v o ♦ vn 
 
 AMERICANISM 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 OF 
 
 HON. WILLIAM E. BOR AH 
 
 OF IDAHO 
 
 IN THE 
 
 SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 
 
 FRIDAY 
 
 FEBRUARY 21, 1919 
 
 % 
 
 WASHINGTON 
 
 GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 
 
 1919 
 
 1C6587—19309 
 
SPEECH 
 
 OF 
 
 HON. WILLIAM E. BORAH. 
 
 Mr. BORAH. Mr. President, tlie people of the United States 
 have the undoubted right to change their form of government and 
 to renounce established customs or long-standing policies when¬ 
 ever in their wisdom they see fit to do so. As a believer in 
 democratic government, I readily acknowledge the right of the 
 people to make in an-orderly fashion such changes as may be 
 approved by their judgment at any time. I contend, moreover, 
 that when radical and important departures from established 
 national policies are proposed, the people ought to be consulted. 
 
 We are now proposing what to my mind is the most radical 
 departure from our policies hitherto obtaining that has ever been 
 proposed at any time since our Government was established. I 
 think the advocates of the league will agree with me that it is 
 a pronounced departure from all the policies which we have 
 heretofore obtained. ' 
 
 It may be wise, as they contend; nevertheless, it involves a 
 different course of conduct upon the part of the Government 
 and of our people for the future, and the people are entitled 
 to pass judgment upon the advisability of such a course. 
 
 It seems clear, also, that this proposed program, if it is to 
 be made effective and operative under the proposed constitu¬ 
 tion of the league, involves a change in our Constitution. Cer¬ 
 tainly, questions of that kind ought to be submitted to a 
 plebiscite or to a vote of the people, and the Constitution 
 amended in the manner provided for amending that instru¬ 
 ment. We are merely agents of the people; and it will not 
 be contended that we have received any authority from the 
 principal, the people, to proceed along this line. It is a greater 
 responsibility than an agent ought to assume without'express 
 authority or approval from his principal to say nothing of the 
 want of authority. Preliminary to a discussion of this ques¬ 
 tion, therefore, I want to declare my belief that we should 
 arrange the machinery for taking a vote of the people of the 
 United States upon this stupendous program. I am aware 
 that the processes by which that may be accomplished involve 
 some difficulties; but they are not insurmountable, and they 
 are by no means to be compared in their difficulty with the 
 importance of being right, and in harmony with the judgment 
 of the people before we proceed to a final approval. —We should 
 have the specific indorsement of those whose agents we are 
 and we should have the changes in our Constitution that we 
 may have sanction under the Constitution for the fearful re¬ 
 sponsibility we propose to assume. If. we can effectuate this 
 change now proposed without direct authority from the people 
 2 106587—19309 
 
3 
 
 I can not think of a question of sufficient moment to call for 
 their indorsement. 
 
 It must be conceded that this program can never be a success 
 unless there is behind it the intelligent and sustained public 
 opinion of the United States. If the voters do not have their 
 voice before the program is initiated, they will certainly have 
 an opportunity to give expression to their views in the future. 
 They are still the source of power, and through their votes they 
 effectuate the policies under which we must live. From the 
 standpoint, therefore, of expediency and from the standpoint of 
 fairness to those who are most concerned, to wit, the people, 
 those who must carry the burdens, if there be burdens, and 
 suffer the consequences, if there should be ill consequences to 
 suffer, as well as from the standpoint of insuring success, if 
 possible, the mass of the people ought to be consulted and their 
 approval had before we proceed. I, therefore, in the very be¬ 
 ginning of this procedure, declare in favor of that program. 
 
 Mr. President, I think I. should have deferred any remarks 
 I had to make upon this subject until a later day, had it not 
 been for an interview which was put out by Mr. Taft some 
 two or three days ago upon this question. I felt, in view of 
 that statement, that those who were opposed to the program 
 were justified in proceeding at once to the debate, because it is 
 a statement which in my judgment is not founded upon fact. 
 In saying that I do not charge a conscious purpose upon the 
 part of Mr. Taft to mislead, but I am sure it can not be sus¬ 
 tained by the historic facts at the command of anyone who 
 desires to examine the subject; and as it can not be sustained, 
 it is to the utmost degree misleading. 
 
