Welsh Journals

America and the League of Nations. AN IMPRESSION. By Edward Morgan Lewis, Dean of Massachusetts Agricultural College, Amherst. I k TA O you think America will come into the League? Why doesn't she come? We cannot understand why you repudiated President Wilson so completely and suddenly! Indeed, we do not understand you on this side of the Atlantic at all." Such are some of the remarks I have heard over and over again during a recent sojourn in dear old Wales. They have come from many quarters; from ministers, from college professors and school teachers, from boys who still bear the scars of their terrible experience in the trenches, and from Welshmen, young and old, on the streets of village and town. I have replied to them all by telling as frankly and as briefly as possible the sad story of the failure. But I have also always ended every explanation with the em- phatic assurance that America had not deserted the cause altogether, and that she could be relied upon to do her full part in the final settle- ment of the peace, as she had finally done her part in the final settlement of the war. There was one other thing I should have said (some- thing which in my exuberance and confidence I may have forgotten to stress), namely, there is ever the possibility that, owing to the exigencies of politics and of the politician, which abound in America as I know they do in Britain, we may arrive rather late, as we arrived rather late in the World War. The statement, otherwise, is not, I think, too strong nor too hopeful. The great question which at the moment is affecting the Govern- ment's attitude towards the League is that of American entry into an International Court of Justice, which is being vigorously advocated by Senator Borah of Idaho, who has been a bitter opponent of the League, and has been previously regarded as an extreme and narrow isolationist, though he has always advocated international disarmament, and was the author of a Senate Resolution which did as much as anything else to bring about the Washington Naval Confer- ence. The really significant fact about the position to-day is that the leaders are at last aware of a great body of public opinion that must be at all costs placated before another election, and are so sensitive to it that they are now ready to do something. If they continue to ignore it, Senator Borah, himself a Republican, says they will be buried under an avalanche of votes and driven from power. Before we realise it, this discussion is likely to carry us at once to the very doors of the League again. Even the Senator himself cannot stop it. Indeed, we shall arrive at the door because of him. One cannot argue for a Court with power (" with teeth in it ") and avoid consideration of the kind and amount of power necessary to enforce its decrees. How much power ? Who will contribute to it ? Such ques- tions are inevitable. A nation cannot agree to abide by the decisions of such a Court without suffering (?) the loss of some sovereignty, the loss of some independence, the danger of war, and the whole brood of losses and evils that were conjured up as inextricably involved in Article 10 of Wilson's despicable League." If the police power implied in Article 10, which was the big stumbling block to ratification of the Treaty in 1919, might lead us into European wars, why might not the police power implied in a Court of Justice with teeth in it do the same thing? The very questions, therefore, that were raised in opposition to the Treaty of Versailles can, and will, be raised in the discussion now be- ginning. The Government has taken an irre- vocable step. It cannot turn back. It cannot, if it would, smother the issue longer, nor pre- scribe the limits of the debate. The whole ques- tion, as I view it, is wide open again. What the final definite form of the result will be no one can, of course, foretell. One can, however, confidently predict that it will be a form that will permit the United States to participate actively and effectively in European rehabilitation and stabilization. In view of what has been said thus far, two questions might fairly be asked: Why has the policy of the Government changed; and why has the constant sentiment of the people not made itself more effectively felt during these four critical years? The answer to these ques- tions cannot be made adequately without a brief exposition of the governmental machinery of the United States and without a brief review of the struggle between the Republican and the Democratic parties since the Armistice. The Constitution of the United States is a written document. It specifically provides for the election of- (a) A President every four years; (b) the full membership of the House of Representatives every two years (the House corresponds somewhat to your House of Commons), and (c) one-third the membership of the United States Senate every two years (the Senate corresponds somewhat to the House of Lords). The President, then, holds office for four years. He cannot be removed during that period. The Congressmen hold office for two years, and the Senators hold office for six years. The President appoints a Cabinet from members of his own party, who cannot be removed from office except by him.