for that reason the Socialists were divided between their policy of equality and their fear of religious influence. Paul Hymans, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, voted for it, but all the rest of

27

the Liberals were against it, as was Burgomaster Max, even after he had caused an amendment to be adopted excluding women of "notorious misconduct" from the ballot.

Th

HE United States Senate rejected the Peace Treaty with Germany on March 19, 1920. The vote on ratification lacked the necessary two-thirds majority by seven, the final vote, counting the pairs, being 57 for ratification, 37 against ratification. Politically the vote was divided as follows: For ratification, counting pairs, 34 Republicans, 23 Democrats; against, 15 Republicans, 24 Democrats. The vote took place late in the day. Immediately after the rejection a resolution was adopted, by a vote of 47 to 37, as follows:

That the Secretary of the Senate be instructed to return to the President the treaty of peace with Germany signed at Versailles on the 28th day of June, 1919, and respectfully inform the President that the Senate has refused to advise and consent to its ratification, being unable to obtain the constitutional majority required therefor.

The effect of this action was to remove the treaty from the Senate and place the responsibility for any further initiative regarding peace with Germany upon the President.

The treaty had been laid before the Senate July 10, 1919, by the President. On Sept. 10 the Foreign Relations Committee had reported it to the Senate with certain reservations, which finally numbered fifteen. Meanwhile, President Wilson, in open conflict with the attitude of the Senate majority, began a speaking tour over the country in advocacy of the treaty without any reservations which would modify its meaning. This tour was discontinued Sept. 28 on account of the sudden illness of the President.

The Senate, on Nov. 19, voted on the

treaty with the fourteen reservations that had been adopted, and it failed to receive the necessary two-thirds vote.

In January the contending factions resumed their conferences, with a view to placing the treaty again before the Senate. On Feb. 9 the Senate reconsidered the vote by which ratification had been defeated, thus again bringing the question before that body, and the treaty was referred to the Foreign Relations Committee. The President again let it be known that he was strongly opposed to any reservations which would alter the provisions of the treaty, and expressed a willingness to have the whole question passed upon by the people in the Presidential election in November.

On Feb. 10 the treaty was reported back to the Senate with the same reservations which had failed of ratification in November. The Senate resumed the debate on Feb. 16, and it proceeded almost daily from that date until the final action on March 19.

PRESIDENT WILSON'S LETTER

On March 8 the President again addressed Senator Hitchcock, who was leading the fight for the treaty, in a letter in which he reaffirmed his strong opposition to any changes in Article X. of the treaty, by which the signatories agreed to guarantee the territory of each other against external aggression. In this letter the President wrote:

Any reservation which seeks to deprive the League of Nations of the force of Article X. cuts at the very heart and life of the covenant itself. Any League of Nations which does not guarantee as a matter of incontestable right the political independence and integrity of each of its

1

members might be hardly more than a futile scrap of paper, as ineffective in operation as the agreement between Belgium and Germany which the Germans violated in 1914.

Article X. as written into the Treaty of Versailles represents the renunciation by Great Britain and Japan, which before the war had begun to find so many interests in common in the Pacific; by France, by Italy, by all the great fighting powers of the world, of the old pretensions of political conquest and territorial aggrandizement. It is a new doctrine in the world's affairs, and must be recognized, or there is no secure basis for the peace which the whole world so longingly desires and So desperately needs.

If Article X. is not adopted and acted upon, the Governments which reject it will, I think, be guilty of bad faith to their people, whom they induced to make the infinite sacrifices of the war by the pledge that they would be fighting to redeem the world from the old order of force and aggression. They will be acting also in bad faith to the opinion of the world at large, to which they appealed for support in a concerted stand against the aggressions and pretensions of Germany.