 Mr. Taft informs the American people, from the pedestal of 
 an ex-President, that this program does not destroy the policy 
 announced by Washington in his Farewell Address and does 
 not renounce the doctrine known as the Monroe doctrine—two 
 fundamental principles underlying our foreign policy for more 
 than 100 years in one instance and nearly 100 years in the 
 other; two policies to which the American people have long 
 been committed, and which, in my judgment, they still believe 
 to be indispensable to their happiness and future tranquillity. 
 If, indeed, this program does dispose of these policies, it pre¬ 
 sents an entirely different question to the American people than 
 if the reverse were true. This is one of the first things to be 
 settled in this controversy. It meets us at the very threshold 
 of all discussion and all consideration. It is of such moment 
 as to call for clear statement and candid presentation. What is 
 the effect of this proposed program upon these ancient and most 
 vital policies? 
 
 Mr. Taft says: 
 
 Article 10 covers the Monroe doctrine and extends it to the world. 
 * * * The league is to be regarded as in conflict with the advice 
 of Washington only with a narrow and reactionary viewpoint. 
 
 “ Reactionary ” is not a familiar term in the ex-President’s 
 vocabulary. I think he has unintentionally misused it. 
 
 Mr. President, prior to the administration of Washington, 
 America had been involved in every European war since coloni¬ 
 zation began. When a difficulty arose in Europe, whatever 
 might be the subject of the difficulty, whether dynastic quarrels 
 or territorial aggrandizement, it spread at once to the American 
 100587—19309 
 
4 
 
 Continent. Although we might be wholly unconcerned in the 
 controversy upon its merits, nevertheless the evil effects of the 
 conflict in Europe enveloped the people of this country in its 
 consequences. As you recall, Macaulay, in his graphic way in 
 the essay upon Frederick the Great, said: 
 
 In order that he might rob a neighbor whom he had promised to de- 
 fend, black men fought on the coast of Coromandel and red men 
 scalped each other by the Great ‘Lakes of North America. 
 
 When Washington assumed the responsibilities as adminis¬ 
 trator of this Government, he immediately set about to change 
 that condition of affairs; to wit, to separate the European sys¬ 
 tem from the American system, to withdraw our people from 
 her broils, to individualize the American Nation, and to divorce 
 us from the quarrels and turmoils of European life. This was 
 peculiarly and distinctly a policy originating with the Father- 
 of our Country. If there is any one thing in his entire career, 
 marvelous as it was, which can be said to be distinctly his, it 
 is the foreign policy which characterized his administration. 
 His idea almost alone in the first instance was that we never 
 could become a nation with a national mind, a national pur¬ 
 pose, and national ideals, until we divorced ourselves from the 
 European system. He entertained this view before he became 
 President. I venture to recall to your minds a letter which 
 he wrote, prior to the presidency, to Sir Edward Newenham, in 
 which he says: 
 
 I hope the United States of America will be able to keep disengaged 
 from tbe labyrinth of European politics and wars. * * * It should 
 be the policy of the United States to administer to their wants with¬ 
 out being engaged in their quarrels. 
 
 In 1791 he addressed a letter to Mr. Morris, in which he said: 
 
 I trust we shall never so far lose sight of our own interest and 
 happiness as to become unnecessarily a party to these political disputes. 
 Our local situation enables us to maintain that state with respect to 
 them which otherwise could not, perhaps, be preserved by human 
 wisdom. 
 
