A LEAGUE 
 
 TO PREVENT WAR 
 
 With a Review of the Fight Against 
 the Formation of the United States 
 
 
 Address by the 
 
 / 
 
 HON. W. G. McADOO 
 
 at the, 
 
 METHODIST CENTENARY 
 CELEBRATION 
 
 COLUMBUS, OHIO, JULY 4, 1919 
 
 Published by 
 
 League to Enforce Peace 
 KO West 42d Street 
 New York 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2017 with funding from 
 Princeton Theological Seminary Library 
 
 https://archive.org/details/leaguetopreventwOOmcad 
 
A LEAGUE TO PREVENT WAR 
 
 By th‘ 
 
 HON. W. G. McADOO 
 
 T he Christian Church represents the greatest spiritual and 
 moral force in the world, and there never was a time when 
 those forces were so imperatively needed as now. Co- 
 operation between all denominations of the Christian Church is 
 essential for the world’s salvation. It will require the mobilized 
 effort of the Church militant to secure the fruits of the great 
 victory for liberty, democracy and w'orld peace which has been 
 won through the blood and valor of America’s sons and the 
 blood and valor of the sons of our Allies who fought with us in 
 the titanic struggle just ended. 
 
 The Methodist Church has always been a militant influence 
 for good. It has stood unswervingly for humanity, for progress, 
 and for world peace. Although war is abhorrent to every Chris- 
 tian instinct and principle, the Church has stood for war only 
 when it was convinced that the Christian objective — world peace 
 — could be obtained by no other means. 
 
 We are now facing the most critical situation in which the 
 world has ever found itself, the disposition of our victory. Shall 
 we so dispose of it that human slaughter through war must still 
 be the arbiter of the destiny of nations, or shall we so dispose of 
 it that the glorious goal for which humanity has striven through 
 thousands of years of unspeakable misery, torture and sacrifice 
 shall now be realized — viz : The settlement of international dis- 
 putes by judicial processes and the establishment of world peace 
 through the cooperative effort of the great nations of the earth? 
 
 Organize Our Victory! 
 
 A League of Nations to prevent war would consolidate and 
 organize our victory and make practically certain the peace of the 
 
world in the future. A blessing so colossal seems unattainable, 
 and yet it is within our grasp if we have the vision, the courage 
 and the determination to take it. Here is where the Church 
 faces its noblest opportunity, and its greatest responsibility. 
 
 ^^"e must not permit any man or set of men to destroy the 
 League of Nations. We must not permit any man or set of men 
 to emasculate it. We must not permit any man or set of men 
 to put the peace of the world again in peril. The issue is so 
 momentous that the very future of civilization is at stake and 
 humanity from every stricken quarter of the suf¥ering world 
 cries out in agony to Christianity to save it. We are face to face 
 with prodigious events when blind men must not be permitted 
 to lead. It is a tragic fact in history that every great step in 
 human progress has been Avon against the resistance of blind, 
 fatuous and uncomprehending men Avhose adA’ice and leadership, 
 if followed, Avould haA^e kept us in the dark ages. 
 
 We are celebrating to-day the 143rd anniA'ersafy of the Declara- 
 tion of Independence. The American Colonies planted the seed 
 of freedom and equality in the soil of the Western Hemisphere 
 and then began that irrepressible struggle betAveen democracy 
 and autocracy Avhich culminated in democracy’s triumph on 
 the battlefields of France in November, 1918. The signing of the 
 Treaty of Peace Avith Germany, coming so near the day Ave 
 celebrate, giA'es it added significance and joyousness. Little did 
 the men of 1776 realize that they had launched a Avar against 
 autocracy Avhich would require 142 years of struggle to Avin, and 
 yet they did haA'e the Ausion to see that the salvation of humanity 
 depended upon freedom and equality of the individual, self- 
 gOA'ernment through democratic institutions and denial of the 
 divine right of kings. As the thirteen feeble American Colonies 
 took the step in 1776 Avhich secured their liberty and indepen- 
 dence after six years of desperate Avar and subsequently con- 
 solidated their A'ictory through a Federal Union which brought 
 into existence the greatest Republic of all time, so noAV that 
 Republic, by combining its strength Avith the great democracies 
 of Europe, has destroyed the greatest autocratic governments 
 on earth and has given to the people of Europe the opportunity 
 of e.stablishing self-government b}^ so organizing their A'ictory 
 that the peace of the Avorld may be secured. It rests Avith us and 
 
 4 
 
with them to say whether this is a victory of peace or a victory 
 of war. 
 
 Opposition to the Constitution 
 
 It is illuminating to recall at’this time the events that led up to 
 the formulation and adoption of our own Federal Constitution 
 and to outline the character of the fight which was made against 
 the organization of this great Republic, because they present, 
 in many respects, a striking parallel to the character of fight 
 which is now being made against the ratification of the League 
 of Nations. 
 
