made up of a conglomerate mass of humanity, representing all religions and no religion, covering the whole world, successfully put over the ‘League of Nations’? “A few days ago the Democratic candidate for President of the United States announced that if he were elected, ‘The League of Nations’ would become effective after March 4, 1921, and in the same speech this same candidate gave a pledge that no American soldier would ever be sent overseas to fight without the consent of the Con- gress of the United States. And Vet the ‘League of Nations’ proposes to put this whole matter in the hands of a small body of men, repre- senting the nations of the earth, and the United States is called upon in advance to pledge its support to the decisions of this foreign body! 14 “The League of Nations cannot get along without God. God has been refused recognition by the League. If the Christian people of this country would read the Bible from the book of Joshua to the book of Job, they would find how God deals with nations. This history shows that no nation, howsoever strong, ever succeeded without God, and, on the other hand, that no nation, howsoever weak, ever suffered defeat when they called upon Almighty God. Now, how the ministers of this country can reconcile their support of the League of Nations with the plain teaching of the Word of God, and especially the con- spicuous historical examples of how God has figured in the affairs and destiny of nations, is beyond me. “Nobody wants war. Every man would rejoice in peace, but so long as sin, idolatry, greed and selfishness reign in this old world, no League of Nations nor any other device of men can stay the devastating hand of war. If the Christian people of this country want peace, let them listen to the Prince of Peace and go into all the world and preach His Gospel to every creature. “ ‘Some trust in horses and some in chariots, but our trust shall be in the living God.’ Never in the world’s history has the State fought the battles of the Church but that the Church was the loser in the long run of far more than it gained. Ministers and Christian people who resort to the League of Nations for the accomplishment of Christian ends are simply falling into the same old death trap that has poisoned and disappointed Christianity in every age. Men nor nations will never do right until they are good. And they will never be good with- out God, and they will never get God into their hearts by any other device than the preaching of the Gospel. “When Joshua led the people into the promised land, God com- manded them, saying: ‘Ye shall make no league with the inhabitants of this land ; ye shall throw down their altars.’ The issue was a plain one. They had the choice of making a league of nations or preaching the Gospel of God. To their own destruction, they chose the former. Today the Christian Church has before it the same issue. Let us hope that sacred as well as all other history will not be thrown into the junk, but that we will profit by centuries filled with conspicuous ex- amples, demonstrating that the hope of the world is not in a league with men, but a league with God.’’ 15 l A Minister Gives Reasons for Opposing the League of Nations DECLARES THAT PATRIOTISM, REASON, HISTORY, EXPERIENCE, AND FINALLY THE BIBLE, ARE ALL AGAINST “THE MOST INIQUITOUS SCHEME EVER DEVISED," THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS AS PRO- POSED. By Joseph Judson Taylor, D.D., Leaksville, N. C.* ["I sincerely hope you may be successful with others in keeping us out of what I conceive to be the most iniquitous scheme ever devised, the League of Nations." So wrote Rev. Dr. Joseph Judson Taylor to the editor of the Manu- facturers Record in recent private correspondence. We present herewith an elaboration of Dr. Taylor’s reasons why America should not join the League of Nations as pro- posed. Dr. Taylor is a distinguished Baptist minister and pub- licist, a native of Virginia, educated at Southern Baptist colleges, and ordained a Baptist minister in 1876. He has had a long and notable career in the ministry, as an edu- cator, and as a writer on religious topics. His present ad- dress is Leaksville, N. C. — Editor Manufacturers Record.] This subject is an issue before the people at this time. There is no known reason why it should not be considered candidly, and as far as possible without partisan bias. The writer is a Democrat, reared and educated in old Virginia. He had 14 uncles in the Confederate service, and some of them never got back. He was in school, and was not registered for the Han- cock and English campaign, but he voted for Cleveland in 1884 and in his subsequent races ; also for Bryan, and for Parker, and for Wilson in succession. The league question, however. •Part of the material in this article is borrowed from the writer's new book entitled “The God of War,” copyrighted and published by the Fleming H. Kevell Co. It cannot be used without permission. Published in the Manufacturers Record August 26, 1920. l6 is larger than any party. It concerns the entire people. With the utmost respect for such as hold a different view, the writer is opposed to the league in toto, and he here offers some of the reasons for his opposition as they occur to him. i. Patriotism is against the league. If some man of repute could get a hearing to plead for the abrogation of the Declara- tion of Independence in favor of the British crown, or for its subordination in any way to British authority over American activities, he could offer some considerations in favor of the scheme. He could plead the common ties that bind a daughter to her mother. So far as