 The author from whom I quote, Senator Lodge, commenting 
 upon this, says: 
 
 The world was told that a new power had come into being, which 
 meant to hold aloof from Europe, and which took no interest in the 
 balance of power or the fate of dynasties, but looked only to the wel¬ 
 fare of its own people and to tbe conquest and mastery-of a continent 
 as its allotted tasks. The policy declared by the proclamation was 
 purely American in its conception, and severed ■ the colonial tradition 
 at a stroke. 
 
 I digress to say I wish every boy and girl over the age of 
 15 years could be induced to read the brilliant story of Wash¬ 
 ington as it is found in those two volumes. If they were not 
 better Americans, with higher ideals, after they had read it, 
 nothing could make them so. 
 
 Again, Mr. President, in a letter to Patrick Henry, dated 
 later, he says: 
 
 I can most religiously aver that I have no wish that is incompatible 
 with the dignity, happiness, and true interest of the people of this 
 country. My ardent desire is, and my aim has been, so far as de¬ 
 pendent on the executive department, to comply strictly with all our 
 engagements, foreign and domestic, but to keep the United- States 
 free from any political connections with every other country, to see it 
 independent of all, and Tinder the influence of none. In a word, I 
 want an American character, that the powers of Europe may be 
 convinced that we act for ourselves. 
 
 Pursuing this thought and this great principle throughout his 
 administration until he had fairly established it as a part of 
 106587—19309 
 
5 
 
 our foreign policy—tlie initiatory step of the same—he referred 
 particularly to it in his Farewell Address. I shall detain the 
 Senate by reading a single paragraph only. This was the con¬ 
 clusion of Washington after years of observation, after the 
 most pointed experience, after eight years of administration of 
 public affairs, and with as wide a vision and with as far- 
 seeing a vision as ever accompanied a human mind upon this 
 mundane sphere: 
 
 Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by inter¬ 
 weaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our 
 peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, in¬ 
 terest, humor, or caprice? 
 
 Are there people in this day who believe that Europe now 
 and in the future shall be free of selfishness, of rivalship, of 
 humor, of ambition, of caprice? If not, are we not undertak¬ 
 ing the task against which the Father of our Country warned 
 when he bade farewell to public service? “ Why quit our own 
 to stand upon foreign ground?” And yet in this proposed 
 league of nations, in the very beginning, we are advised of an 
 executive council which shall dominate and control its action, 
 three members of which are Europeans, one member Asiatic, 
 and one American. 
 
 If a controversy ever arises in which there is a conflict be¬ 
 tween the European system and the American system, or if a 
 conflict ever arises in which their interests, their humor, their 
 caprice, and their selfishness shall attempt to dominate the 
 situation, shall we not have indeed quit our own to stand upon 
 foreign ground? 
 
 Why should we interweave our destiny with the European 
 destiny? Are w T e not interweaving our future and our destiny 
 'with European powers when we join a league of nations the 
 constitution of which gives a majority vote in every single in¬ 
 stance in which the league can ever be called into action to 
 European powers? 
 
 Does the ex-President mean to say to an intelligent and 
 thinking people that this league which thus grants this power 
 to European governments is not interweaving our destiny witli 
 European destiny? Does he assume to say that that is not a 
 departure from the plain terms of Washington’s Farewell Ad¬ 
 dress ? 
 
 I repeat what I said upon the floor of the Senate a few w’eeks 
 <• ,o. It may be that the people of America want to do this; it 
 may be that they think their future happiness and tranquility 
 necessitates their doing it, but I inveigh against the misleading 
 statement that we do not propose to do it by this league of 
 nations. Let us be candid with those upon whom must rest the 
 future burdens and obligations and not undertake to advise 
 them that that is not going to happen which must necessarily 
 and inevitably happen. 
 