If we were to reject Article X. or so to weaken it as to take its full force out of it, it would mark us as desiring to return to the old world of jealous rivalry and misunderstandings from which our gallant soldiers have rescued us and would leave us without any vision or new conception of justice and peace. We would have learned no lesson from the war, but gained only the regret that it had involved us in its maelstrom of suffering. If America has awakened, as the rest of the world has, to the vision of a new day in which the mistakes of the past are to be corrected, it will welcome the opportunity to share the responsibilities of Article X.

It must not be forgotten, Senator, that the article constitutes a renunciation of all ambition on the part of powerful nations with whom we were associated in the war. It is by no means certain that without this article any such renunciation will take place. Militaristic ambitions and imperialistic policies are by no means dead, even in counsels of the nations whom we most trust and with whom we most desire to be associated in the tasks of peace.

Throughout the sessions of the conference in Paris it was evident that a militaristic party, under the most influential leadership, was seeking to gain ascendency in the counsels of France. They were defeated then, but are in control now. The chief arguments advanced in Paris in support of the Italian claims on the

Adriatic were strategic arguments; that is to say, military arguments, which had at their back the thought of naval supremacy in that sea. For my own part, I am as intolerant of imperialistic designs on the part of other nations as I was of such designs on the part of Germany.

The choice is between two ideals; on the one hand, the ideal of democracy, which represents the right of free peoples everywhere to govern themselves, and on the other hand the ideal of imperialism which seeks to dominate by force and unjust power, an ideal which is by no means dead and which is earnestly held in many quarters still.

Every imperialistic influence in Europe was hostile to the embodiment of Article X. in the covenant of the League of Nations, and its defeat now would mark the complete consummation of their efforts to nullify the treaty. I hold the doctrine of Article X. as the essence of Americanism. We cannot repudiate it or weaken it without at the same time repudiating our own principles.

The imperialist wants no League of Nations, but if, in response to the universal cry of the masses everywhere, there is to be one, he is interested to secure one suited to his own purposes, one that will. permit him to continue the historic game of pawns and peoples-the juggling of provinces, the old balances of power, and the inevitable wars attendant upon these things. The reservation proposed would perpetuate the old order.

I need not say, Senator, that I have given a great deal of thought to the whole matter of reservations proposed in connection with the ratification of the treaty, and particularly that portion of the treaty which contains the covenant of the League of Nations, and I have been struck by the fact that practically every so-called reservation was in effect a rather sweeping nullification of the terms of the treaty itself.

I hear of reservationists and mild reservationists, but I cannot understand the difference between a nullifier and a mild nullifier. Our responsibility as a nation in this turning point of history is an overwhelming one, and if I had the opportunity I would beg every one concerned to consider the matter in the light of what it is possible to accomplish for humanity, rather than in the light of special national interests.

FRANCE INDIGNANT

The President's reference to the militarist spirit in France created an unpleasant impression in that country and was bitterly resented by the French newspapers and by leading French publicists of all shades of opinion.

The Senate was not in accord with the President's view. On March 15, after days of serious debate, it adopted a strong reservation respecting Article X. by a vote of 56 to 26; fourteen Democrats voted with the Republicans adopting the reservation. The new reservation was even stronger than the one adopted in November. It read as follows:

The United States assumes no obligations to employ its military or naval forces, its resources or any form of economic discrimination to preserve the territorial integrity or political independence of any other country, or to interfere in controversies between nations-whether members of the League or not-under the provisions of Article X., or to employ the military or naval forces of the United States under any article of the treaty for any purpose unless in any particular case the Congress, in the exercise of full liberty of action, shall by act or joint resol'ition so declare.

THE IRISH RESERVATION

in

A fifteenth reservation was adopted on the day preceding the final vote, and it created wide comment. It was as follows:

In consenting to the ratification of the treaty with Germany the United States adheres to the principle of self-determination and to the resolution of sympathy with the aspirations of the Irish people for a Government of their own choice adopted by the Senate June 6, 1919, and declares that when such Government is attained by Ireland, a consummation which it is hoped is at hand, it should promptly be admitted as a member of the League of Nations.