 The Treaty of Paris of 1783 secured the independence of the 
 American Colonies. Up to that time the common danger had 
 given them cohesion in the war. But no sooner had the victory 
 been won than the jealousies and rivalries of the several States 
 began to assert themselves. Then, as now, a more critical situa- 
 tion was presented than the war itself had engendered. How to 
 make liberty and independence impregnable and to secure future 
 peace was then, as now, the great problem. Cooperation between 
 the various States not only ceased but commercial war between 
 them began. Disputes about territory arose and actual hostilities 
 occurred between Connecticut and Pennsylvania. War was 
 narrowly averted. New York and New Hampshire had a similar 
 territorial dispute which almost eventuated in war. Financial 
 distress pervaded every State. There was no reliable medium 
 of exchange and trade and commerce were hampered everywhere. 
 In Massachusetts and Rhode Island actual rebellion broke out 
 and civil war was threatened. Each State was striving for its own 
 advantage, and selfish interest and bitter antagonism were rapidly 
 producing a condition of anarchy which threatened to destroy all 
 that had been gained by six years of war. The question arose 
 as to whether there should be one nation or thirteen nations. 
 
 In this crisis, great patriots like Washington, Madison, and 
 Franklin succeeded in bringing about a Convention in Philadel- 
 phia to consider the formation of a Federal Union. The Conven- 
 tion met in May, 1787, in historic Independence Hall, and after 
 four months of earnest and oftentimes acrimonious debate, pro- 
 duced the present Constitution of the United States, but it was 
 not to become effective unless ratified by nine of the States. A 
 
 5 
 
bitter contest over ratification then ensued. The opponents of 
 the Constitution passionately denounced the present charter of 
 our liberties, under which the greatest Republic of all the ages 
 has grown up, as a “triple-headed monster” and they declared it 
 to be “as deep and wicked a conspiracy as ever was invented in 
 the darkest ages against the liberties of a free people.” 
 
 Violent Denunciation 
 
 This is precisely the kind of denunciation of the League of 
 Nations in which men, who must be the lineal descendants of the 
 short-sighted men who fought the Constitution of the United 
 States, have been engaging. So violent was the fight on the 
 Constitution that it was publicly burned in Albany, New York, 
 and in Carlisle, Pennsylvania. Not content with this, some of 
 the leading advocates were publicly burned in effigy. In some 
 States riots occurred, with loss of life. The opponents of the 
 Constitution, in their blindness and passion, denounced the 
 venerable Benjamin Franklin as a “dotard” and George Wash- 
 ington as a “fool.” How similar to the present intemperate 
 assaults upon the second great charter of human liberty, the 
 League of Nations, which has been made possible by the wisdom 
 and far-seeing statesmanship of men like those who formulated 
 our own Federal Constitution and gave being to this great 
 Republic ! 
 
 With extreme difficulty the requisite number \Df States were 
 induced to ratify the Constitution. To show how close the con- 
 test was: in Massachusetts the vote was 187 in favor and 168 
 against, a majority of only 19 ; in Virginia it was 89 in favor and 
 79 against, a majority of only 10; in New Hampshire it was 57 
 in favor and 46 against, a majority of only 11 ; in New York it 
 was 30 in favor and 27 against, a majority of only 3. The contest 
 in New York determined the fate of the thirteen Colonies, and 
 yet for a long time it was not believed that her approval of the 
 Union could be secured. Governor George Clinton, an irrecon- 
 cilable opponent, went into the Convention at Poughkeepsie 
 with two-thirds of the delegates standing solidly behind him 
 against ratification. But Alexander Hamilton, with only one- 
 third of the delegation behind him, conducted for forty days a 
 running debate where the brilliancy of his defense of the Consti- 
 
 S 
 
tution and the sheer force of his intellectual power overcame the 
 opposition, and New York was won over to the cause of liberty 
 and national unity. This assured the organization of the United 
 States of America, but it was by a frightfully narrow fhargin. 
 Suppose that the unprogressive and uncomprehending opponents 
 of the Federal Union had been successful, what would have been 
 the fate of America? One cannot picture it. But God ruled and 
 the Federal Union was won. It brought peace to the distracted 
 thirteen States. It removed all causes of dispute. It brought a 
 free intercourse between them and established a cooperation 
 which made them potential not only for their own protection 
 against external aggression, but enabled them to conquer a vast 
 continent and give to it the blessings of liberty under law and 
 self-government from one end of its broad domain to the other. 
 
 In 1788 the Constitution of the United States became operative 
 and George Washington was made the first President in April, 
 1789. At that time autocratic government was in the saddle 
 throughout the world. The Federal Constitution was the “most 
 gigantic step in constructive statesmanship” that had ever been 
 taken in all history. It marked the beginning not only of a new 
 era, but of a new ideal that was to possess the world. Oppressed 
 men of all nations turned eager eyes to the feeble light of liberty 
 which had been lit in the New World and which gradually grew 
 into the consuming flame which has finally reduced autocracy to 
 ashes. 
 