 Mr. President, Washington succeeded in establishing the 
 policy that we should not interfere in European affairs. It 
 would have served no good purpose and would not have been 
 beneficial to the American people in the least had we simply 
 remained aloof from European affairs but had permitted Europe 
 to transfer her system to the American Continent. Therefore, 
 the Monroe doctrine. It was designed to support the policy of 
 Washington. He had warned against the danger of entering 
 106587—19309 
 
6 
 
 Europe—the Monroe doctrine declared that Europe should not 
 enter America. Permit me to say that one of these can not 
 stand, in my judgment, without the support of the other. It is 
 an inevitable result of Washington’s teaching that the Monroe 
 doctrine should exist. Indeed, such men as Mr. Coudert the 
 gieat lawyer, say that Washington’s policy incorporated and in¬ 
 cluded the Monroe doctrine; that Monroe’s statement was 
 snnpiy an exemplification and application of the principle. 
 
 So, sir, in order that we might become a nation free from 
 European broils and cease forever to have to do with European 
 affairs, the Washington policy and the Monroe doctrine were 
 announced and have ever since been maintained. The <weat 
 question now is, are they policies which we should still main¬ 
 tain ; are they in all essential particulars still indispensable to 
 oui well-being as a people and to our strength and permanency 
 as a nation ? The present war has drawn us to Europe, but only 
 temporarily. The question shall we enter European affairs 
 permanently and shall we invite Europe, with her systems of 
 government, some more pernicious than in the days of Washing¬ 
 ton, to America. We had a temporary alliance with France 
 when Washington became President, but he fought against the 
 making of these alliances permanent. That is the question here. 
 
 What is the Monroe doctrine? I apologize to the Senate for 
 going into that question. I do so more for others than my col¬ 
 leagues, but I will be brief. Before the exigencies arising out 
 of the conditions connected with a defense of this league it 
 would not have been necessary to discuss it. All understood it 
 alike. The Monroe doctrine is simply the principle of self- 
 defense applied to a people, and the principle of self-defense 
 can not be the subject of arbitration or of enforcement by any 
 one other than that one who is to claim and enforce the principle 
 of self-defense. 
 
 The ex-President said the Monroe doctrine is covered and 
 extended to the world. That was the condition before Monroe 
 announced it? The world was one. Monroe determined to sep¬ 
 arate it and divide it, and that was the very object of it. It was 
 a distinct announcement that the European system could not be 
 transferred to America. The rest was simply detail. It was 
 the division of two systems; it was the political partition of 
 two continents. Monroe or Jefferson never would have contem¬ 
 plated for a moment sharing the enforcement of the Monroe 
 doctrine with any nation of Europe. We would not even join 
 with England in announcing it. 
 
 May I read here in connection with my remarks a statement 
 by ex-Senator Boot upon this particular feature? Before I do 
 that, however, I desire to call attention to the language of 
 Thomas Jefferson. It precedes the remark which I was about 
 to make. This letter of Jefferson states as clearly as can 
 be stated the prime object of the announcement of this doctrine: 
 
 The question presented by the letters you have sent me is the most 
 momentous which has ever been offered to my contemplation since that 
 of independence. 
 
 Why does the Sage of Monticello rank the Monroe doctrine 
 next to the Declaration of Independence? Because he believed 
 as that genius of constructive government, Hamilton, believed, 
 and Washington believed, that we could not maintain our inde¬ 
 pendence without the Monroe doctrine. He believed that it was 
 106587—19309 
 
7 
 
 an indispensable pillar to our national independence, and second 
 only to it in the catalogue of responsibilities and duties and 
 obligations which rested upon us: 
 
 That made us a nation. 
 
 This sets our compass and points the course which we are to steer 
 through the ocean of time opening on us. And never could we em¬ 
 bark upon it under circumstances more auspicious. Our first and 
 fundamental maxim should he never to entangle ourselves in the broils 
 of Europe ; 
 
 The Washington policy— 
 
 our second, never to suffer Europe to intermeddle with cis-Atlantic 
 affairs. 
 
 Yet the ex-President says notwithstanding this we carry out 
 this discrimination and distinction between European affairs 
 and American affairs when we permit the two systems to fee 
 united, to be organized and administered by a common author¬ 
 ity. He declares that although we do entangle ourselves in 
 the broils of Europe, although we do suffer Europe to intermed¬ 
 dle with cis-Atlantic affairs, it is not in conflict with the Mon¬ 
 roe doctrine. 
 
