The League of Nations

THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 711

solution of the Serbian-Austrian situation, had been successful in his attempt to compel Germany to enter a conference with the other European nations in July, 1914, Germany could not have gone to war. A peaceful way out of the difficulty would have been found, if a meeting had been brought about. Germany knew this and would not meet. The greatest interest in the workings of the league center around its handling of questions of war and peace, though it is by no means certain that this will be true in the distant future. War between nations may then be as unlikely as personal encounter between individuals today. International law and world conscience may restrain lawless propensities of nations, just as private law restrains the individual within nations today; firmly established law and adequate force are indispensable to any such accomplishment. As an obstacle to war, it is provided that no nation belonging to the league shall go to war without submitting the matter in dispute to arbitration before a tribunal selected by the parties to the dispute; for example, a tribunal such as was organized specially for the determination of the controversy between Great Britain and the United States, with reference to the seals in Alaskan waters, or to a permanent tribunal such as The Hague, to which were submitted our differences with Mexico over the so-called "Pious Fund," or to the judicial tribunal cre- ated by the league, or if it is found impossible for the disputants to submit the matter to judicial determination, that then, at if desired, least, it shall be submitted to the executive council or, merits; to the assembly of delegates for an investigation of its and if the investigation results in a unanimous decision, it is agreed that the members of the league shall not go to war against the decision or if the matter is arbitrated a party submitting to to the award of the arbitrators. The members of the league further agree that in any event they will not go to war until

three months after the decision or award. The difference be- judicial determinatween matters which may be submitted to which may only be submitted to investigation tion and those general distinction beand recommendation would follow the "justiciable" and "non-justiciable questions. tween so-called such matters as an interpretation of a law or The first includes as a boundary. The latter treaty or a question of fact, such which affect honor and sovereignty of nations concerns matters and which, while everybody admits they exist, are very diffi- distinction has been drawn with cult of exact definition. The his usual masterly ability, by Senator Root, in his great letter in support of the league, as follows: are denned as disputes as to the "Disputes of a justiciable character question of internaUonal law, as to the interpretation of a treaty, as to any

712 IMPROVEMENT ERA

existence of any fact which if established would constitute a breach of any international obligation, or as to the nature and extent of the reparation to be made for any such breach."

This definition is embodied in the revised compact of the league, as announced by the press of April 28. It is also provided that before conflict arises, each nation shall have the friendly right to suggest to the executive council that a matter likely to produce difficulty, or lead to war, has arisen, or is about to arise between any of the nations. It is further provided that in case of serious dispute between nations not members of the league or between a nation which is a member and one which is not a member of the league that the non-member nation or nations shall be invited to become members of the league for the purpose of settlement of the difficulty. In case any nation shall go to war without submitting the matter to arbitration or investigation, the members of the league agree that they will sever all intercourse, political, commercial and personal, and will isolate such nation. Germany and her allies have been whipped in the present conflict largely through commercial and material pressure. This is a powerful weapon, and one which will become all the more powerful as the interdependence between nations further develops. It is agreed that the executive council shall formulate and recommend to the nations a program for limitation of armaments. The great burden in taxation imposed upon the people because of the competition between nations in the equipping of armies and building of navies, as well as the actual provocation to war and the facility to conflict which exists in a large professional army fully equipped and ready for conflict, is recognized by all. It is agreed that after the program of limitation of armament has been accepted by the nations composing the league that they will not thereafter increase their armament without the consent of the executive council. It is urged that an agreement of this kind would be in derogation of our sovereignty, and that we would be placing in the hands of "foreigners" the determination, of the size of our army and navy, and that such a provision would be unconstitutional. It will be noted that Senator Root, in his letter regarding the proposed constitution for the league, has not suggested a single consitutional objection to the covenant. This is a fairly safe indication that none exists. It is, humanly speaking, certain that if any had existed, it would not have escaped his keen, informed and practiced intellect. Ex-President Taft, who is also a great lawyer and experienced judge, has expressly annouced his opinion that there is nothing opposed to the constitution of the United States in the covenant of the league. For more than one hundred years we have had an agreement with Canada do-

THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 713

ing away with the necessity of military establishments along the boundary between the two nations and the maintenance of war ships on the Great Lakes. No one has suggested that this agreement is unconstitutional. This provision of the constitution of the proposed league would not differ in principle from our agreement with Canada, but would apply the principle of limitation of armaments now in operation with Canada to all the nations composing the league. The league only "recommends" the program. To be binding on the United States, the recommendation would have to be approved by Congress. The only question is as to the policy of such an agreement, and as to this particular matter it would seem that any program of disarmament likely to succeed must be one entered into by all nations. This is necessary because of the fact that no nation can determine its policy in the matter of disarmaments until all of the other nations have made a determination of theirs. The determination must, as a practical matter, be arrived at at the same time among all nations. As a result of the war there have been liberated from German and Turkish dominion great tracts of land in Africa and Asia and in the islands of the Pacific. The question of the disposition of these lands is a serious one. The people are backward in development, and it would seem unfair and unwise to turn them adrift. It would be wrong to place them back in the hands of Germany; she has demonstrated her unfitness to govern other peoples. The league has proposed to take these peoples and lands under its jurisdiction as a trust to promote their civilization, and welfare; and it has agreed that the more advanced nations shall be selected as mandatories, or "big brothers," to assist in bringing these peoples up to a standard of civilization. The most urgent need of these nations is law and order and assistance in procuring food. It has been suggested that the United States act as mandate for Armenia or Palestine. It is provided in the league that the consent of the mandatory must be secured, so that the matter is in no sense compulsory. If we undertake this responsibility it will be because we decide that we ought to. The new spirit with reference to colonies is that they are not to be exploited or tyrannized over, but are to be helped along the road of civilization and world progress. Article X provides that the members of the league shall

