/w ’ I 3W5?
I ' .
K33 GATT DE LEAGUE OE LATIONS
AND THE
PRESIBEETIAL FLBGTION.
To the Editor of the Woman Sitizen:

I have been requested by several srbscribers to the Woman
Citizen to eXpress my personal views concerning the League of Nations
and the political snarl in which it seems to have been entangled. Per—
haps my known non-partisan attitude may have led to these requests and
and the inquirers may have hOped that I might point a way for safe
passage to definite conclusions through the bewildering controversy.

I do not Lnow that I can help any one to a clearer understanding, but
with your premission I will try. It will be my aim in so doing to
discuss the question in a strictly non-partisan manner.

I am myself a farm believer in the League of Nations. I
am no new convert. I endorsed the idea many years ago when I read that
such a plan had been prOposed intermittently for some centuries, and al-
ways hoped it might come in my day. I feel toward those who claim to
believe in a league but not in this one as I have felt toward those who
professed to believe in Woman Suffrage but feund the times never ready
for it, or the method quite unauitable.

When the Covenant came from the Peace Commission, I confess
to disappointment over some of its crovisions, but I, having had consid-
erable experience in efforts to get many minds, including those of dif—
fering races and nationalities, to come to agreement, understood better

. than many that no covenant can be made quite satisfactory to any one per-
son or nation, since its composition must cone by compromise of many M~
differing views.

, To me it was a w0nderf l achievement that any sort of League
of nations eventwated from the war. Just as a mother thinks a cross-
eyed baby is better than no baby at all, so do I regard the League of
Nations "in the hand" as a great advance oVer a League "in the bush".

' Cross eyes can be straightened in these days of science; and the cov~
enant may be amended.

I believe in the League: 1. Because war is an atrocity which
sho lfl be eliminated from a world calling itself civilized. 2. Because
men are too belligerent to make an end of war without the aid of some
war abolishing agency. 5. Because all prOposals ever offered fro the

' avoidance of war have been tried and have failef except one-a League of
Hations; therefore let it be tried. 4. Beca“se the Covenant of the Lea-
gue prOposes a union of all the world fro the very definite purpose of
making an end of war. 5. Because it provides for the substitution of
arbitration for the killing of men as a more civilized method of settlnr
ing international differences. 6. Because it provides for an International
Ocurt which may interpret international law and to which international
questions may be referred. 7. Because it provides for the reduction of
armies and navies to the smallest force necessary for the maintenance of
national safety. 8. Because it provides for the abolition of compulsory
military training and vast armies which always tend to bring on wars.

9. Because it provides for an economic boycott to bring recalcitrant na-

tions to terms, with force used only as the last resort. 10. Because it

provides for the abolition of secret treaties which have been one potent

cause of ear. ll. Becavse it imposes an obstacle against the Spread of

imperialism, or grabbing territory of rival nations, as Germany and

Austra stole Schleswig-Holstein from Denmark, and England seized portions
\\