 The Next Step to Liberty 
 
 As the Constitution was the great progressive step in liberty 
 and peace for the American Colonies, so the League of Nations 
 is now the great progressive step for the maintenance of liberty 
 and democracy and the preservation of peace between the nations 
 of the world. It is the “most gigantic step in constructive states- 
 manship” since the birth of the Federal Union, and yet it is 
 resisted by the same type df uncomprehending men who fought 
 the adoption of the Federal Constitution. They have the same 
 obliquity of vision, the same selfishness of view, the same indif- 
 ference to humanity and the same lack of interest in the masses 
 of mankind. They oppose an effective organization to prevent 
 war. They prefer to preserve our imaginary isolation. They 
 regard war as an ineradicable feature of civilized society, and 
 
 7 
 
look upon its recurrence with the same indifference that char- 
 acterized the opponents of the Constitution of the United States. 
 They denounce the League of Nations, as the opponents of the 
 Federal Constitution denounced it, as a dastardly attempt against 
 the liberties of free peoples. 
 
 The great men who are responsible for the Federal Constitu- 
 tion have emblazoned their names in imperishable letters upon 
 the scroll of fame. All men know them. Who can obscure the 
 fame of Washington, Franklin, Madison, Hamilton and Jeffer- 
 son ? They had the vision, the foresight, and the patriotism to 
 bring into existence this great Republic which has not only pros- 
 pered the American people and protected their liberty, but has 
 had a profound influence upon the destinies of the world. What 
 of their opponents? AVho knows them or has ever heard of 
 them? With few exceptions, they have sunk into obscurity and are 
 neither known nor heard of unless by some student of history 
 who takes the pains to investigate the past and to search out, 
 as a warning to himself and to others, the narrow- views and 
 opinions of those whose chief mark of identification is that they 
 were the implacable foes of the Constitution of the United States. 
 
 The League Covenant 
 
 Incorporated in the treaty are the provisions for the League 
 of Nations. What is this League and what is it to do? Funda- 
 mentally, it is a cooperative agreement between thirty-two na- 
 tions to prevent war by forcing all the nations concerned to 
 submit international disputes either to arbitration or to confer- 
 ence and discussion before resorting to war. The machinery by 
 which this is accomplished I shall outline briefly. 
 
 First, an Assembly or Congress of the nations is provided for 
 in which each nation has three representatives and in which each 
 nation has one vote. Second, a Council of nine members is con- 
 stituted, of which five of the great powers, namely, the United 
 States, the British Empire, France, Italy and Japan, are per- 
 manent members. The other four members of the Council will 
 be selected by the Assembly. The Council is an executive body 
 merely and will have the general direction and supervision of the 
 affairs of the League. The League is not a super-sovereignty. 
 It is not even an international legislature. It is an international 
 
 8 
 
conference. In the meetings of the Assembly, as well as of the 
 Council, unanimous vote is required for effective action, except in 
 such minor matters as procedure at meeting and appointment of 
 Committees. 
 
 Objection has been raised by opponents of the League that 
 small nations are given the same voting power as large nations. 
 What difference does this make, so long as unanimous vote is 
 essential to action? The one vote of the United States is, there- 
 fore, just as potential as the votes of all the other nations com- 
 bined, since no action can be taken without its concurrence. 
 
 The first meeting of the Assembly and of the Council will be 
 called by the President of the United States, Our country is 
 given the distinction of initiating the proceedings under this new 
 charter of liberty, democracy and humanity, just as our fore- 
 fathers initiated the proceedings for the formulation of the 
 Federal Constitution and the organization of the great democ- 
 racy under which we live. 
 
 A permanent Secretariat, which is the administrative arm 
 of the League, is established and all positions under or in con- 
 nection with the League are available to men and women alike. 
 
 Fundamental Purpose 
 
 The fundamental purpose of the League is the prevention of 
 war. If it should accomplish nothing else than this, it would 
 confer upon humanity the most inestimable boon with which 
 it has been blessed since civilization began. How is the pre- 
 vention of war to be accomplished? First of all, it was neces- 
 sary to destroy autocratic government everywhere before any 
 foundation for a League of Nations could be laid. .Every effort 
 of the nations in times past to organize for the prevention of 
 war has failed because autocratic and despotic governments were 
 not only unwilling to enter into effective guarantees for the 
 preservation of peace, but they refused to be bound by agree- 
 ments of this character. They held that it was incompatible 
 with the divinity of the right they exercised to. surrender any 
 portion of their power and that they could violate such arrange- 
 ments at will. Although civilized society has been organized on 
 the basis of law and order within nations themselves, there has 
 
 9 
 
never been any law between nations which made war itself a 
 crime and fixed personal responsibility upon those guilty of 
 provoking it. Consequently despots and autocrats have, 
 throughout history, precipitated needless wars upon the theory 
 that “the king could do no wrong’’ and untold millions of human 
 beings have been sacrificed for this fictitious doctrine. We all 
 know now that kings cannot only do wrong, but that they have 
 frequently committed the most colossal wrongs upon mankind. 
 We also know that if the fiction that “the king can do no 
 wrong” had been destroyed centuries ago, millions of human 
 lives would have been saved and untold human suffering would 
 have been avoided, because so long as kings have thought that 
 they could make war with impunity and that the people alone 
 would suffer, they have not hesitated to do so. 
 
