can do in the service of humanity; that it should therefore indorse and support the Versailles Treaty and condemn the Lodge reservations as utterly inconsistent with the nation's honor and destructive of the world leadership which it had established, and which all the free peoples of the world, including the great powers themselves, had shown themselves ready to welcome.

It is time that the party should proudly avow that it means to try, without flinching or turning at any time away from the path for reasons of expediency, to apply moral and Christian principles to the problems of the world. It is trying to accomplish social, political and international reforms, and is not daunted by any of the difficulties it has to contend with. Let us prove to our late associates in the war that at any rate the great majority party of the nation, the party which expresses the true hopes and purposes of the people of the country, intends to keep faith with them in peace as well as in war. They gave their treasure, their best blood and everything that they valued in order not merely to beat Germany but to effect a settlement and bring about arrangements of peace which they have now tried to formulate in the Treaty of Versailles. They are entitled to our support in this settlement and in the arrangements for which they have striven.

The League of Nations is the hope of the world. As a basis for the armistice I was authorized by all the great fighting nations to say to the enemy that it was our object in proposing peace to establish a general association of nations under specific covenants for the purpose of affording mutual guarantees of political independence and territorial integrity to great and small States alike, and the covenant of the League of Nations is the deliberate embodiment of that purpose in the treaty of peace.

The chief motives which led us to enter the war will be defeated unless that covenant is ratified and acted upon with vigor. We cannot in honor whittle it down or weaken it as the Republican leaders of the Senate have proposed to do. If we are to exercise the kind of leadership to which the founders of the Republic locked forward and which they depended upon their successors to establish, we must do this thing with courage and unalterable determination. They expected the United States to be always the leader in the defense of liberty and ordered peace throughout the world, and we are unworthy to call ourselves their successors unless we fulfill the great purpose which they entertained and proclaimed.

The true Americanism, the only true Americanism, is that which puts America at the front of free nations and redeems the great promises which we made the world when we entered the war, which was fought not for the advantage of any single nation or group of nations, but for the salvation of

all. It is in this way we shall redeem the sacred blood that was shed and make America the force she should be in the counsels of mankind. She cannot afford to sink into the place that natious have usually occupied and become merely one of those who scramble and look about for selfish advantage. The Democratic Party has now a great opportunity, to which it must measure up. The honor of the nation is in its hands WOODROW WILSON. ADDRESS OF SENATOR M'CUMBER Senator McCumber, Republican, of North Dakota, in a Senate speech on May 11 declared that, while he was opposed to the Knox resolution, he felt that President Wilson had made a colossal blunder by injecting the treaty and the League of Nations into a political campaign. He said:

The thought of the people of this country is engrossed with the perplexities that surround us. We are this moment surrounded by a thousand imminent dangers demanding our immediate attention and solution. We stand almost helpless while debts, State, national, municipal and industrial, are piling mountain high. We behold the hours of idleness of our people ever increasing, production dangerously decreasing, currency becoming more and more inflated, the yoke of taxation ever growing greater and more galling, the prices of all necessities of life ever advancing.

We are now living in the midst of strikes and threats of strikes. We are living in imminent danger of having our industries paralyzed and the distribution of commodities on which our very lives depend stopped at any moment by lawless hands.

The very atmosphere is poisoned by the infectious breath of socialism, while anarchy, fevered by hate and envy, waits only the opportunity to work a reign of hell such as today is consuming agonized Russia.

Search as you will for excuses, the American people know where to lay the blame for this dire condition. The war is not the cause of this threatening situation. The American people are the victims of the new system of purchasing political support by enacting purely class legislation.

They are the victims of a policy of surrendering the interests of the unorganized and ineffective many to serve the demands of the organized and effective few. They are the victims of a policy of utilizing the Federal Treasury to meet the demands of organized classes, no matter how exorbitant or inequitable such demands.

The whole policy of the present Administration has been one of surrender to those demands. That course has been followed

en

That course followed during the war tailed upon us a cost at least five times what the war should have cost us. A few months of the application of that policy to the operation of railways under Government control bankrupted every railroad in the United States. That policy manifested itself in the vast number of Socialists and theorists with whom nearly every official place has been filled during the last four unhappy years. That policy is manifest today in nearly every appointment that comes to the Senate for confirmation.

