tr ii,x!jiFrri'",Tr?v'! VTT
The Commoner
10
JO- 16, NO. 8
IV
P'
r
1nv
Present Peace Problems and the - SSS?5S'S
Preparedness Program
Address by William Jonnlngs Bryan, at tho
Twonty-sccond Annual Mohonk (N. Y.) Confer
ence on International Arbitration, Thursday,
May IS, 1010.
Tho delightful memory of a visit to Mohonk
six years ago has led mo to look forward each
year to tho tlmo of your meeting, with tho hope
that I might indulge myself again and enjoy tho
plcasuro of association with you; but this is the
first yoar since then when I havo felt that I
could work Hi is Into my plans. I am enjoying
this session to tho full.
Hoforo taking up the subject which I desire
to present, I am suro you will pardon mo if I
make reference to something that was said tills
morning beforo I arrived. I shall not deal with
tho personal criticism, for I discovered about
twonty-flvo years ago that it was impossible for
a democrat to deal with all tho personal criti
cisms that ho received.
'l'ho Chairman: Mr. llryan, I'd liko to include
republicans in that.
Mr. Bryan: I welcome tho distinguished ex
prosident to a companionship in this respect
which wo shall both enjoy.
Mr. Putnam -is; reported to havo said: "Tho
prosonco in tho cabinet of a man like V. 3. lir j
an, who shamefully misrepresented our country ,
in his interviews with Rumba and in other ways,
etc." liOt mo say in advance thnt I am not sur
prised that peoplo should bo misled. Those who
havo nothing but tho eastern metropolitan press
to rely upon are fortunnto if they got any truth
whatever; they aro tho more easily excused if
thoy do not f?ot dl tho truth. Mr. Putnam, while
Ids tono did not indlcato thnt conscientious
search for truth Which is sometimes rownrded by
success, was, probably, honestly misled by re
ports which I havo tried to correct, but I havo
found thnt corrections of misrepresentation do
not travel as rapidly as tho misrepresentations
themselves, and they aro not always found upon
tho same page or under tho samo attractive
headlines.
Ambassador Dumbn called at tho stato depart
ment and it happened to bo at n timo when tho
President was in Now York. Immediately after
tho interview X wroto out a report and sent it to
tho President, and received his approval of what
I had said. When, a few days afterwards, I
hoard that my conversation with tho ambassador
had boon misrepresented, I immediately called
him to tho stato department, read over to him
tho report of tho interview which I had madO to
tho President, received from him n written
statement certifying to tho correctness of tho re
port, and that was sent to Austria, his govern
ment, and to Berlin and to tho President. It
was after that that I resigned and if you will
read tho lotter which tho President wroto at tho
timo of my resignation you will either havo to
doubt his good faith in what ho said or you will
havo to coaso criticizing mo for tho Dumba inci
dent, for ho know all about it and. neither at
that timo nor since, complained of anything
said.
Tho thing If I may ho pardoned for speaking
of tho subject of tho conversation tho thing
that was misrepresented or misinterpreted wus
this: I said to tho ambassador that tho fact that
livos were lost in tho sinking of tho ship mado
tho controversy with Germany different from tho
controversy with Great Britain, which only af
fected loss of trade; that tho peoplo cotdd not
consider a loss of life in tho same light or treat
it in tho samo way that thoy did an injury to
trade. That was tho distinction I made; it was
a misinterpretation placed upon it that I had oc
casion to correct. Tho statement that I mado
and tho distinction that I drew is ono that I sup
poso ha$. been drawn, and I think very properly,
by very ono who has discussed this subject.
I am very glad to present tho facts in this caso.
I beliovo that a man in public life should bo hold
responsible for everything that ho does, but it
is only fair that tho facts should bo known and
thnt ho should bo judged upon facts and not up
on misrepresentations of tho facts.
Before taking up tho particular subject which
I desire to discuss, I shall dwell for a moment
upon theiplans of tho League to Enforce Peace
and I will say to you that, in dissenting from
those who support those plans, J give myself
more embarrassment than I give those who rep
resent them. I know tho distinguished gentle
man who is at tho head of this league too well
to doubt for a moment that he desires to havo
every possible criticism candidly stated, for I
know ho desires tho triumph of that which is
right much moro earnestly than the triumph of
any particular thing in which ho may believe.
The names of those who stand sponsor for this
League to Enforce Peace create a very strong
presumption in its favor, but it seems to me, as
I view it, that there are four objections to the
plan and that these objections are of such great
weight and importance that they deserve to be
considered by those who have this plan in con
templation or who are inclined to support it.
Tho first is that it involves us in entangling
alliances with Europe, and that we, therefore,
can not adopt it .without abandoning the advice
of Washington which has been followed thus far
and will, I believe, continue to be followed by
tho American people. I have not the slightest
thought that any argument that can be present
ed in behalf of any plan that connects us with
tho quarrels of Europe will ever bring to tho sup
port of that plan anything like a majority of the
American people. t
Now, as I understand this plan, we are to
agree with other nations of the world, to en
force peace and to enforce it by compelling all
of tho contracting powers to submit all of their
controversies for investigation before going to
war. I need not tell you that the plan of in
vestigating ALL questions is ono that I heartily
approve. It is now more than ten years since
I began to urge in this country and in other
countries, a plan, which has finally been em
bodied in thirty treaties, which submits every
question of dispute of every kind and character
to investigation and gives a period of a year for
that investigation during which time the con
tracting parties agree that there shall be no re
sort to force; I am committed to the plan of in
vestigation. The point I make is this, that, when
we join with other nations to enforce
that plan, we jom with them in attempting to
settle by force the disputes of the old world.
