AMERICA AND THE PEACE TREATY

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 169, 13 April 1921, Page 8

AMERICA AND THE PEACE TREATY

REFUSAL TO ACCEPT THE COVENANT WHY PRESIDENT WILSON FAILED The refusal of the United States Senate to accept the Treaty of Versailles and endorse the Covenant of the League of Nations has disappointed and perplexed many British people. Dr. Woodrow Wilson, the .accredited representative of the United States at the Peace Conference, was the .author of the Covenant, and had a very important part in the drafting of the Treaty. The other Allies, particularly France, made wb/it they considered to be important conces'eions in order to meet the opinions expressed by Dr. Wilson, and eo secure unanimity in the final decision. The American President signed the Treaty and the Covenant on behalf of his country, his signature being placed beside the signatures of the men who had been sent to the Conference by the Allied and Associated Powers. And then the United States Senate repudiated what Dr. Wilson had done, and its decision was upheld at the last Presidential election by the great majority of the American people. The position from an American point of view was explained to a reporter by Mr. Marcus S. Hill, an American business man who was in Wellington this week. Mr. Hill said that he had noticed in some of the Now Zealand newspapers adverse criticism of the attitude taken up by President Harding and those who thought with him concerning the Treaty and the Covenant. It was highly important that there should be no misunderstanding between the British Empire and the United States on a matter of this kind. The American people, by a majority of 8,000.000 voters, had endorsed the attitude of the now President, and this fact ought to convince thinking people that the'’opponents of the Covenant in the United States had a strong case. "A cablegram published here last week,” said Mr. Hill, “contained the statement: 'America will never accept the Covenant and is determined to reject it permanently.’ That is cold truth, and as one of the millions of Americans who insisted upon the rejection, I would like to state the situation as we see it. "Dr. Woodrow Wilson deserved to 'bo Impeached for what he did in the name of the United States. He deliberately end knowingly violated the Constitution of the Republic, and he did that with the intention of forcing his views upon Rn unwilling nation. He had no right or power to commit the United States to a treaty. The Constitution provides that the President shall make treaties .'on the advice and with the consent of the Senate,’ and Di\ Wilson chose to ignore the Senate, although he was warned in the most emphatic way during the negotiations that the Senate would refuse to be ignored. He said that he would come back to Washington from Versailles with the Peace Treaty and the Covenant of the League of Nations so interwoven that the Senate would have to accept them both. Well, the Senate refused to be dragooned in this fashion, and since he had made the two documents inter-dependent, it refused to accept either of them. Then t.ho Presidential election gave the people of the United States a. chance to say what they thought, and they swept Dr. Wilson and his policies into oblivion by a majority of 8,000,000.

"Tho rejection of the Covenant by the Senate and the American people need not have surprised .anybody, because prominent Senators made their position perfectly clear while the Peace Conference was still sitting at Versailles. ►They had difficulty in knowing exactly what was going on, because Dr. Wilson actually applied a censorship to the news that was sent to the United States when the Covenant was being discussed by the Peace Conference. The Senators got their first copy of the Covenant through a newspaper which hfld used relays of messengers to bring full reports across from France. Senator Elihu Root was ono of the public men who stated clearly and explicitly tho reasons why the Covenant must lie regarded as a viol(iTTbn of the Monroe Doctrine and consequently an outrage on American sentiment. His statements were published at the time in the London ‘Times,’ among many other newspapers, and so cannot have escaped the notice of public men in Europe. Readers of his speeches need have no doubt about what the Senate was going to do.” Tho Monroe Doctrine, continued Mr. Hill, embodied a principle that the American people regarded as sacred. A proposal to violate that principle was as likely to be tolerated by Americans as a demand for the cession of Gibraltar .and Suez was likely to be accepted by the British. Tho Monroe Doctrine, which had been maintained for close upon a century laid down tho firm rule that the United States would not permit the interference of any European Power m the affairs of the independent Republics of the American continent, and that, as a natural corollary, tho United States would not become entangled in O d W°r d quarrels and would not accept OldMorld responsibilities. The American people Believed that they had good reason for insisting upon tho political isolation ot their own Republic and the twenty-five Republics that had been established in Central and South America. They believed that the ancient animosities (ind the dynastic quarrels of Europe were not the concern of the New World. SucCPHsivo generations of Americans had absorbed that Doctrine, and placed it alongside Um Declaration of Independence i)B one of the charters of their liberties. Was it surprising, then, that the nation turned its back or. Dr. Wilson when he bromdil from Versailles a document that purported to permit the interference* of a. European League in the .affairs of the American continent, and that entangled the United States in the future quarrels of the European nations? "Millions of Americans fell then, and feel now, that Dr. Wilson was guilty of the betrayal of his country,” said Mr. Hill. “He saw himself flic first ruler of tho World State, and he forgot the, sacred tradition of his own country in his eagerness to realise his die,am. He sought to use powers that he did not possess. He tried to force the United States to bow to his will—and he failed.”

"I hope that British people will try to see that matter from the point of view of the plain citizen of the United States," added Mr. Hill, “It really is a matter for peoples and not for politicians. I have said before that I bwlievo the future of the world dejiends upon the co-operation of the British Empire and the United States. '1 he two nations should know one another and understand one another. The United State,? has accepted tho principle of arbitration in international affairs. It has no ambition for domination or conquest; it Ivis given within recent years tangible proof of its willingness to make great sacrifices in tho cause of democracy and civilisation. But the United States believes that it can serve the world best if it maintains the Monroe Doctrine intact A vast majority of the American people have endorsed (hat view in the most emphatic fashion. the United States will not join the League of Naimos. But there is ample room for sympathetic co-operation outside such a League, and f pray from the bottom of mv heart that Britishers and Americans win get closer to one another unit work logetlter in tho interests of the world.