Senator McCumber, in discussing the question of making peace, said that Congress undoubtedly had power to terminate the war which it had power to begin, but declared that settlement of peace questions must be through the medium of a treaty.

MR. REED'S BITTER ATTACK

Senator Reed, Democrat, of Missouri, bitterly assailed the attitude of the President in an address on May 14. Taking up the President's statement that the Democrats must "keep faith" and safeguard the nations's honor, he asked:

Keep faith with whom and what? The President says in his telegram that he was authorized by the great fighting nations to inform the enemy-Germany, in other words -that the League of Nations had been decided on. Our pledge then is to Germany. On his speaking tour the President called the opponents of the League pro-German. Now we are told we must accept the League because we promised it to Germany.

No sane man believes it possible that the Peace Treaty can be ratified before March 4, 1921. If the Democratic Party writes into its platform a declaration for unconditional acceptance of the treaty there cannot be such a change made in the complexion of the Senate as would prevent its rejection. Nobody outside of a lunatic asylum believes unqualified ratification possible.

I wonder what will become of Democratic candidates for re-election to the Senate with the treaty a party issue. Does not the position taken by the President insure their defeat?

Taking up the President's telegram in detail, Mr. Reed said that Democrats would be called upon to support "indefensible things." He enumerated the plural votes allowed the British Empire in the League Assembly, the question of the Monroe Doctrine and the article relating to disarmament.

We are asked to defend before the American people [he said] the proposal that when this nation is engaged in war, and defending itself against an invader, we cannot raise a single soldier nor call into being a single ship without the consent, the unanimous consent, of a council composed exclusively of foreigners, sitting on the top of a mountain in Switzerland, in the new capital of the world. We are asked to sanction giving up what no nation or no man ever should give up the right of self-defense.

THE FINAL DEBATE

The resolution was amended on May 13 on motion of Senator Lodge, and was agreed to without debate by eliminating the request to the President that he negotiate a separate treaty with Germany.

The Senate voted on the Knox resolution May 15, and passed it by a vote of 43 to 38; three Democrats, Senators Reed, Shields and Walsh of Massachusetts, voted aye; one Republican, Senator Nelson, voted no, and one Republican, Senator McCumber, was paired in the negative; two Democratic Senators, Gore and Smith of Georgia, and Newberry (Rep.) of Michigan were not paired and did not vote.

The debate before he final vote was brief. Senator Underwood, the Democratic leader, opposed the resolution on the ground that it mnt a separate peace treaty with Germany. This Senator Knox denied, asserting that it did not mean a separate peace treaty, but a treaty of commercial relatio s.

Sen

ator Underwood asserted that the President could not accept it and would refuse to sanction it. Senator Pomerene (Dem.) of Ohio asserted that the resolution was an attempt to make a treaty by legislation. Senator Walsh of Montana, who had voted for the Lodge reservations, opposed the Knox resolution on the ground that it opened our markets to be flooded with German goods without safeguarding our commercial interests. Senator Hitchcock, the former Democratic leader, assailed the resolution as prompted by partisanship and charged that it was an attempt to usurp the powers of the Executive.

The resolution was reported to the House on May 19 as a substitute for the one passed by that body, and was referred to a conference committee of the two houses.

I

N beautiful San Remo, amid the hills of North Italy, overlooking the Mediterranean, the British, French and Italian Premiers met on April 18, 1920, and began their historic conferences regarding Germany, in the hope of settling all differences which had arisen between the Allies themselvesnotably between Great Britain and France and of reaching a solution of the vexed question of German fulfillment of the Peace Treaty. Amid cacti and carnations, palm trees and pink roses, the Villa Devachan, where their sessions were held, sends down its white gleam to the wayfarer passing on the roads leading through the hamlet of redroofed houses far below. On the south the Mediterranean glittered silverly. From whatever window the allied states

men gazed, their eyes beheld scenes of peace and tranquillity.

But when Messrs. Lloyd George, Millerand and Nitti met around the council table there was little harmony at first. The action of France in occupying German towns to the east of Mayence, as a guarantee of the withdrawal of the German troops from the Ruhr district, had brought a rift in the Entente, which had barely been healed after a rapid-fire exchange of diplomatic notes between Paris and London. Great Britain, on her part, had assured France of her intention to compel Germany to disarm and fulfill strictly the neglected provisions of the Versailles Treaty. France, on the other hand, had pledged herself to evacuate the occupied German towns as soon as the Germans reduced

their forces in the Ruhr district to the prescribed limitation, and had further agreed that she would not again take independent action without full consultation with her allies.

