The Dominion. TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 1920. MR. LANSING'S RESIGNATION

Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 122, 17 February 1920, Page 6

The Dominion. TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 1920. MR. LANSING'S RESIGNATION

Occurring at a critical stage in the 'consideration of the Peace Treaty, the resignation of the American Secretary of State (Jin. Robert Lansing) has naturally given rise to some excited comment, the more so since it. is reported to have been followed by the resignation of one of his r-ol-leagues, MR. Lane, Secretary of the Interior, and of Mr. Fletcher, Ambassador to Mexico. Of the resignations reported, that of the late Secretary of State, of course, overshadows the others in importance, but even this holds no such significance as would the withdrawal of a Cabinet Minister holding a position relatively as important under the British Constitution. In the United States the President himself appoints the members of his Cabinet, though the appointments have to be approved by the Senate, and they are responsible to him and not to Congress. The resignation of ono or more of the members of hrls Cabinet is therefore unlikely to seriously prejudice the President's position unless tho circumstances are Bitch as to weaken and discredit his authority. On the facts disclosed this will hardly apply to the resignations of Mr. Lansing and oi MR. Lane. As information stands it is at least as likely that the resignation of the Secretary of State was only deferred until MR. Wilson again lett sulricieniiy master oi lnuiseir to resume a mil and active part in puDiic anairs, and particularly in one treatment ol the Treaty issue. ino ostensible reason ior air. Lansings resignation—that ne was called to account; by the President ior summoning a meeting ol Cabinet wnile tlie latter was incapacitated— is probauiy only a polite subterluge. At the sahie tune tnere is no reason to suppose that Air. Lansing's action implies a belief on his part that the President is no longer capable oi discharging the duties. oi his office. It is stated that in his letter of resignation he observed that ho long ago wished to resign,

because since Januury, 3919, he felt that L'resident Wilson no longer welcomed the advice of the Secretary of State pertaining to negotiations in Paris aim to international atVaifo generally, but he withheld his resignation, Jeiinng that it would be misinterpreted abroad tnd emimiTiiss the President.

As a matter of fact, evidence .that the President and Alii. Lansing were at issue has long been available. On his return from Lurope and before he set out on the spcecn-making tour in the course of which his nealtb. gave way President Wilson trank-' ly informed members of the Senate foreign Relations Committee, in a conference at the White House, that he differed from Secretary Lansing on certain points. Mr. Lansing himself made the same disclosure in his testimony before the committee. Somewhat indiscreet disclosures on this subject were made before the Senate Foreign Eelations Committee in September last by Mr. W. C. Bullitt, who was sent to liussia by Mr. Lansing to investigate conditions in that country, and returned with peace proposals from the Soviet Government. In his evidence Mr. Bullitt stated that Mr. Lansing told him in Paris last May that "if the Senate and the American people knew what the Treaty meant it would be defeated."

Mr. Lansing told me the clay I resigned (the witness added) that ho was opposed to that part of the League Covenant reluting to a mandate for Armenia. He said he considered the Shantung award and tho League of Nations bad—that tho League would bo entirely useless; that the nations had arranged the world to suit themselves, and that England and France got what they wanted. Extraordinary as they arc, these disclosures were accepted by commentators of standing in America as in essentials only confirming what was already known—that the President and the Secretary of State held extremely divergent; views on the issues of peace. It is likely that Mr. Lansing's attitude was coloured to a considerable extent by resentment at the high-handed fashion in which President Wilson monopolised all authority in conducting the peace negotiations, and even in seeking counsel relied upon his unofficial adviser, Colonel House, to the almost total exclusion of the members of his Cabinet. In any case it has long been apparent and a matter of familiar knowledge that MR. Lansing is no supporter of the President's peace policy or of the Treaty of Versailles as it is drafted, and the unfavourable significance of his resignation is correspondingly reduced. The event may, -however, be significant in another respect, as indicating that President Wilson contemplates an attempt to force an early and definite decision _on tho question of Treaty ratification. It counts for something in this connection that the Democratic National Committee, which sat in Washington last month', unanimously adopted resolutions endorsing the Treaty • of Versailles, and denouncing as unpatriotic the attitude of Senators who would defeat it directly or by nullifying reservations. The party support thus promised may not enable President Wilson to secure the ratification of tho Treaty, but it overshadows in importance and significance- tho roccnt Cabinet resignations.