ruling influences are concerned, he could plead a common language, common traditions, common ideals in matters of justice and religion, and common hopes for the final freedom and happinessness of all mankind. He could point to the peace and dignity of Canada, as she enjoys the freedom of local autonomy and yet has the sense of safety arising out of her connection with a vast empire on whose dominions the sun never sets. He could recount Britain’s present rule over all the seas, and with some show of reason he could predict that with all the vast resources of North America joined with England’s maritime power, Anglo-Saxon ideas could govern the world. After weighing all the advantages of such a scheme, would not every true American subject reject it with disdain ? Would not the unfortunate proponent of such a plan be branded as a traitor, or else treated as a clown and laughed out of countenance ? There is no way to maintain independence and at the same time subordinate it. Such a proposal violates a fundamental law of logic. What then must be thought of the patriotism, or of the intellectual acumen, of men who seriously propose in any way to subordinate American independence to an agglom- eration of foreign nations, different in race, in history, in lan- guage, in cultural advancement, in governmental ideals, in religious creeds, and in everything that enters into national life? On so grave a question men ought to act intelligently, and not be guided by vapid sentiment or political prejudice. Others will follow their own judgment or their fancies, as the 17 case may be. It is their right to choose their own way ; but with the light before him, if need be, the writer will forsake the dearest friend he has on earth rather than betray the land of his birth by supporting a proposal that surrenders to the control of foreign nations any part of her blood-bought lib- erties. 2. Reason is against the league. If war is wrong, the wrong cannot be obliterated or allayed by contract. The principle underlying such a proposal is false. If a thousand merchants were to enter into a league not to cheat their customers, their action would be an open confession that they were a thousand thieves at heart. If a hundred lawyers were to league up in a covenant not to swindle their clients, the fact itself would be a proclamation that they were shysters who could not be trusted to do right. If a company of matrons were to covenant together not to betray their husbands, their foolish conduct would be a scandal and would engender domestic doubts in each of their homes. Right and wrong are not matters of contingency. At this point Mr. H. G. Wells lost his way and turned into a blind alley. His Mr. Britling had no fixed principles. He was an ardent pacifist — only when there was no occasion for being anything else. He was for peace conditionally, his convictions depending entirely on others. Was he for truth and soberness, honesty or any other virtue conditionally? His answer would be an indignant protest, and yet he sees no inconsistency in being against what he calls the wickedness of war only on con- dition that other people are. And such inconsistency underlies the entire structure of trying to achieve peace by contract. The official draft of the proposed covenant undertakes “to achieve international peace and security by the acceptance of obligations not to resort to war,” but the entire document, from preamble to signatures, offers no reason whatever for achiev- ing peace and not resorting to war ! It nowhere commends peace, neither does it condemn war. In fact, it is the product of victorious war lords, whose hands are red with blood. It utterly lacks the marks of sincerity on the part of those who 18 have put it forth. Inadvertently or in a moment of reaction against camouflage and deception, President Wilson himself declared in his first public address after getting back from Ver- sailles that it was a league for war. Why, then, shall anybody be deceived about the matter? The league rests on a false principle, and it secures its popularity chiefly as it is misunder- stood. For no true American could possibly favor it if he understood that it binds him and his children unborn to share the age-long embroilments of foreign lands. The same lack of fixed principle underlying the league is shown also in the conduct of some of its champions. Men who are today denouncing the wickedness of war only a few months ago were as earnestly proclaiming the righteousness of war, the war they wanted. Ministers who, like the writer, have never read a treatise on international law in their lives, have felt quite competent to lecture Senators on their duties con- cerning the so-called league for peace ; and yet less than two years ago the same men were preaching war from their pulpits, and in some cases were promising the victims of war salvation from sin and rest in Heaven. In no case have they professed a change of view ; they have simply swapped sides, as if they were more anxious to be popular than to be true guides for their people. 