The Dominion. TUESDAY, JULY 22, 1919. AMERICAN DELAYS

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 254, 22 July 1919, Page 4

The Dominion. TUESDAY, JULY 22, 1919. AMERICAN DELAYS

Such reports as have thus far come through regarding the proceedings ot the United States Senate since it received the Peace Treaty on July 10 are distinctly inconclusive. The latest cablegram on tho subject in hand at time of writing has been delayed for nearly a week in transmission. . As it stands, however, available news suggests that most of the talking thus far about the Treaty with Germany and tho League of Nations Covenant has been done by individual Senators who speak for themselves or on behalf of minority factions. In essentials, the Republican majority which dominates the Senate has yet to define its attitude. Matters are not advanced by the statement that the issue (of ratification) ''seems to be divided on strictly party lines." It has long been, ovident that President Wilson's political opponents arc intent on making all the party capital they can out of the peace settlement. The real. question, however, is how far it is practicable to go in such a policy. The Senate, of course, is .well within its rights in scrutinising all that the Treaty contains. So far as the United States i 3 concerned its constitutional powers in dealing with the document as a whole and its detail items are absolute. On the other hand, should the Republican Senators resort to .'a deliberately obstructive policy in the hope of thus gaining a_ party advantage they would invito a storm'of denunciation from the people of the United States, including, of course, a very large proportion of their own party. The Republican Senators are bound to faco the fact that avoidable delay in ratifying the Treaty would unsettle the foundations of world peace laid at the Peace Conference. The responsibility which rests upon the Senate and upon legislative Dodies in other countries which have yet to ratify the Treaty could not be emphasised better than, in tho latest news from Russia. According to one of tomessages, all the information available suggests that the revolutionary Jewish influence in Russia is waning, and that German influence is capturing the Soviets. "Russia,it is added in words which carry a grave warning to all the Allied nations, "is fast falling under tho German yoke." Undoubtedly the danger thus indicated is real .and the first step towards meeting it is to re-establish peace as speedily as possible on the broadest possible basis. The longer peace is delayed tho greater is the danger that chaotic disorders over a considerable part of Europo may get completely out of hand, and in particular that Russia may fall an easy prey to Teutonic designs, and that Germany may be enabled to hatch new plots against the peace of the world. It is to-day more bhan ever evident that future peace is absolutely contingent upon effective international organisation ■ and more especially upon the loyal acceptance by the great Allied Powers of their international responsibilities.

Two facts stand out at the moment. One is that the _ Senate would be utterly disregarding the national interests of the United States and international welfaro if it delayed the ratification of the Treaty on any but the gravest grounds. The other is that no substantial or convincing reasons for delay have appeared. It is stated to-day that the Republicans are particularly concerned to secure certain reservations in the Covenant, "especially a clause dealing with the Monroe Doctrine and Article 10." What reasonable fault can be found with these clauses it is difficult to imagine. Under an amendment to the League Covenant which was approved by the Peace Conference in April all possible recognition was givtfn to the Monroe Doctrine. The clause in question reads:—

I'ho Covenant docs not iill'cct the validity of international wigngMienls, such as treaties of arbitration or regional understandings like the Monroo Doctrine, for securing tlio maintenance of pace. Article' 10 simply embodies an undertaking by parties to the Covenant to "respect and preserve as against external aggression the territorial integrity and existing political independence of all States members of the League." Presumably Senators opposed to this clause base their attitude upon the fact that it would entail indefinite

obligations. The undertaking, however, is simply to protect established States against external aggression—it has no reference to internal revolution—and the United States and other nations could not reasonably refuse to give such an undertaking unless they wished it to be assumed that they were prepared to'stand by and allow States within the League to bo attacked and exploited by their enemies. The rejection of Article 10 would in fact withdraw the guarantee now given to Poland, Czccho-Slovakia, and other States which owe their independent existence to the Peace Conference and in all likelihood would relapse into bondage if international recognition and protection were withdrawn.

' It would be somqwhat optimistic to believe that these are the most serious objections which will bs raised in the Senate to the acceptance of the League of Nations as an integral part of the Treaty of Versailles. Thus far influential Republican Senators have- relied chiefly upon rather vaguely-worded objections to the acccptancc of the League Covenant, their chief aim apparently being to create an impression that it would dangerously involve the United States in indefinite and burdensome obligations. At the same time they have shown themselves not unaware of the force of public opinion that is likely to be arrayed against them should they carry their opposition, too far. For instance, Senator' Lodge, who speaks with authority for his party, stated soon after Congress assembled that "no organised clamour, no manufactured pressure l of any kind will swerve the_ Senate from its high duty of laying before the American people exactly what the League involves and what it means to the United States and to the future peace of the world." It is fairly certain that the Republicans are by no means as indifferent as Senator Lodge suggests to what he calls "organised elamoifr," and are keenly conscious that an appeal to. the country over the peace settlement might have far-reaching results. One possibility they ' are bound to rccognise is that partisan opposition to the peace settlement in its present form might inducc President Wilson to seek election for a further term. .It has been reported that he will not seek reelection, and no doubt he would bo glad to relinquish office at the end of his present term provided the Treaty in its essential features and embodying the League Covenant is ratified. "Nevertheless it has been stated, notably by cx-Senator J. H. Lewis, formerly Democratic Whip in the Senate, that Mr. Wilson can be-driven to seek re-election should it bcome necessary to uphold in this way what he has done at the Peace Conference. Under the ruling trend o.f public sentiment in the United States the Republican critics of the League are hardly likely to welcome the idea of a Presidential contest on these lines, and it counts for a great deal at the present stage x that they can hardly avert such a contest except by ratifying the Treaty and approving the adhesion of the United States to the League of Nations.