 I now call your attenttion to the statement of Senator Root 
 upon the proposition advanced by the ex-President—of shar¬ 
 ing with other nations responsibility in enforcing this doctrine. 
 Mr. Root says: 
 
 Since the Monroe doctrine is a declaration based upon this Nation's 
 right of self-protection, it can not be transmuted into a joint or com¬ 
 mon declaration by American States or any number of them. 
 
 We could not even share the responsibility and the execution 
 of the Monroe doctrine with our Commonwealths here upon the 
 Western Continent. It is personal; it is individual; it is the 
 law of self-defense. It belongs to us, and we alone must deter¬ 
 mine when it shall be enforced or when it shall not apply. It 
 is the same rule and principle which Australia invokes, and 
 correctly invokes, with reference to the German islands near 
 Australia. It is the same principle which Japan sought to have 
 established in the Orient. It is the principle of self-defense 
 and not of common defense, or defense by common authority 
 invoked and sustained by the joint act of many nations. 
 
 Yet we are solemnly advised that although we should share it 
 with all the Governments of Europe and Asia and all the tribes 
 of the different races which may in the future be organized 
 into some form of government, it is still the doctrine of self- 
 defense which Jefferson and Monroe announced and which Mr. 
 Root so clearly explained. 
 
 I read another paragraph from Mr. Root’s speech, which 
 leaves nothing further to be said both as to the meaning and 
 the worth of this policy: 
 
 The familiar paragraphs of Washington’s Farewell Address upon this 
 subject were not rhetoric. They were intensely practical rules of con¬ 
 duct for the future guidance of the country : 
 
 “ Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none, or 
 a very remote, relation. Hence, she must be engaged in frequent con¬ 
 troversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. 
 Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by 
 artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary 
 combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities. Our de¬ 
 tached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different 
 course.” 
 
 It was the same instinct which led Jefferson, in the letter to Mon¬ 
 roe already quoted, to say : 
 
 “ Our first and fundamental maxim should be, never to entangle 
 ourselves in the broils of Europe ; our second, never to suffer Europe 
 to intermeddle with cisatlantic affairs.” 
 
 106587—19309 
 
8 
 
 The concurrence of Washington and Hamilton and Jefferson in the 
 declaration of this principle of action entitles it to great respect. 
 * * * Separation of influences as absolute and complete as pos¬ 
 
 sible was the remedy which the wisest of Americans agreed upon. 
 It was one of the primary purposes of Monroe’s declaration to insist 
 upon this separation, and to accomplish it he drew the line at the 
 water’s edge. The problem of national protection in the distant fu¬ 
 ture is one not to be solved by the first impressions of the casual 
 observer, but only by profound study of the forces which, in the long 
 life of nations, work out results. In this case the results of such a 
 study by the best men of the formative period of the United States 
 are supported by the instincts of the American democracy holding 
 steadily in one direction for almost a century. The problem has not 
 changed essentially. If the declaration of Monroe was right when 
 the message was sent, it is right now. 
 
 We come now to the constitution of the proposed league of 
 nations, which has been submitted to us. I shall not undertake 
 to go into details; indeed, time would not permit to take up 
 the many different phases which this constitution presents for 
 consideraion. I want only to call attention to some features 
 of it bearing upon this particular subject matter—that is, the 
 effect it has upon these two great policies. 
 