3. History is against the league, and the past gives it no support. Centuries before Jesus was born Corinth formed a League of Public Peace and set Philip, and later Alexander, at its head. Soon the high contracting parties felt that their lib- erties were endangered, and they repudiated the league. They found it easier to get in than to get out. War ensued. Alex- ander won, and the effort to get out became a pretext for un- common cruelties. Many of the conquered were brutally mur- dered, and the remnants were sold into slavery worse than death. If there was any sincerity in making the league, its proponents got only disappointment for their pains. Rawlinson mentions a League of the Endless Peace negoti- ated between Rome and Persia. It cost more than five tons of gold. Peace by contract comes high. It seems that our famous 19 covenant cost America alone some $400 a word before it got home, to say nothing of subsequent costs. The piper must be paid. And the boasted Endless Peace lasted just eight years. The hypocrites who enacted the sham knew that they were deceiving the people and getting their gold for naught. If there is any sacred political covenant known on earth, surely it is our American Constitution. It was born out of the travail of great souls. It was christened in the blood of patriots. The majority of the States in the Union came under its sacred spell one by one, as children are born into the house- hold. In the purity of youth every native-born citizen comes to its privileges with an oath on his lips, swearing by the God of his fathers to uphold the Constitution and to support its flag. And yet a few decades ago noble men by the thousand felt that there were obligations higher than those expressed in any human covenant, which justified them in renouncing their oaths and repudiating their covenant and taking up arms. The very covenant under consideration has been put to the test and found wanting. Whether freely or not, more than a score of nations have adopted the covenant ; but the pathetic fact remains that they have failed “to achieve peace by accept- ing obligations not to resort to war,” and are fighting like fury, just as before. In the face of these lessons from history, ancient and mod- ern, local and foreign, it is passing strange that honest Ameri- cans can profess a reasonable hope that an alien covenant writ- ten by victorious war lords and urged upon enfeebled nations, different in race and religion and in all their schemes of life, can have any binding force. If by the spirit of party loyalty and the lure of beautiful fancies a majority of the American people could be induced to abandon the traditions of a glorious past and take up this league, why should they so use their power? Policies can be changed by majorities, but principles cannot. Why should voters despise the convictions of their fellow-citizens and force them to league up with Huns and Hottentots and what not for the partisan purpose of testing anew a scheme that all history has shown to be abortive and 20 vain? Would it be kind? Would it be just? Would it not incite inevitable strife and discontent? Why make the experi- ment ? 4. Experience is against the league. One of the fathers of American independence said his path was lighted only by the lamp of experience, and such light we have had. Impelled by a sense of duty and guided by our ablest men, we did our part in the recent turmoil abroad. This is no place to discuss the matter. Every man is entitled to his views. Whatever we got out of it, the question is whether we want it again. All parties agree that the league binds us to the same sort of thing, when- ever the occasion shall arise. Do we wish to be bound ? It is said that a burned child dreads the fire. A child is able to learn by experience. Is the American voter less than a child in understanding? Does he want any more of what he has had in foreign embroilments ? After all the centuries a horse still runs into a burning barn. The poor dumb beast learns nothing by experience. The average American voter is not as dull as a beast of the stall. He learns by experience, and his experience does not favor binding himself and his children to bear the brunt of foreign wars. 5. The Bible is against the league. Some partisan politi- cians and preachers with partisan bias have had a good deal to say about the Christianity of the league. Not one of them, whether politician or preacher, has quoted a single passage from the Bible or a single sentence from the league covenant in proof of what he has said. Not one; no, not one. Voters, had you thought of that? The reason is plain. There is no such passage in either document. The thing cannot be done. The idea of a league to achieve peace is distinctly Godless in origin. In his day Immanuel Kant, born in 1724, was the leading agnostic in Germany. He advocated a league of nations to regulate international affairs. Jeremy Bentham urged the same thing in England. He proposed a congress of deputies chosen from the nations to adjust their differences, and pre- scribed as a preliminary condition the reduction of armaments and the surrender of colonies by European nations. Both Kant and Bentham followed Thomas Hobbes, a deist of the seven- 21 teenth century, who did as much to discredit religion and morality as any man of his time. Mr. Hobbes, however, was too frank and honest to offer his scheme in the name of democ- racy. In truth, he was obliged to confess that it meant subjec- tion rather than freedom, a ruling class and a ruled class, over- lords and underlings. It had no place for the rule of the peo- ple. Naturally it would breed arrogance and oppression on the part of the overlords. Instead of ending war it would put the war-making power into the hands of war lords. The more the people understood it the more they disliked it, and in the end they rejected both Hobbes and his league. The newest Godless effort will go the same way if the people come to understand. They will not willingly sacrifice their sacred rights when they know the truth. The Bible speaks in no uncertain terms. Of old there were various nations on the earth — Philistines, Girgashites, Hittites, Jebusites and what not, quite as good as the Huns, the