 Eliminate Causes of War 
 
 The League of Nations seeks to prevent the recurrence of 
 war by eliminating as far as possible the causes which lead to 
 war through 
 
 (1) the limitation of armaments, 
 
 (2) guaranties of territorial integrity and political indepen- 
 dence, 
 
 (3) the abolition of secret treaties, 
 
 (4) compulsory conferences to discuss questions of common 
 interest that may from time to time arise and thereby to 
 bring about cooperation among the nations concerned. 
 
 One of the most serious causes of wars in the past has been 
 the creation of vast armaments and great standing armies which 
 have been a constant temptation to aggression by that nation 
 which was possessed of a preponderant force. So long as the 
 policy of any one power was to build up great military and naval 
 establishments, other powers had to enter into competition as a 
 matter of self-defense. The result was that the leading nations 
 of Europe have been for generations past great armed camps 
 ready to spring at each other’s throats and precipitate wars upon 
 slight provocation or for causes which no impartial tribunal 
 would, upon investigation, consider adequate. 
 
 10 
 
1. LIMITATION OF ARMAMENTS: 
 
 One of the most important purposes of the League is there- 
 fore the reduction of armaments upon an established scale which 
 will put all the members of the League upon an equality as near 
 as may be in the matter of organized force. Plans for such re- 
 ductions are to be prepared by the Council and submitted to the 
 several governments concerned, but no plans are to become 
 binding on any nation until adopted by it. Congress is not de- 
 prived of any of its prerogatives in this matter, but, on the con- 
 trary, retains the sole power to determine what armed forces, 
 military and naval, shall be maintained by the United States. 
 If, however, our Congress should adopt the recommendation of 
 the League for reduction of armaments, then no increase in such 
 armaments may be made without the consent of the League for 
 a period of ten years, at the end of which time the plan will be 
 subject to reconsideration and revision. 
 
 In order to enforce this provision, the Council is to advise as 
 to how the evil effects of the private manufacture of arms and 
 ammunition can be prevented, with a view to the adoption by 
 governments of the policy of manufacturing for themselves in- 
 stead of through private interests such war materials as are 
 required for their safety. All members of the League are to in- 
 terchange full and frank advices as to their military and naval 
 programs in order that each member of the League may know 
 what the other is doing in respect to armaments. This is the 
 first step toward the prevention of war — the limitation of arma- 
 ments — so that no nation will have a preponderant armed force 
 and be tempted to use it to attack another in the execution of 
 some selfish aim or purpose. The United States is not disadvan- 
 taged, but advantaged by this provision, because it is in line with 
 our historic policy of limited armament and puts all othet nations 
 on an equality of armed strength with us. 
 
 2. GUARANTIES OF TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY AND 
 POLITICAL INDEPENDENCE 
 
 Throughout all history, one of the greatest incentives to war 
 has been the lust of ambitious rulers to extend their power and 
 dominion over other peoples and to absorb the territory of other 
 nations. After every great war the map of Europe has been 
 
 11 
 
changed and peoples have been transferred from one sovereignty 
 to another without regard to their feelings or interests. The 
 results of the present war are not different from those of all 
 other great wars, so far as changing the map of Europe is con- 
 cerned, although the motives for such change are this time quite 
 different from those which have heretofore controlled. We are 
 now trying to restore to the different peoples of the world the 
 territories which of right belong to them and to set them up once 
 more as politically independent sovereignties with the added 
 right of self-government. The magnitude of this task is ex- 
 ceeded only by its difficulties. There are so many races in 
 Europe and the intermingling of populations along their borders 
 has been so continuous that there are many areas which cannot 
 with accuracy be ethnologically defined. There are, so to speak, 
 twilight zones of populations which are neither predominantly 
 one nationality or another, and, therefore, the new nations which 
 are to be established under the peace treaty are in some instances 
 given boundaries which must be tested for a reasonable length 
 of time under conditions of stabilized government before the 
 wisdom of such boundaries can be demonstrated. Moreover, 
 some of these nations will be stronger, of necessity, than others. 
 Their peoples are unaccustomed to self-government and must 
 create a political organization and a status themselves. This is 
 notably true of restored Poland and Czecho-Slovakia which will 
 need, for some time, guarantees against external aggression 
 which will enable their people to work out their destiny without 
 fear of aggression from their neighbors and under favoring con- 
 ditions of peace. No less important are these guarantees against 
 external aggression and of political independence to the larger 
 state of Europe than to the smaller. Once it is firmly and clearly 
 established that no nation may commit aggressions upon its 
 neighbors, all may settle down to peaceful pursuits and build up 
 again the prosperity and happiness of their peoples under stable 
 and well ordered government. 
 