undertake to respect and preserve, as against external aggression, the territorial integrity and existing political independence of all states members of the league." This has been attacked as

binding us to enter into any conflict that may arise in the "far flung" British empire, or to oppose, or it may be to forcibly sup-

press, any effort on the part of Ireland to free itself from Great

714 IMPROVEMENT ERA

Britain. Senator Root in his declaration with regard to the league, has said that after mature consideration and after some doubt as to its wisdom, he is in favor of Article X. Many new states are being created out of the nations defeated in the great war, among them Poland, Czecho-Slovakia and Jugo-Slavia. Their existence is dependent upon the friendly assistant of the great nations that have made victory possible, and upon the threat of the use of the strength of these nations, if necessary, to protect the new nations. It will be noticed that the obligation is to protect only against "external aggression." This would clearly not include any effort on the part of Ireland to free itself. The aim of the article is unquestionably only against the land-grabbing propensities of the old order. We guaranteed the new independence of New Granada in 1846, of Panama in 1903, and of Haiti, in 1916. The principle is not new, it is simply an application with geographical extension of an old principle to a new world condition. Any objection to Article X seems to lose its force in face of the fact that a nation may withdraw from the league by giving two years' notice. If we find ourselves bound to the discharge of undesirable obligations, we may withdraw. When we think of the great benefits that may possibly, indeed that will in all likelihood, flow from this effort on the part of mankind to free itself from the necessity of unnecessary wars, the instincts of humanity, faith in the possibility of human progress and in the strength of an overruling Providence, seem to concur in the prayer that man may be successful in this beneficent undertaking. No greater political question was ever presented to human mind for solution. We are each of us a factor in world opinion, and we owe it to ourselves and to the future that we carefully consider this great question, and bring our voice and influence to the side which conscience and reason and faith commends to be the right side. We live by faith and not by sight. Difference of opinion as to the possibilities of success of the proposed league is not to be wondered at. Patrick Henry opposed the adoption of the constitution of the United States. His argument against the constitution is interesting reading. He had with him some of the most patriotic and capable men of his day. We, today, regard the constitution as divinely inspired, and Gladstone has characterized it as the greatest product of the human mind stricken off in a given time. We refused for twenty years to ratify the Geneva Convention establishing the Red Cross, because it was thought to violate our traditional policy against "entangling alliances." It is well that there are those who doubt and question. Doubt and criticism test the soundness of the project, but, after all, sane and courageous faith is the safer guide. Let us trust

THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 715

"the soul's invincible surmise," and believe that it is possible for men to effectuate his highest aspirations for an honorable and practical means of achieving peace. As we stand in the presence Of the four years of terrible struggle and doubt now past, and see clearly the vindication of right and justice and the signal defeat and punishment of wrong, let us renew our faith in God and in the reign of law among nations. Let faith live and doubt die. With Lincoln, "Let us have faith that right makes might;" and that right is powerful enough to find a way out of the necessity of the wrong of war. Nations, like individuals, learn to know and trust each other only by coming closer together. The League of Nations is the next step in human progress. Our honorable part in this establishment is a crowning finish to the tardy but heroic assist- ance given by us to the upholding of civilization in its hour of direst need. Salt Lake City, May 1, 1919

0, my Mountains O, my mountains, how I love you, Love your every rise and fall; And though I wander sea or prairie Ever do I hear your call.

Calling me to peace and safety; Shelt'ring me from tide and gale. And your gentle breezes whisp'ring Fairy stories, as they sail.

Telling of your wondrous beauty, Of your great, majestic power; How you guide the rushing river, How you nurse the daintiest flower. O, my mountains, yes, I love you, Love your every rock and rill; And, while gazing on your splendor, Awake to do the Master's will. Viola Browning.

Memorial Ode Written for the Dedication of the John R. Park Memorial Building, June 9. 1919

^AiPi^ii Maestoso.

i§p==tp==i==ii^eii Met. J — 84. Words and Music sy Evan Stephens.

*3

wt. Wf "^mm^^^^m^k^^^ Tenors A A A A A

Ye halls that rise, A firm foundation lies. Of ev er last ing mighty hills be Basses

A ccomp.

^^fe AAA ^ Mil iuma neath your "ttt^i 1o walls,I CivAfin an/1 Strong ma •. An and se pa care, Pa Ce munt.Oil ment-ed ^Q to An en - - i1nv>A dure, Tkw' Thre'

mm A A

a-gee yet to come, What e'er be • falls. Thro' a-ges yet to come, Wnat-

K: aoBmm r s r