put away weapons of conflict and take into their hands implements of industry. If disarmament can be made universal, then this war will be converted from the greatest scourge ever laid upon the backs of the human race into the greatest blessing which a Merciful Providence has ever extended to them. It is the unbroken lesson of history that sacrifices imposed on one generation are the necessary price of every great advance material, and moral, accomplished by other generations. The French Revolution, which caused wars that devastated the Old World for over 20 years, resulted in uprooting survivals of feudalism which had seriously hampered industry, and it was followed by an improvement in human conditions so remarkable that when we contrast the conditions of the world during the last hundred years with its condition during any previous period, it seems as if we were considering two separate planets peopled by a wholly different species of animated beings.

And after our Civil War, notwithstanding its enormous waste, the substitution of free labor for slave labor opened a fountain of prosperity which more than repaired in five years the terrible destruction of battle. And now if we can absorb all the energies of mankind in production of commodities necessary to human subsistence, the ravages of this war will be repaired in five years, and the human family will reach a plane of prosperity higher than it has ever achieved. The world is at the parting of the ways. Either it must take, through disarmament, the path leading upward to prosperity that will be immeasurable, or else through efforts to maintain huge military establishments it must sink through confusion and disaster to ruin which will be irretrievable. Which path shall be chosen? Your action, Senators, on this treaty will decide. Mr. Chairman, if we follow the path marked out by this attempt through a new covenant to perpetuate the conditions from which we hoped that the war would deliver us, if we increase armaments instead of abolishing them, if in a word this proposed treaty is ratified, the league of nations, which it establishes, which is a league not to promote peace but to prohibit peace, as Senator Knox has well said, it will prove to be the greatest curse that has ever blighted the prospects of humanity. [Applause.]

But I have not the slightest apprehension on this score. Thank God, a spirit of genuine Americanism survives in the Senate which will deliver this country from the peril that threatens it and dispel from our horizon the cloud that darkens it. I think I may say with perfect confidence that since this treaty was laid upon the table of the Senate the discussion which its provisions have evoked has raised the standard of senatorial eloquence and senatorial statesmanship to a plane higher than ever before attained in its history.. [Applause.] I can quote speeches delivered by men who sit around me that can not be paralleled by any delivered in the Senate since its organization, and I do not except even that much-lauded reply of Daniel Webster to Senator Hayne, of South Carolina. When we realize the wealth of information those speeches disclose, the high spirit of patriotic devotion they attest, the stern resolution in the teeth of misrepresentations, as ingenious as they are reckless, to maintain the integrity of our institutions, which they establish, nothing in the past history of

Congress compares with them. But even if the Senate were indifferent or inefficient there would remain the unerring judgment, the infallible wisdom, the sensitive conscience of the American people. America has accomplished the greatest things ever achieved in the history of mankind, things which have been so universally recognized as of transcendent value to civilization that even if they could be changed no human being would venture to disturb them. If anybody had the power to disturb them and should attempt it, the whole conscience of Christendom would rally to preserve them as priceless possessions of the whole human family. Yet these great achievements were attained not through politicians or statesmen, but largely in spite of them. The people have always done better than the politicians or statesmen had advised.

This war which we can all now see was absolutely essential to preservation of our civilization was not a distinctive policy of the President who conducted it. He went into a campaign and sought reelection-with perfect sincerity as I believe-upon a proposition that he had kept us out of war. He could not have intended to advise a declaration of war when he called the extra session, because he did that only after failure of a measure recommended by him which did not look toward war but merely to the arming of merchant ships. It was essentially the war of the American people not of the American President.

The War with Spain was forced upon a reluctant Executive, as I think the chairman of this committee will admit, close as he was to the administration of the very distinguished President who caused its declaration. And the reconstruction of the Southern States after the Civil War was not what anybody had suggested. It is now clear that if either party had had its way the country would not yet have recovered from its ravages. I remember when Mr. Tilden was-as I believed at the time and have not wholly changed my opinioncheated out of the office to which he had been elected, I thought it was the end of this Government. I thought that the South must remain indefinitely under the cruel heel of oppression, with rival governments in three different States, and that all possibility of reconstruction on the basis of reconciliation had faded away into limitless distance. Looking back now, I can see that it was the providence of God that put the task of withdrawing the Federal troops from South Carolina, Louisiana, and Florida into the hands of a Republican President, thus making it a common policy of the whole country, which Democrats were delighted to welcome and which Republicans were not in a position to criticize.