 The mere reading of the constitution of the league will con¬ 
 vince any reasonable mind, any unprejudiced mind, that if put 
 into effect the policy of Washington and the policy of Monroe 
 must depart. The propositions are irreconcilable and can not 
 exist together. In the first place, the league provides for an 
 organization composed principally of five great nations, thr ee of 
 them European, one Asiatic, and one American. Every policy 
 determined upon by the league and every movement made by it 
 could be, and might be, controlled solely by European powers, 
 whether the matter dealt with had reference to America or 
 Europe. The league nowhere distinguishes or discriminates 
 between European and American affairs. It functions in one 
 continent the same as another. It compounds ail three conti¬ 
 nents into a single unit, so far as the operations of the league 
 are concerned. The league interferes in European affairs and 
 in American affairs upon the same grounds and for the same 
 reasons. If the territorial integrity of any member of the 
 league is threatened or involved, whether that territory be in 
 America or Europe, the league deals with the subject. If it 
 becomes necessary for the league to act through economic pres¬ 
 sure, or finally through military power, although the procedure 
 may be voted by European powers alone, it may exert that 
 pressure in America the same as in Europe. The very object 
 and purpose of the league is to eliminate all differences between 
 Europe and America and place all in a common liability to be 
 governed and controlled by a common authority. If the United 
 States, for instance, should disregard its covenants, as provided 
 in the league, it would be deemed to have committed an act of 
 war against all other members of the league; and under our sol¬ 
 emn obligation and agreement we would have authorized the 
 European powers to wage war against us and upon the American 
 Continent. And yet men deliberately and blandly state to the 
 American people that this league constitution preserves the 
 Monroe doctrine and the doctrine given us by Washington. 
 
 I read from article 10 as an illustration: 
 
 Tlie high contracting parties shall undertake to respect and preserve 
 as against external aggression the territorial existence and existing 
 political independence of all States members of the league. 
 
 1065S7—13S09 
 
Q 
 
 9 
 
 Take for illustration one of our own associates and allies. 
 England has possessions in three continents. As has been said, 
 the sun never sets upon her possessions. They dot every sea 
 and are found in every land. She to-day holds possession of 
 one-fifth of the habitable globe, and we in article 10 guarantee 
 the integrity of her possessions in the three continents of the 
 earth. 
 
 Mr. HITCHCOCK. Will the Senator state what he is read¬ 
 ing from? 
 
 Mr. BORAH. I am reading from article 10 of the constitu¬ 
 tion of the league. 
 
 Mr. HITCHCOCK. That is not the language' of article 10 as 
 printed in the Senate document at the request of the Senator 
 from Massachusetts [Mr. LoDqp]. There is nothing said about 
 possessions there at all. 
 
 Mr. BORAH. Did I read possessions? 
 
 Mr. HITCHCOCK. I understood the Senator to say pos¬ 
 sessions. 
 
 Mr. BORAH. No; I think the Senator is mistaken. I will 
 read it again: 
 
 The high contracting parties shall undertake to respect and preserve 
 as against external aggression the territorial integrity and existing 
 political independence of all States members of the league. 
 
 Mr. HITCHCOCK. That is correct. 
 
 Mr. BORAH. I presume that her territorial, integrity neces¬ 
 sarily involves her territorial possessions. 
 
 So, Mr. President, the first obligation which we assume is to“ 
 protect the territorial integrity of the British Empire. That 
 takes us into every tJ art of the civilized world. That is the 
 most radical departure from fhe Washington policy. I will 
 come to the Monroe policy in a minute. Now, how are we to 
 determine that? 
 
 In case of any such aggression or in case of any threat or danger 
 of such aggression the executive council shall advise upon the means 
 by which the obligation shall be fulfilled. 
 
 Does that mean what it says, and is it to be executed in ac¬ 
 cordance with its plain terms? If the territorial integrity of 
 any part of the British Empire shall be threatened not the Con¬ 
 gress of the United States, not the people of the United States, 
 not the Government of the United States determines what shall 
 be done, but the executive council of which the American 
 people have one member. We, if we mean what we say in this 
 constitution, are pledging ourselves, our honor, our sacred lives, 
 to the preservation of the territorial possessions the world over 
 and not leaving it to the judgment and sense of the American 
 people but to the diplomats of Europe. 
 
 Mr. HITCHCOCK. The Senator again uses the words “ terri¬ 
 torial possessions.” That is what I am objecting to. 
 