But many matters still remained unsettled, and the British and French Premiers met at San Remo in a tense, combative mood, based largely on mutual misunderstandings which the coming discussions were destined to clarify and finally resolve.

Mr. Lloyd George, supported by Signor Nitti, was resolved not to yield to any extreme demands on Germany which France might make; M. Millerand, as spokesman for all his countrymen, was equally determined to maintain France's insistence that Germany disarm, that she yield the coal supplies which she had promised and not delivered, and that she pay the full indemnity and make the full reparations which the Versailles Treaty stipulated. Against the alleged British and French sentiment for treaty revision, M. Millerand was ready to fight "to the death."

SOLUTION OF GERMAN PROBLEM

In

The rapidity with which these grave differences and misunderstandings were composed at San Remo is one of the wonders of European diplomacy. barely a week's time the allied Council of Premiers accomplished more than the Paris Peace Conference had accomplished in weeks, even months, of disputation and debate. While Germany and the world awaited the outcome with the keenest interest; while Signor Nitti was evolving, for the benefit of the swarm of correspondents, his philosophy of smiling, now that the war was over, and while many reports were disseminated of bitter quarrels among the assembled Premiers, the three allied statesmen were reaching harmony on all questions before them, and notably the question of what should be done in the case of Germany.

That decision may be summed up as follows: M. Millerand gained reassurance from Lloyd George that no revision of the Versailles Treaty was planned by Great Britain, and that both

this note Germany was reminded that she had not fulfilled the terms in respect to the surrender of war material, the reduction of her armed forces, the delivery of coal and the payment of the costs of the army of occupation. Germany was also rebuked for not having made proposals for a definite settlement of the amount of indemnity, as provided in the treaty. Two requests received shortly before from Germany, both of them reforwarded from Paris, that she be allowed to retain an army of 200,000, instead of the 100,000 men provided for in the treaty, were met with a curt refusal. Regarding the French occupation of the German towns, it was expressly stated that France disclaimed any intention of permanent occupation of Rhine territory, and would withdraw her forces as soon as Germany withdrew the supplementary forces sent by her to suppress the Ruhr insurrection in the prohibited area. [Both withdrawals were effected by May 19.]

The second part of this note, considered as a victory for the policy of Lloyd George, admitted frankly the difficulties with which Germany was faced, and invited her to send her representatives to Spa, Belgium, to meet allied delegates on May 25, bearing with them concrete proposals for fulfilling the financial and other conditions of the treaty.

The contingency of the establishment at Berlin of a Government hostile to the execution of the Versailles Treaty had been already provided for in an identical note from the allied powers received by Germany from Paris on April 20. The seizure of power by such a Government was threatened with the establishment of an economic blockade.

So the rift in Entente harmony was closed, and Germany was disillusioned of her last hope of treaty revision through allied dissension.

RUSSIA AND TURKEY

The Russian problem was only provisionally and tentatively settled. Signor Nitti's advocacy of the policy of reopening trade relations with Soviet Russia without formal recognition, though he admitted that such a resumption would lead eventually to recognition, was generally approved by the allied Premiers, though each country was left free to

bring about such trade reopening in the manner which it considered best. It was stated from Italian and other sources that in urging this step Signor Nitti was influenced by the strong radical sentiment prevailing in Italy. In a public statement issued at San Remo the ltalian Premier declared that he believed this step was the surest and most effective method of exposing to the world the economic and moral bankruptcy of the Bolshevist régime. The general statement approved by the Premiers along these lines was considered by Nitti as a personal triumph.

The remaining details of the Turkish settlement were also agreed upon.

[For

a full account of this settlement, see article on Turkey.] As previously agreed in London, the Sultan was to be left in Constantinople and the Turkish straits internationalized. Turkey was shorn of all military, naval and political power, and her boundaries were reduced to a mere fraction of what they had been.

The Supreme Council on April 25 decided to send to the United States Government, through the President, a formal offer of the mandate for Armenia, which the League of Nations had found itself unable to accept, owing to lack of funds and the military equipment requis