This reservation was offered by Senator Gerry of Rhode Island; it was opposed by the Republican majority, but was passed by a vote of 38 to 36, the support coming from 21 Democrats and 17 Republicans; the Republicans avowedly against the treaty in any form voted solidly for the reservation.

The fourteenth reservation respecting the voting powers of the different

nations was adopted by the Senate as follows:

Until Part I., being the covenant of the League of Nations, shall be so amended as to provide that the United States shall be entitled to cast a number of votes equal to that which any member of the League and its self-governing dominions, colonies or parts of empire, in the aggregate, shall be entitled to cast, the United States assumes no obligation to be bound, except in cases where Congress has previously given its consent, by any election, decision, report or finding of the Council or Assembly in which any member of the League and its self-governing dominions, colonies, or parts of empire, in the aggregate, have cast more than one vote.

The United States assumes no obligation to be bound by any decision, report, or finding of the Council or Assembly arising out of any dispute between the United States and any member of the League if such member or any self-governing dominion, colony, empire, or part of empire united with it politically has voted.

This action brought forth a declaration by the President of the Privy Council of Canada, N. W. Rowell, that if that reservation were accepted by the other powers Canada would withdraw from the League of Nations.

As indicative of the attitude of the Senate regarding certain reservations: the vote for a specific reservation regarding the Monroe Doctrine was 58 to 22; on excluding domestic questions from the league the vote was 56 to 27; on equalizing the voting powers of this country and Great Britain the vote was 57 to 20; on refusing to accept any mandate without express authority of Congress the vote stood 64 to 4. On the proposition that the right to withdraw from the League was within the sole jurisdiction of Congress, whether or not the United States had fulfilled its obligations, the vote was 45 to 20; on the treaty clauses requiring Shantung to be given to Japan the reservation withholding the assent of the United States was adopted by a vote of 48 to 21; but no specific reference to either country was made.

T

HE House Military Committee by a bi-partisan vote refused on Feb. 25 to include universal military training in the Army Reorganization

bill. At the same time the Committee voted that military training should become the subject of separate legislation to be framed by a "friendly" sub-committee of seven named by Mr. Kahn, with an agreement of the leaders that its consideration would not be blocked after a thorough inquiry had been made of the cost and economic effects. investigation is expected to delay action on the question until the next session.

This

With this temporary disposal of universal training, the committee voted, 10 to 6, to report the Reorganization bill, providing for a maximum peace-time army of 17,700 officers and 299,000 enlisted men, including the Philippine Scouts and unassigned recruits. The combat strength was authorized to be 250,000, the remainder of the force being absorbed in the supply and administrative services, and the Philippine Scouts and unassigned recruits. The infantry force was fixed at a maximum strength of 110,000 men and 4,200 officers, the cavalry at 20,500 men and 950 officers, the field artillery at 36,500 men and 1,900 officers, the coast artillery at 36,000 men and 1,200 officers and the air service at 16,000 men, including cadet fliers, and 1,514 officers.

On Washington's Birthday the Republic of France, through its representatives, rendered homage to American soldiers of the New York district who fell in the war. In a series of public gatherings held at various points in New York, in which distinguished soldiers of the allied armies participated, more than 6,000 Icertificates of gratitude were presented by representatives of the French Government to relatives and

friends of soldiers who died in defense of France's eastern frontiers.

Soldiers who have served overseas since July 11, 1919, will receive an increase of 20 per cent. on their entire back pay. The War Department announced Feb. 14 that the change was authorized under a recent decision of the Controller of the Treasury, and that a private on foreign service would receive $36 instead of $33. The increase is not payable for service in the Canal Zone, Panama, Porto Rico or Hawaii. It is estimated that from 250,000 to 300,000 soldiers will submit claims for back payment, and that it will require approximately $1,800,000 to settle the claims.