The War of 1812 was forced on President Madison. Senator Knox, who has undoubtedly studied closely the archives of the State Department, knows that the purchase of Louisiana as we understand it was never contemplated by Thomas Jefferson. He sought only to acquire the Island of Orleans. The purchase of the great territory north of the present boundary of Louisiana was forced on him. It was accepted as a necessary condition by his supporters, and urged as a reason for rejecting the whole treaty by others, on the ground that these desert wilds could never be of any value to us. people builded wiser than the statesmen of those years.

But the

And now, when the greatest emergency that has ever confronted the country is upon us, I believe that the people's conscience, the

people's judgment, and the people's wisdom, will reinforce the determination of these Senators who have already checked, and who I believe will succeed in defeating, the attempt by this treaty to betray the causes and purposes for which the war was fought. I do not charge deliberate treason against anyone, but I do say that betrayal of the causes for which this war was fought and won will be the net result, if the purposes of those who negotiated this treaty shall be accomplished. We are told that even an amendment of this treaty will lead to its rejection. Well, what of that? Suppose it is defeated, could we conceive anything more auspicious? The league of nations which it undertakes to establish is imperfect by the concession of everybody.

The Shantung provision is an abomination. Yet we are told that we must yield to that abomination and make ourselves parties to it. My God, Mr. Chairman, when did it come to pass that the word "must" can be addressed to the American Nation? [Applause.] When this Nation consisted of little more than a few villages straggling along the Atlantic coast, the suggestion was made that forbearance of the greatest military power in the world at that time could be secured by a substantial advance of money. The answer was given without an instant's hesitation: "Millions for defense; not one cent for tribute." [Applause.]

And, sir, are we now to pay not a tribute of money but a tribute of infamy, by the confession of everybody, in order to establish a league which has not and can not operate for peace, but in the very nature of things, as has been conclusively shown by Mr. Knox and other Senators, must operate to make war frequent, if not perpetual? Is there in that treaty one single word of which any American should be proud? Does it liberate a single people who seek emancipation, except as an act of vengeance against the countries that were overthrown? Does it hold out a word of hope to nations that are languishing in chains and determined to break them? Far from that, it creates new spoliations and makes us a party to them. Without our participation they could not become effective. [Applause.]

But we are told that we can ratify this treaty and pass a resolution declaring that we don't like these infamies at the very time that we are perpetrating them. Now I can have some respect, at least I can understand the attitude of a man who perpetrates an infamy because he wants to, but I have no patience with a man who after making himself a party to an infamy seeks to excuse himself by saying that he dislikes it. [Applause.] One man is formidable. to justice, the other is contemptible in every sense. But thank God the Government of the United States is not going to be contemptible. [Applause.]

Now, in all this, I do not intend the slightest reflection on the President of the United States. I think I ought to say that. [Laughter.] No, no: Senators, let me say this to you: I think the place of the President in history is a high one, and I think it is secure. I think it is so secure that it can not be overthrown by anything except ratification of this treaty, and against that the Senate is, I think, immovable. His definition of the cause which led us into this war has become one of the priceless possessions of humanity. The 14 points are not dead. They are alive; they are here. [Applause.]

We are appealing to them now, and the appeal will not be in vain. They can never die.

I was one of those who sincerely deplored his going abroad. I did not believe then, and I do not believe now, that the President of the United States is ever justified in placing his person under the jurisdiction, or in the power of a foreign Government, especially when he is engaged in a negotiation affecting the sovereignty of the United States. While his person is under foreign jurisdiction he can be coerced in many ways. I think he was coerced in one way which proved effective, and that was by threatening him covertly or openly with some manifestation of disapproval or by withholding from him the applause which they gave him in overflowing measure when he first appeared on the European continent. It is impossible otherwise to account for his acceptance of provisions in this treaty which he himself declares to be objectionable. But I want to say this: The world which heard the words he uttered when uring Congress to declare war became that moment a different world from what it had ever been before. I wrote Mr. Tumulty at that time, and I felt deeply in my soul that this address of the President would pass into history as the most momentous utterance that ever fell from human lips since Pope Eurban II preached the First Crusade at ClermontFerrand, over 800 years ago. When he said this war was waged to make the world safe for democracy, and men shed their blood to make his declaration effective, it became impossible for the earth which received that libation, ever again to tolerate, in Ireland or anywhere else in the world, conditions those heroes died to overthrow. Applause.]