 Article X of the covenant, therefore, wisely provides that each 
 member of the League shall respect and preserve as against 
 external aggression the territorial integrity and existing political 
 independence of all members of the League. It must be borne 
 in mind that this covenant does not permit the League of Nations 
 to interfere in any uprisings or disturbances within a state itself. 
 
 12 
 
The right of revolution against oppressive internal authority 
 remains unaffected and unimpaired, and every people is left to 
 determine for itself what its form of government shall be and 
 how its internal or domestic affairs shall be conducted. 
 
 Mr. Root suggested an amendment to this article providing 
 that after the expiration of five years from the signing of the 
 convention any nation might terminate its obligation under Ar- 
 ticle X by giving one year’s notice in writing to the Secretary 
 General of the League. Since Mr. Root’s suggestion a provision 
 has been incorporated in the revised draft of the covenant which 
 is even more favorable to the termination of the obligation than 
 Mr. Root proposed. Any member of the League may, under the 
 revised draft, withdraw from the League after two years’ notice 
 of its intention to do so, provided that all its international obli- 
 gations under the League covenant shall have been fulfilled at 
 the time of its withdrawal. The effect of the revised covenant, 
 therefore, is to enable any nation to terminate its obligation to 
 respect and preserve the territorial integrity and political inde- 
 pendence of the other members of the League after two years’ 
 notice of its intention so to do, instead of being bound for five 
 years, as Mr. Root suggested. 
 
 A Far-Fetched Argument 
 
 The argument that this guarantee will involve us in every 
 European quarrel is far-fetched for the following reasons : 
 
 (1) We cannot be drawn into any war unless our Congress 
 first authorizes it. 
 
 (2) After all European armaments are reduced practically to 
 an internal police force basis, any war or attempted war will be 
 a small affair because of the limited armed forces available. 
 
 (3) The control by governments of the manufacture of war 
 munitions and the destruction of great war plants like the 
 Krupps will prevent would-be belligerents from getting the 
 necessary supplies of arms and ammunition. 
 
 (4) In case of conflict in Europe the nearby powers would be 
 called on first to provide the necessary forces, as in case of con- 
 flict on the American continent, the United States would be 
 asked to take the matter in hand. But, and I repeat it, in no 
 
 13 
 
case is the United States bound to go to war or supply an armed 
 force without the authorization of the Congress. 
 
 Mr. Root has recently surprised his friends and admirers by 
 urging that Article X be stricken from the League Covenant. 
 He has given no explanation for his sudden change of position. 
 He is unable, however, to refute the convincing argument he first 
 made in favor of guaranties of the territorial integrity and the 
 political independence of all members of the League of Nations. 
 
 Article X Heart of Covenant 
 
 To eliminate this guaranty is to extract the red corpuscles 
 from the blood of the League and render it a weak and anemic 
 institution incapable of fulfilling the purposes of its creation. 
 Unless the people of each nation can be secured against external 
 aggression, territorial disputes will continue to arise and jeopar- 
 dize the peace of the world. I think the fears that this guarantee 
 will involve America in every future European conflict that may 
 arise and that we are committed to an indefinite engagement to 
 send our sons to fight in unknown and unanticipated European 
 wars are unfounded. We can always terminate the engagement 
 by withdrawing from the League upon two years’ previous no- 
 tice. Article X will put an end to the menace of war from terri- 
 torial disputes, but if eliminated from the League, so that these 
 controversies remain a fruitful cause of war, then we shall be 
 involved again in European conflicts, because it is impossible to 
 separate America from the rest of the world and leave her in the 
 imaginary isolation which opponents of the League beguile 
 themselves into believing is a sufficient security for our future 
 peace. In fact, the guarantee of territorial integrity and political 
 independence against external aggression only, as Article X pro- 
 vides, will not only prevent war by deterring the signatory 
 powers from attempting it in violation of this Article, but in case 
 of such disputes the League itself supplies the machinery for 
 peaceful settlement, either by arbitration or by inquiry on the 
 part of the Council. 
 
 Germany has not accepted the Treaty of Peace voluntarily. 
 Naturally she will comply with its covenants reluctantly. The 
 othej' Central Powers will doubtless sign in the same mood. This 
 makes it essential that the strength of the Allied Governments 
 
 14 
 
remain organized and that their cooperation be continued if Ger- 
 many and her late allies are to be made to fulfil the obligations 
 of the Treaty. How can the power of the Allies be more effec- 
 tively consolidated and applied for these purposes than through 
 the League of Nations? Separate the League of Nations^from 
 the Treaty and it would be utterly impossible to enforce the 
 Treaty not only upon Germany, but upon all the other powers 
 concerned. 
 