OUR DEAD IN FRANCE

Secretary Baker, on March 12, informed Chairman Wadsworth of the Senate Military Committee that about 50,000 of the American dead in France will be returned to the United States, while between 20,000 and 25,000 will remain permanently interred overseas. The Secretary, who wrote in response to a Senate resolution, estimated the cost of returning the dead and concentrating the bodies remaining in cemeteries overseas at $30,000,000.

Congestion of the French transportation systems and shortage of materials used in the manufacture of coffins are handicapping the work, Mr. Baker said.

While 111 bodies of American dead have been returned from Archangel, the same number still remain in Northern Russia, and it is improbable that anything can be done toward their removal for a year. Removal of the bodies from England is progressing, while in Italy all bodies have been concentrated, ready for return to this country.

Drastic reduction of permanent officers of the army from their temporary ranks to regular army grades, effective

March 15, was ordered by General March, Chief of Staff, on Feb. 29. Of approximately 3,000 officers holding temporary ranks higher than their permanent appointments, about 2,000 were to be returned to their regular status. Field officers only were affected. The number of officers holding General rank is now within the allowance, and there will be no cut in the grades of those below the rank of Major. The bulk of demotions was expected to come from the bureaus in Washington.

Under the commonly termed 18,000 officers law, which authorized that number of officers as the temporary maximum, all emergency officers must be discharged by July 1, unless additional legislation is enacted. There were approximately 7,800 regular officers holding temporary rank at the signing of the armistice. Reductions have been made from time to time since Nov. 11, 1918, in accordance with the policy announced by Secretary Baker of demoting officers as soon as the emergency duty which justified the higher grade has been completed, with the result that to date more than 4,000 demotions have occurred.

BONUSES FOR SOLDIERS

By a vote of 325 to 4, the House on Feb. 26 adopted a rule referring all bills dealing with soldiers' bonuses to the Ways and Means Committee with instructions to report a comprehensive measure for monetary and land bonuses for soldiers of the World War. This action resulted from a threatened revolt by forty Republicans who had recently informed the Republican steering committee that they would call a caucus of House Republicans unless the original plan of the House leaders to postpone the consideration of bonuses to soldiers was abandoned. It was finally agreed by the forty Republicans that the caucus would be delayed if the bills were referred to the Ways and Means Committee, with the understanding that a bonus bill would be reported at this session.

The agitation for a soldiers' bonus, stimulated by the American Legion, has become so strong that members of Congress now believe that political exigency will force the enactment of such legis

lation before Congress takes a recess for the national conventions. Representative Mondell, the Republican House leader, who was one of the strongest advocates of bonuses, said recently that the state of finances would not permit such an expenditure.

In a hearing March 2 before the committee, Franklin D'Olier, President of the American Legion, suggested that soldiers who did not desire an allotment of land should receive $50 a month for the term of service. This plan, he said, was the one which had received the approval of the legion's Executive Committee.

"In accordance with resolutions passed at the National Convention of the American Legion," he said, "its National Beneficial Legislation Committee is now ready to submit recommendations for legislation covering four features, as fol

lows:

1. Land settlement covering farms in all States, and not confined to a few States. 2. Home aid to encourage purchase of homes in either country or city.

3. Vocational training for all ex-service persons desiring it.

4. Adjustment of compensation or final adjustment of extra back pay based on length of service for those not desiring to avail themselves of any one of the previous three features.

The ex-service person has his option of any one, and only one, of the above four features, and only upon his application.

If bonuses are granted by the present Congress to American World War soldiers, new taxes will be required, and in the opinion of members of the Ways and Means Committee a selling tax, about the only means of taxation unexhausted, must be applied.

OUR NAVAL POLICY

Three provisional naval building pro-grams, dependent on Senate action on the Peace Treaty, were laid before the House Naval Committee, March 6, by Secretary Daniels. If the United States ratified the treaty and became a member of the League of Nations, Mr. Daniels said, he would recommend new construction only to "round out" the fleet now built or building; if the Senate rejected the treaty [which it did later] and the United States definitely decided not to join the League, he said he would urge