Japs, the Turks, the Mexicans and others of this day, and God said to such as were willing to hear : “Thou shalt make no league with them.” The command was as clear as any law in the Deca- logue. It was repeated with solemn warning, God stopping to explain that such a league would bring them into trouble. By deception they were led to disobey, and it was the beginning of the end, as every honest student of the Old Testament is bound to admit. The second chapter of Judges contains part of the pathetic record of disobedience and disaster. George Washington got wisdom from the Word of God, and he warned his beloved people against entangling alliances abroad. And it is confidently believed that the average Ameri- can voter cannot be beguiled into repudiating the Word of God, and his own recent experiences, and the voice of history, and the teaching of reason, and the dictates of patriotism. It is confidently believed that the average American citizen does not feel that he is called to regulate the whole earth. It is confi- dently believed that the average American voter has sense enough to attend to his own business and let other people’s business alone. 22 Bishop Neely’s Review a Ringing Call To Americanism Bishop Thomas Benjamin Neely, Ph.D., LL.D., author of “Neely’s Parliamentary Practice,” has done the American nation a great service in writing a complete review and analysis of the League of Nations, under the title “The League, the Nation’s Danger.” Bishop Neely is one of the foremost ministers of the great Methodist denomination, a man widely known for his learning and his piety. In a book of 238 pages he has presented a mas- terly analysis of every point that can be raised in regard to the League of Nations and its effect on this country. So many people, ministers and laymen, in their intense religious zeal for peace on earth, have been so completely misled by the glittering generalities that have been put forth to the effect that the League of Nations would prevent war, and that we must be willing to sacrifice our sovereignty, if need be, in order to bring about this happy state of everlasting peace, that it is of special importance that a minister of Bishop Neely’s position has so overwhelmingly shown that the League of Nations is neither religious nor moral and that it would be provocative of war rather than of peace. He emphasizes the fact that the League of Nations as pro- posed is super-government, with its own capital, its own offi- cials, which will have the right to call upon all members for the money and the soldiers needed to maintain its operations, and he says : “So this peace making and peace preserving League is a war-like and war-making machine, even to the point of fighting its own mem- ber nations, even before they have fired a gun or made an advance. “The League itself is a fighting mechanism deliberately put together to fight, and yet professing to be a peace-making arrangement. Published in the Manufacturers Record August 28, 1919. 2.3 “The proposed League of Nations cannot prevent war, and that fact should be recognized and admitted, and many do recognize this truth. Further, it should be seen that it is not based on the idea of no war, but on the probability if not the certainty of war, and so the League’s constitution gives the League functions for declaring and carrying on war, and empowers the League organization to call upon every nation in the League to respond by the support of their armies and navies, which they are under obligations to do, and these wars are to be under the conduct of the executive management of the League, so the League is an arrangement for making and carrying on war, and consequently for directing and controlling the subordinate nations in the League and their affairs in many ways. Thus the facts show that the League will not prevent war, but may make war.” * * * “It would be a safer prophecy to say that the League, if formed, would bring on war, and if the United States is in it this country will be kept busy at the dictation of the League fighting where it has no concern and paying its billions for League operations.” Discussing the super-government which is to be formed, the most tremendous oligarchy ever conceived in the world’s his- tory, Bishop Neely points out that if the League of Nations should ever materialize, “the council of nine is likely to become the greatest dictator of the ages, and it is likely to be dominated by some one individual who may swell into the proportions of an imperial despot, and by whose inquisitions and mechanisms become a disturber of peace and fill the world with a malign influence that will not tend to the welfare and happiness of humanity, but in its way be as fatal as the poisonous gases introduced in the war that has just closed. “To enter this League of Nations,” said Bishop Neely, “would destroy the sovereignty of the United States, for it would make the nation subordinate to the League and the little oligarchy that would direct its affairs, an oligarchy composed of a little handful of persons and not even the nations them- selves. Other nations in the League would be dictating to the United States, and the United States would have lost its own free will and its old independence in decision and action.” It would be impossible in the brief space of an editorial review to give even a hint of the suggestion of the importance of Bishop Neely’s “The League, the Nation’s Danger.” We take it for granted that every man who is not moved wholly by 24 partisan affiliation, every man who is not willing to see his country destroyed rather than his party, or that party lose out in the political contest — and there are persons of this kind in both parties — will wish to read Bishop Neely’s book. There is no possible answer which can be given to its facts and its argu- ments. We, therefore, urge every reader of the Manufactur- ers Record, regardless of what may be his views for or against the League of Nations, or what may be his party affiliations, if he is a true patriot, if he is a lover of mankind and would seek to lessen wars rather than increase wars, to get “The League, the Nation’s Danger,” and read it carefully, with a mind open to the truth regardless of where that truth may lead. The book is published for sale, and Bishop Neely’s address is Philadelphia, the agent of the publication being E. A. Yeakel, 1705 Arch street, Philadelphia. In giving this endorsement to this book, we believe that we are doing the least that the Manufacturers Record can do in calling the attention of this country to a publication the careful reading of which by the people of the entire country would bring about an immediate and overwhelming defeat of the entire League scheme. 25 Rev. Cortland Myers Again States His Views Against the League of Nations In a telegram to the Manufacturers Record from Roches- ter, N. Y., the Rev. Cortland Myers, D.D., one of the foremost ministers of America, reiterating a statement made in a sermon quoted in part by this paper last week, says : Rochester, N. Y., Sept. 4. Editor Manufacturers Record: The Peace Treaty and League of Nations documents were atheistic and do not deserve anything but failure. The name of God was not in them and no prayer was ever offered at the sessions at Versailles. The pages of history all declare this as fatal. God will not be for> gotten or ignored with impunity or without penalty, as already foreseen, and these agreements are not worth the paper they are written upon. This proves the Scriptures and all God’s relations to men. There can be no peace for this world without the recognition of the Prince of Peace, who is still on the throne, and Divine Judgment rests upon godless nations. CORTLAND MYERS. Published in the Manufacturers Record September 9, 1920. 26 A Godless Covenant, Promoting Warfare and Pre- venting Peace, the Versailles Pact is Thrice Damned when it Proposes Surrender of Sovereignty of America. The League of Nations Covenant is not Godless only ; it also undertakes to alienate from the United States an inalien- able thing, namely, its sovereignty. It would take from the people of this country their full and free power to use their Government as they see fit, and subject them to the decisions, order and authority of an autocratic council, over which they, the people of the United States, exercise no direct authority whatever, and indirectly only the authority which comes from the possession of a single vote, to be cast by a man in whose selection the people have had no say and over whose judgments they would have no control. That the League Council is conceived in autocracy, and in autocracy only can live, has been lately admitted by the leading British authority, Lord Grey, who in an interview declared that he thought something ought to be done to make the League Assembly at least have some approach to democratic form by permitting representation in it of the peoples of the several nations as distinguished from their official Governments. The Assembly of the League is mere molasses to catch flies, in most cases. The whole theory underlying the League con- templates government of the world by a board of nine direct- ors, closeted in some sequestered city, whose mandates and decrees would blanket the earth and from whose judgments there could be, in practice, no sustained appeal. It is the high prerogative of full sovereignty to choose be- tween peace and war. War is a temple at whose altars a people pledge en masse their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor. It contemplates a situation of grave abnor- Published in Manufacturers Record, September 16, 1920. 27 mality, wherein the ordinary pursuits, rights, privileges and customs of the people are properly immersed in a flood of co-operative endeavor. A declaration of war is notice to the world that a people have decided to contribute to the common good not merely their substance, the usual cash contributions in the form of taxes, but to offer their lives as well. In peace a man’s existence is his own ; in war it becomes the State’s. Unless, therefore, there is retained in a people their complete and full control over peace and' war, they are stripped of a transcendent feature of sovereignty. They constitute no longer a free nation, but become an international satrapy. They do not learn their fate in their own capital, but hang on the news that sparkles from the ends of a tenuous cable. The tremendous power they possess — their wealth, their skill and nerve — they continue to have, but they lose the right to deter- mine how it shall be employed. The nation remains a vast electric dynamo, but the hand that presses the button that sets the power in motion is no longer its own. There is no skill of phrasemakers that can translate dependence into independence. Subordination is subordination, no matter how it is spelled or what the number of the clauses that define it. It has not been contended that the Covenant involves no impairment of sovereignty. It has been admitted, on the other hand, that full sovereignty would be sacrificed, and it has been argued that for the greater good of the world — supposedly to flow from the Covenant — this nation should be ready to make that sacrifice. The issue, therefore, is not of fact as to whether or not sovereignty