 Treaty Must Be Enforced 
 
 Never in all history has it been so necessary that an effective 
 instrumentality for the interpretation of a Treaty and for the 
 enforcement of its terms be provided as in the present instance, 
 because never in the history of the world has peace been re- 
 established after a great war upon such a revolutionary basis. 
 Not only has the form of old governments been changed, but 
 new ones have been established, creating intricate problems 
 which cannot be finally disposed of in the terms of peace. Im- 
 agine what would happen if there was no League of Nations. 
 Germany would proceed to re-arm herself as promptly as possible 
 in order to renew the struggle and to regain what she has lost. 
 France and England and Italy would also have to begin prepar- 
 ing themselves for the next war by building up their war power 
 to the very limit of their strength. The United States would 
 have to do the same thing. The backs of the people of all nations 
 would bend with the burdens of new taxation for war purposes ; 
 they would be ground in poverty and misery to supply out of 
 their labor and production the means by which these wasteful 
 preparations for war would be continued. 
 
 3. SECRET TREATIES 
 
 Another fruitful cause of war between nations has been secret 
 treaties under which nations attempted to get advantage of their 
 rivals and under which intrigues and private understandings of 
 all kinds have worked for distrust, suspicion and enmity. Article 
 XVIII of the revised covenant provides that “every convention 
 or international engagement entered into henceforward by any 
 member of the League shall be forthwith registered with the 
 Secretariat and shall as soon as possible be published by it. No 
 
 15 
 
such treaty or international engagement shall be binding until so 
 registered.” 
 
 Certainly no nation imbued with good faith toward its neigh- 
 bors and genuinely interested in preserving the peace of the 
 world can object to this article of the covenant. When treaties 
 are published just as are the laws of the United States and of 
 the several States of the Union, so that all may read and under- 
 stand, the selfish aims and private advantages which have here- 
 tofore accrued to nations and to individuals through these perni- 
 cious secret treaties will become abortive. 
 
 4. COMPULSORY CONFERENCES OF THE NATIONS 
 
 If any one thing has been demonstrated by the great war, it 
 is that conference and counsel between the great nations is one 
 of the most certain means of preventing international misunder- 
 standings and of making war impossible. Heretofore such con- 
 ference could not be held except by the voluntary action of all the 
 parties. In 1014, before Germany precipitated war, an urgent 
 effort was made by Sir Edward Gray to bring about a conference 
 of the powers to consider the dispute between Austria- and Serbia. 
 Germany refused to enter that conference. She had determined 
 to bring on the war in the execution of long-considered plans, 
 and she knew that if she joined a conference of the powers where 
 full and frank discussion of the issues involved would be neces- 
 sary, war would be averted and her ambitions would be thwarted. 
 
 One of the most powerful arguments for the League of Nations 
 is the requirement that the Assembly, which consists of the 
 1 ‘epresentatives of all the members of the League and the Council, 
 shall meet at stated intervals and from time to time as occasion 
 ma)^ require, at the seat of the League or at such other place 
 or places as may be decided upon. This provision is mandatory. 
 It provides that the Assembly shall meet at stated intervals, and 
 that the Council shall meet from time to time as occasion may 
 require and at least once a year. 
 
 Suppose that this League had been in existence in 1914, and 
 that upon a threat of war a meeting of the Assembly or of the 
 Council had been called. Germany would have been obliged to 
 attend. A discussion of the dispute would immediately have fol- 
 
 16 
 
lowed, and there is no doubt that the terrible war would have 
 been prevented ; that 7,000,000 dead men would be alive to-day 
 and 20,000,000 wounded men would have been spared ; that the 
 horrors and indescribable sufferings of the civil populations of 
 all the nations concerned would not have occurred ; and that 
 $200,000,000,000 of treasure would not have been wasted. 
 
 It is a well-known fact, and Germany has admitted it, that 
 Germany expected Great Britain to keep out of the war and that 
 if she had known that Great Britain would make common cause 
 with France, Belgium and Russia, she would never have begun 
 the disastrous conflict. If even a conference of Great Britain, 
 Germany, Austria, France and Russia had been held in 1914, 
 Great Britain would have made this clear to Germany and war 
 would have been averted. If the proposed League of Nations 
 accomplishes nothing more than to make certain a conference 
 of the members of the League and of the Council at stated in- 
 tervals for the purpose of discussion and conference, it will have 
 a potential influence upon the peace of the world ; it will pro- 
 mote international cooperation instead of international antagon- 
 ism and suspicions which have been the characteristic evil of 
 the old system of secret treaties and artificial balances of power 
 so long maintained in Europe. 
 
 If, however, after limitations of armaments have been secured 
 and guarantees of territorial integrity and political independence 
 have been given and secret treaties have been eliminated and 
 conferences of the powers have been provided for, disputes be- 
 tween nations should arise, and take on such an acute form as 
 to threaten war, then the League covenant makes other provi- 
 sions which almost certainly will result in maintaining the peace 
 of the world. What are the provisions? 
 