 Mr. BORAH. Mr. President, I will leave it to an intelligent 
 audience to determine whether or not “territorial integrity” 
 does not include “ territorial possessions.” 
 
 Mr. HITCHCOCK. If the Senator will refer to article 7, 
 the indications are there that the dominions of the British Em¬ 
 pire are to be regarded as separate and independent self-govern¬ 
 ing countries. 
 
 Mr. BORAH. Mr. President, I am coming to that in a few 
 moments. I admire the careful use of language by the Senator 
 106587—19309 
 
10 
 
 from Nebraska when he says there are “ indications.” This con¬ 
 stitution is prolific indeed of “ indications.” 
 
 That is the duty devolving upon us by virtue.of the leagile, 
 to enter European affairs. What would be the duty and the 
 obligatiou of England, of France, of Italy, and of Japan to 
 the other member should a disturbance arise upon the Western 
 Continent? Suppose some threat of danger to the Republic 
 should come from Mexico or from Mexico and its allies. We 
 are not even consulted as to whether we shall call in help, but the 
 duty devolves upon the council, in its initiative capacity, to at 
 once assume jurisdiction of it and to proceed to the American 
 continent to determine what its duties shall be with reference 
 to American affairs. This league operates upon the Western Con¬ 
 tinent with the same jurisdiction and power and the same utter 
 disregard of which continent it is upon as it does in the Euro¬ 
 pean Continent. Does anybody deny that proposition? 
 
 Let us take a homely illustration; perhaps it may better illus¬ 
 trate the argument. A great many years ago a man by the name 
 of Europe opened a farm. He begins the tillage of his great 
 farm, but turmoil, strife, and dissension arise among his tenants. 
 Finally a dissatisfied European by the name, we will call him, 
 America, determines to leave these turmoils on the European 
 farm to go into the forest, open a clearing, and establish a new 
 farm. He says, “ I shall go where I can worship God according 
 to the dictates of my own conscience. I shall go where I 
 r can set up a new system of farming.” He goes into the wilder¬ 
 ness and sacrifices and finally establishes a farm of his own. 
 After he has established it he declares, after reflection, “ I am 
 afraid those Europeans will come here and cause me the 
 same disturbance and trouble and establish the same kind 
 of a system which we had in Europe; so I will establish a parti¬ 
 tion fence.” He does establish a partition fence. When he 
 has finished the fence he says, “ I will neither go to your farm 
 nor shall you come to mine; I have had some experience with 
 you, and I do not want to try it again.” So he builds an insur¬ 
 mountable wall or fence between his neighbor Europe and him¬ 
 self. It stands for a hundred years. People sit about and dis¬ 
 cuss it, and pass many eulogies, declaring over and over again 
 that it was one of the wisest things that a farmer ever did. But 
 suddenly a new inspiration dawns, and it is thought that it 
 would be a good idea to tear down the wall or fence and to 
 commingle and intermingle the systems; to join one farm to 
 another and have one superintendent. It is said to the farmer 
 America, “ Let us tear down this fence.” He replies in sur¬ 
 prise and consternation, “ I built it for a purpose.” “ Well,” 
 it is contended by the idealist, “ we think it is better to tear it 
 down.” At this time there rises up a man by the name of Wil¬ 
 liam Howard. He says to farmer America, “ Let us tear down 
 that wall fence of yours. It must be done right away. Anyone 
 who opposes can not be trusted overnight.” The farmer says, 
 “ I do not think it would be well.” “ But,” William Howard re¬ 
 plies, “ it is just the same after it is torn down as it is when it 
 is standing up. We are going to put a fence around both farms, 
 and that will be the same as a fence between the farms.” Wil¬ 
 liam Howard further says, “Let us go into partnership with 
 your neighbor Europe.” America says, “ I do not want any 
 partnership. I came here to get away from that very thing.” 
 