After speaking these words it became as impossible for the President to come back and set up such a machinery of force to dominate the world, as is embodied in this treaty, as it would have been for Godfrey, of Bouillon, or any other leader of the Crusades to establish Mohammedanism in his own dominion after his return from attempting to overthrow it in the Holy Land. Even though the President has himself forsaken the 14 points, the principle embodied in them remains to render the dominion of brute force impossible anywhere within the limits of civilization.

How the reign of brute force will be abolished in Ireland I can not tell at this moment any more than anyone at the close of our Civil War could have foretold the splendidly successful reconstruction of the Southern States that followed it. I am sure the chairman of this committee will recall that the leaders of the dominant party at that time, men like Charles Sumner and Thaddeus M. Stevens and Oliver P. Morton, patriots of the highest type, believed it would be necessary to take the most drastic precautions against a renewal of secession. On the other hand, the leaders of the Democratic Party in the South believed that they were entitled at once to unconditional restoration of their government and freedom to reestablish their social and economic life as they pleased. A golden mean was struck between the two. Their governments were given back to the southern people when it became clear that there would be no attempt to restore slavery or to fasten the Confederate debt on any part of this country. And then those States which had been ravaged as no other land had been ravaged before, whose industrial system had been sub

verted, whose cities had been burned, whose fields had been devastated, where the last dollar of capital had been expended, rose from the ashes of defeat almost in a night and marched forward to a prosperity greater than that which has blessed any other part of this country.

So I firmly believe that out of all this discussion, contention, and confusion of views, the thing will emerge which the world needs. And that is disarmament. When disarmament becomes universal, then peace will be firmly established, for the very simple reason that when all nations are disarmed there will not be any means with which any of them can fight against another. Let us, then, insist that the outcome of this war shall be disarmament of all nations. We have the power to enforce this policy and we need not lift a finger to do it. As Senator Knox pointed out yesterday, the whole world is bankrupt. Many nations are still intent on maintaining great armaments, but they can not support them unless we give them the means. It is certainly impossible for any of them to reorganize its industry and at the same time maintain a great military establishment. The hope of each one is that we will advance it the capital essential to its industrial reorganization, and then it will use its own resources to maintain a great armament on land and sea.

I do not believe any American would object to aid the restoration of stricken Europe, but I do think it is our paramount duty to insist that before we extend the benefit of our resources to any other country all its own resources be devoted to restoring its industry. We should not aid it while it diverted one penny of its own possessions to military enterprises. To force universal disarmament, therefore, it is only necessary that this country resume the rôle which it has played since its organization.

For the first time in the history of the world a great war has ended, leaving one power able to maintain the greatest armaments on land and sea and that power does not want to establish them. That power possesses the resources to resuscitate society, and it does not want to exercise the power thus given it for any other purpose than to benefit the whole human family. And now, while we are ready to expend our treasure for the welfare of all the world, what is it that by this treaty we are asked to do? As Senator Knox well said yesterday, we are asked to use our resources for regeneration of the world, not according to our own idea of what would be most effective, but by submitting our judgment to that of other nations whose policies have led them to the pass out of which they are crying to us for deliverance. Now, if there be in all this world any force, country, Government, or political system better qualified than America to employ enormous resources for the benefit of mankind by enforcing justice I am ready, for my part, to see our resources turned over to that superior agency. But where is it? Where can it be found? Where is there in the universe any force comparable to the United States as an agency to use unlimited resources for the improvement of human conditions? Such a power or force can not be found. It does not exist. And yet we are asked to subordinate our control over our own resources to the judgment of nations which I think nobody here will dispute are inferior to us in intelligence and in love. of justice. We are asked to give up the greater for the less, to abase