 Arbitration 
 
 They are, first, for arbitration of the dispute, if it is of a char- 
 acter which the contending nations, recognize as suitable for sub- 
 mission to arbitration. Mr. Root’s admirable definition of dis- 
 putes suitable for arbitration has been inserted in the covenant; 
 namely, “Disputes as to the interpretation of a treaty, as to any 
 question of international law, as to the existence of any fact 
 which if established would constitute a breach of any interna- 
 
 17 
 
tional obligation, or as to the extent and nature of the repara- 
 tion to be made for any such breach. So there can be no ques- 
 tion as to what is arbitrable. And, second, if the matter should 
 not be suitable for arbitration, then it shall be considered by 
 the Council which shall make such recommendations for a settle- 
 ment as it thinks just and proper, which recommendations must 
 be made within six months after the submission of the contro- 
 versy. In case either of arbitration or of inquiry by the Council, 
 the parties affected agree that they will not go to war until 
 three months after the award by the arbitrators or the recom- 
 mendation of the Council. 
 
 Without going into further details about these admirable pro- 
 visions of the covenant, it is sufficient to say that they postpone 
 war until there can be a complete discussion of the dispute either 
 through the medium of arbitration or through the processes of 
 inquiry and that after award by the arbitrators or a recommenda- 
 tion by the Council which makes the inquiry, neither party shall 
 go to war until three months thereafter. During that time oppor- 
 tunity for mediation and conciliation is offered, and in any event 
 it is provided that the parties affected will not go to war with 
 any party to the dispute which complies with the unanimous 
 recommendations of the Council or accepts the award of the 
 arbitration. 
 
 Economic Weapons 
 
 Suppose any nation refuses to accept the award of the arbitra- 
 tion or the unanimous recommendation of the Council which 
 makes the inquiry and proceeds to make war against the other 
 party to the dispute which has accepted the award or the recom- 
 mendation of the Council, or suppose any nation goes to war, as 
 Germany did in 1914 without notice to anybody, what then hap- 
 pens? The offending nation will be deemed to have committed 
 an act of war against all the other members of the League and, 
 thereupon, the other members of the League will (1) sever all 
 trade or financial relations between the members of the League 
 and the offending nation ; (2) prohibit all intercourse between the 
 citizens of the members of the League and citizens of the offend- 
 ing state; and (3) prevent all financial, commercial and personal 
 intercourse between the citizens of the offending nation and the 
 citizens of any other state or nation throughout the world, 
 
 18 
 
whether a member of the League or not. That is what is called 
 an economic boycott. It is a terrible weapon which no sane 
 representatives of any nation would defy with impunity. 
 
 Let us suppose again that Germany had been faced in July, 
 1914, with this terrible economic boycott by Great Britain, France, 
 Italy, Russia, Belgium, and the United States. Is it conceivable 
 that she would have entered upon the mad career of war with 
 certain defeat staring her in the face at the very outset? No 
 nation is strong enough to resist the combined economic pressure 
 of the greatest powers of the world and the moral influence and 
 reprehension of the public opinion of the world. But economic 
 pressure is not the only consequence which a recalcitrant nation 
 would incur because if war should actually result the League 
 Covenant provides that the Council shall recommend to the 
 several governments concerned what effective military or naval 
 forces the members of the League shall severally contribute to 
 be used against the offending member. 
 
 Congress Retains War Power 
 
 I wish to repeat, however, that the United States, as a mem- 
 ber of the League, could not be forced into war by the recom- 
 mendation of the council or by any action of the League, with- 
 out its consent. The Congress of the United States would have 
 to say whether or not such recommendation should be adopted. 
 The entire subject would have to be submitted to the Congress 
 by the President for appropriate action in accordance with the 
 Constitution of the United States which vests in the Congress 
 the sole power to declare war. 
 
 But if arbitration and inquiry fail, if mediation and concilia- 
 tion prove impotent, if nine months of discussion and confer- 
 ences do not cool the hot passion for war, if every agency and 
 influence of the Ueague are exhausted in vain, then our oppo- 
 nents say that war will happen, and that the League covenant 
 therefore recognizes and sanctions war. It is possible of course 
 that war might happen in these circumstances but it is scarcely 
 conceivable. If it should happen, how could it be said that the 
 League covenant sanctions war because it undertakes to prevent 
 it any more than it can be said that the state sanctions murder 
 because it enacts laws to prevent that crime. In either case the 
 
 19 
 
evil is recognized to exist and because every effort is made to 
 destroy it, by no exercise of the imagination can the attempt be 
 distorted into a sanction of the offense if. after all is done, mur- 
 der is committed or war occurs. 
 
 Monroe Doctrine Safe 
 
 We do not abandon the Monroe Doctrine by entering the 
 League of Nations. That policy is expressly reserved from the 
 operations of the covenant. We cannot be made a mandatary 
 of any foreign colony or territory except with our consent, and 
 no amendments to the League after its adoption will be binding 
 upon the United States unless accepted by it. 
 
 In case of attack upon the United States we can immediately 
 repel the attack and defend ourselves. Nothing in the League 
 covenant deprives us of that right notwithstanding the false 
 claim of our opponents to the contrary. The League has noth- 
 ing to do with immigration, naturalization or any of our internal 
 or domestic affairs. We shall control these matters just as fully 
 with membership in the League as without it. 
 