While tho chances of a resort to force may he
very remote, I am not willing to speculate on a
proposition about which we can know absolutely
nothing; I am not willing that this nation shall
put its army and navy at the command of a
council which we can not control and thus agree
to let foreign nations decide when we shall go
to war. Now, if I understand this plan, you can
not agree with other nations to enforce peace
by compelling the submission of all questions to
investigation before war, without lodging with
some power somewhere the right to decide when
that force shall be employed. We can not hope
to have a controlling influence in that body I
assume that it would be impossible to secura
any kind of an agreement which would leave us
to decide when these nations would enforce a
proposition. My first objection, therefore, is
that it necessarily entangles us in the quarrels
of Europe and that we would go, blindfolded,
Into an agreement, the extent and effect of which
no human mind can know.
The second is that if we join with Europe in
the enforcement of peace over there, we can
hardly refuse to allow Europe to join in the en
forcing of peace in the western hemisphere If
I understand the sentiment of the American peo
ple, there is not the slightest thought in the
American mind of surrendering the Monroe Doc
trine or of inv ting any foreign nation to assist
ispher? g PeaC iU th We8ter" he-
The third objection Is that our conaHtnH
vests in congress the right to declare war anS
that we can not vest the power to decldre war
in a council controlled by Euronean rmtE
without changing our constitution? The su
gestion that we so amend our constitution as to
vest in a body, whose control is acro tL L
the right to declare war would nofKS! "?
the United States. If we r to haneeffn r ,n
stitution from what it is now I am in fSQn;
putting the declaring of war in the hand of nf
people, to he decided by a referendum voteo?
The fourth objection tha.t.1 see to this -plan "is!
moral suasion to force, wa f a Q rom
up. I prefer to have this nation a morat not
in the world rather than a policeman !
fore, while I have no doubt whatever of th mL
motives and of the. laudable purpose of J 8h
who stand for the doctrines of tho league I6
not bring myself to believe that it is a atin i
advance. wp m
Three of the objections mentioned miein
obviated if Tve divided the world into groins Si!
American group being entrusted with tho main
tenance of peace in the western hemisphere t
would be much more willing to join with th'p m
publics of Central and South America in anv
plan that would compel the submission of ail
disputes in this hemisphere to investigation bp
fore war than to favor a plan that would biiui
us to enforce decisions made by nations across
the ocean, or even obligate us to 'join Euronean
nations in COMPELLING investigation beforo
war.
And in addition to all the other objections-
and there are so many that I shall not take timo
to give them all -when this league embraces
European nations and puts them in a position
where they can decide questions pf war for us
there is this consideration .that I think will not
be treated lightly by the American people. If we
are in. a group of American republics, we are
associated with people having our form of gov
ernment, but the moment we cross the ocean, we
tie ourselves to a theory of government from
which our people dissented a century and a third
ago. If I understand the heart of the American
people, they still believe that there is an essen
tial difference between a monarchy and a re
public. So long as tho European monarchies
vest in their executives the, right to declare war,
it seems to me that the American people can
well refuse to tie themselves to these countries
and become thus "unequally yoked together."
As I said, if we are going to have any change
in our constitution, I want It to be a change in
the direction of democracy, arid not a change in
the direction of a monarchy; Our people will
consider very seriously before' they will join this
country -with countries with hereditary rulers
and thus give to these rulers an influence over
us which we deny to our own executives.
Now I have presented, as briefly as I could, tho
objections that I see to thia plan to enforce
peace and I shall be very glad if it can be o
modified as to make it consistent and harmoni
ous with the ideas of the American people and
the institutions of the United States, for these
gentlemen do not surpass me in the desire to do
whatever can be done to" make war impossible.
I ask you to bear with me for a moment while
I speak of the nation's attitude on two or three
phases of the subject now under- consideration.
First, as to whether we shall go Into this war:
there are very few, people who say that we
should. I believe they had a meeting in New
York not long ago, and one in Boston, at which
the speakers said that it was bur duty to go into
this war. The virus has nbt yet been carried
across the Allegheny mountains; we have had
no such meetings in tho west. My fear is not
that we shall deliberately deeide to go into this
war; my fear is that, following the diplomacy of
tho old world, we may do the things that will
bring us into this war, even though we do not
desire to enter it. You will remember that all
the rulers who entered this war entered it PRO
TESTING THAT THEY WANTED PEACE, but
they followed the precedents that lead to war.
My contention is that the precedents of the past
have broken down, that they have involved the
world in a war without parallel; and that they
ought not to be followed in this country if they
will tend to bring us into the war. And so,
where I have had a chance to speak to the peo
ple and I have been improving every oppor
tunity for Bome ten months-r-I have presented
the alternatives which I think we can choose in
stead of going to war.
In the first place, if diplomacy fails, we have
a "peace plan. It was offered to all the world.
It has been embodied in thirty treaties with one
billion three hundred million of the human race,
we have now three-quarters, of the globe con
nected with us by these treaties and three na
tions that have not signed tho treaties have en
dorsed the principle. We have almqsfc the en
tire civilized world bound to us either by
treaties, actually made or by agreement upon
the principle which the treaty, embqdies, provid
ing that EVERY DISPUTE OF EVERY KIND
shall, before hostilities begin, be submitted to an
international tribunal for Investigation and re
port. Four of the belligerent nations have, signed
I s::r
''
'.'