is transferred to the League authority, but is solely a question of the willingness on our part and the wis- dom of making that great contribution to the League experi- ment. It is a point few Americans care to argue. There is in- grained in the consciousness of every native-born and native- trained citizen a belief in the Declaration of Independence and in the Constitution. The very suggestion of surrender, either to armed enemies or to diplomatic intrigue, is revolting. There are some things that are beyond debate. Men do not argue whether or no wives should be virtuous ; they do not file briefs 28 in favor of theft and an economic good. There are some vir- tues, feelings, customs or instincts which by the common con- sent of mankind are accepted as axioms of behavior, and one of the greatest of these virtues is loyalty, patriotism, which means complete allegiance to the co-operative machinery of government that visualizes the idiosyncracies, the power and the achievement, and the moral impulses of what we call a nation. The individual, for the greater good, permits society to judge between him and those who assault him, but the judg- ment is by a jury of his peers, and the system rests finally on his vote. The nation is a trustee, holding the lives of its peo- ple in trust. It cannot gamble away those lives without be- trayal of its trust. This means there is no authority in the Government of the United States to alienate in any degree whatever the national sovereignty. The Government is itself a mere creature of the sovereign people, functioning only according to definite rules. The President and a unanimous Congress with him could not by treaty undertake to change this Government to a monarchy. Vital changes of that sort can be carried through only by the people themselves, by Constitutional amendment. When, therefore, the President undertakes to change the form of gov- ernment by stripping the people of a part of their sovereignty, he undertakes to do something wholly beyond his powers. The admission that the Covenant implies a loss of sovereignty is an admission that even if the Senate ratified the Covenant would still not be binding on this people, because it would have been an unconstitutional transaction. So great are the safeguards which the Fathers threw about the maintenance of our sovereignty. It is not only in Article io, whereby we undertake to guar- antee in perpetuity the territorial integrity and political inde- pendence of the nations of the earth, and in the articles pledg- ing us in advance to economic warfare in specified circum- stances, that we are asked to sign away our right of sovereign decision. The whole Covenant is shot through and through with a spirit and atmosphere of subordination. The under- lying theory is, in fact, that peace can be maintained by putting 29 in the hands of nine men the power and resources of this nation and of all nations. Unless such power is made resident in such a board, it is stated that the League would be a mere debating society. The Lodge reservations are devised to permit the fullest — perhaps too full — participation by the United States in efforts to construct efficient machinery for the maintenance of peace and to aid the stricken nations to recover themselves. They, on the other hand, do no more than deny deed gifts of our sov- ereignty. They do not vitiate or impair anything in the Cove- nant that is good ; they do not even take out of it all that is evil. They are the composite effort of a number of good Americans to prevent the needless sacrifice of American insti- tutions and rights in a purely speculative adventure. If it be treason to prevent alienation of American sovereignty, the Senate is filled with traitors of both parties, and they glory in that sort of “treason.” It has been shown that the Covenant is Godless. The wars waging in Europe prove that it promotes war and prevents peace. The President and his friends have admitted that the League cannot be alive unless there is a surrender to it of some part of American sovereignty. Any one of the three indict- ments would damn the instrument forever. Combined, they are an overwhelming argument against acceptance of it by the United States. 30 Exponent of America As the Exponent of America the Manufacturers Record is more broadly discussing the great eco- nomic questions of the day, which relate not alone to the welfare of this country, but which touch on the business interests of the world, than any other publication in America. Nowhere else can the business man find so broad a treatment, absolutely unbiased by partisanship, of all the great questions of labor, of business de- velopment and of the problems which relate di- rectly to the saving of America from the dangers of Socialistic and Bolshevistic unrest. The Manufacturers Record is seeking to develop the spirit of Americanism as against weak inter- nationalism. The Manufacturers Record is, in its broadest sense, not an industrial publication, but a journal of information, an exponent of Americanism, and all that makes for the safety of this country from the dangers which confront it. We invite a careful study of the Manufacturers Record and the work which it is doing. No busi- ness man, it matters not what may be his business, nor his profession, nor his place of residence, can miss reading the Manufacturers Record, the Ex- ponent of America, without missing much that is best in American life today. Subscription price, $6.50 a year. ManufacturersRecord Exponent of America Richard H. Edmonds, Editor Baltimore, Md. Photomount Pamphlet Binder Gaylord Bros., Inc. Makers Syracuse, N.Y. Pat. No. 877188