 I shall merely enumerate the admirable provisions of the 
 League of Peace for progressing the solution of great moral and 
 social problems which have long demanded the concerted atten- 
 tion of the civilized nations of the world : 
 
 (1) The endeavor to secure and maintain fair and humane 
 conditions of labor for men and women; 
 
 (2) The general supervision over the execution of agreements 
 with regard to the traffic in women and children and the traffic 
 in opium and other dangerous drugs ; 
 
 (3) The endeavor to take steps in matters of international 
 concern for the prevention and control of disease ; and 
 
 (4) The undertaking to secure just treatment of the native in- 
 habitants under their control. 
 
 The Heart of Humanity 
 
 These great problems appeal to the heart and conscience of 
 humanity everywhere. God grant that their solution may not be 
 prevented by the failure of the Senate of the United States to 
 
 20 
 
ratify the League of Nations Covenant. Certainly the Church, 
 that great moral and spiritual organization, is vitally concerned 
 in holding the ground thus gained in the League of Nations. 
 
 Most of the objections to the League of Nations are based 
 upon misconceptions or misinterpretations of its provisions, or 
 upon exaggerated and unfounded fears as to its operations. Of 
 course, the instrument does not suit every mind. It is of neces- 
 sity a. compromise of many conflicting views, just as was the 
 Constitution of the United States. I am reminded of what the 
 aged and venerable Benjamin Franklin said when the Constitu- 
 tion was signed at Philadelphia in 1788: “Whatever opinions I 
 have of its errors I will sacrifice to the public good, and I hope 
 that every member of the Convention who still has objections 
 will on this occasion doubt a little of his own infallibility and for 
 the sake of unanimity put his name to this instrument.” Op- 
 ponents of the League of Nations should adopt the advice of this 
 great American patriot and statesman by sacrificing some of 
 their opinions to the public good, and at least they should doubt 
 a little of their own infallibility when they denounce in passionate 
 terms the League of Nations Covenant. 
 
 Opposition Due to Partisanship 
 
 I am loath to believe that the discussion of this greatest piece 
 of constructive statesmanship, this League of Nations which 
 concerns the very weal and woe of humanity, can be debased by 
 partisan politics. And yet there are manifestations of partisan- 
 ship in the discussions, disturbing to every man and woman who 
 loves America and puts country above partisan considerations, 
 W e must not let partisanship nor passion sway us in this mo- 
 mentous hour. Never were wisdom and deliberation on the 
 part of the people and their representatives more needed than 
 now. One cannot be passionate and wise at the same time, even 
 though he be a politician or a statesman. Wisdom is the product 
 of cool deliberation and judgment, klistakes are the product of 
 passion and wars are the offspring of the baser instincts of hu- 
 man nature. A combination of passion and partisan politics will 
 produce inevitable mistakes. God grant that all those upon 
 whom the responsibility rests for deciding the future of the 
 world in this twentieth century may be endowed with the patri- 
 
 21 
 
otism, the wisdom and the unselfishness of those great Ameri- 
 cans of the 18th century, who, by their dispassionate judgment, 
 their vision, their self-sacrifice, their devotion to human liberty 
 and to country, formulated the Constitution of the United States 
 and brought into existence this great American Republic. 
 
 Peril of Amendments 
 
 No amendments of the League of Nations, no vital reserva- 
 tions in the ratification of the League by the Senate of the United 
 States can be effected without imminent peril to the future of 
 the world and without prolonging the state of war. We cannot 
 risk the undoing of all that has been accomplished by forcing an- 
 other Peace Conference at Paris. Amendment of the Treaty is 
 rejection of the Treaty. Rejection of the Treaty means a new 
 Peace Conference and the indefinite postponement of peace. Let 
 us not misunderstand that. Let us ratify the League of Nations 
 as it is, representing as it does the combined wisdom of all the 
 great men who formulated it, and then let it evolve as our Con- 
 stitution has evolved, into a more perfect instrument as human 
 wisdom and experience demonstrate that amendments may be 
 necessary. This is the course we took with our own Constitu- 
 tion. We ratified it first and amended it afterwards. Let us 
 ratify the League of Nations Covenant first and amend it after- 
 ward if necessary. That is the safe plan. The League of Na- 
 tions covenant, like our own Constitution, provides the means 
 for its amendment. By this course we shall consolidate and or- 
 ganize the triumph of democracy and liberty and extract from it 
 those superlative blessings for which the human race has striven 
 throughout the centuries. 
 
 “Let U3 have peace.” 
 
 Let us have a League of Nations to give the world peace! 
 
t;P ■ 
 
 ■K. 
 
 
 
 

 
 'W 
 
 4 ‘" ’:f '^'y^k' I. " r 
 
 ■ .W 
 
JX1975.9.IVI11 
 
 A league to prevent war; with a review 
 
 1012 00026 0069