 106587—19309 
 
11 
 
 William Howard urges, with a spirit of unselfishness and good 
 naturedly, “ It is just the same without a partnership as it is 
 with it. Let us transmute or combine these two systems and 
 make them one.” “ But,” farmer America says, “ I came to 
 this country to get away from that system. I do not want one 
 system; I want two systems. I do not like their system of 
 farming.” William Howard replies, “ One system is just the 
 same as two systems.” He declares, furthermore, “ I know 
 something about this; I ran this farm for four years myself 
 [laughter] ; I know how to run it; and I declare to you that the 
 best thing for you to do is to tear down your wall fence, to 
 unite your two systems, and make one farm out of it and one 
 common overseer.” He further, by way of a profound argument, 
 casually remarks, “ I had such remarkable success while I was 
 ^ running this farm and received such universal commendation 
 upon my work after it was over, having received the approval 
 of 2 tenants out of 48, that I am sure that I can run both farms, 
 at least, I am anxious to try.” [Laughter.] 
 
 The VICE PRESIDENT. The galleries must preserve order. 
 
 Mr. BORAH. Mr. President, some of us declare that this 
 proposition tears down the farmer’s fence. We say furthermore 
 that we do not want two farms made into one. If you want to 
 do so, all right, go ahead; but let us make no mistake about 
 what we are doing. Let us not try to fool ourselves or anyone 
 else. 
 
 What do other countries think about it, Mr. President? I 
 should like to call in outside witnesses, notwithstanding the very 
 profound respect that I have for the ex-President. The English 
 press, we are informed in so far as it has commented upon this 
 subject at all, has regarded it as an abrogation of the Monroe 
 doctrine. Mr. Lloyd-George said in the very beginning of these 
 conferences that Great Britain could concede much to the 
 United States if, as the result, they were to draw the United 
 States out of her isolation and away from her traditional foreign 
 policies. Japan has practically announced semiofficially that it 
 is the abolishment of the Monroe doctrine. The Brazilian Min¬ 
 ister at The Hague has announced that it is the end of the 
 Monroe doctrine. Why leave it in doubt? Do you Senators, or 
 those who are in favor of the league of nations, want to destroy 
 the Monroe doctrine? If you do not, why leave it in doubt? 
 Why leave it to the construction of European diplomats sitting 
 behind closed doors? By the insertion of three lines in this con¬ 
 stitution you can place it beyond peradventure, beyond • conten¬ 
 tion or cavil. The question which I submit now is, if you are 
 unwilling to do this, is it not proof conclusive that you intend to 
 destroy the policy and wipe out this long-standing doctrine? 
 
 Let us go to another feature of this league. I am not here 
 to-day to criticize in any wayveither directly or by inference, 
 the great English nation or the great English people. They are 
 among, not excepting our own, the most powerful and admirable 
 people upon the globe. Every man must pay his profound re¬ 
 spect to their genius and to their capacity for Government and 
 for mastery of great problems. But when we come to deal .with 
 England, we must deal with her intelligently and with a due 
 regard for our own interests and our own rights, for one of the 
 distinguishing characteristics of that proud nation is that 
 106587—19309 
 
 i 
 
12 
 
 England always looks after England’s interests. I admire her 
 
 f ° Her'national spirit never fails her. The talents and genius 
 of her statesmen never betray her. She has signed many treaties 
 which have been worthless in the hour of peril. She lias entered 
 into many leagues and combinations which have dissolved, but 
 her proud national spirit never forsakes her. Ultimately she 
 relies upon this instead of treaties and leagues. She has passed 
 through many a crisis, she has seen dark hours; but in every 
 crisis however severe, and in the darkest hour every English¬ 
 man is expected to do his duty and does it. I admire her for 
 her national spirit, for her vigilance in guarding the interests of 
 
 Mr President, this constitution of'the league of nations is 
 the greatest triumph for English diplomacy in three centuries of 
 English diplomatic life. This constitution, in the first place, is 
 lifted almost bodily, as you will see if you will compare the 
 two, from the constitution proposed in January by Gen Smuts. 
 There is not an organic, a vital principle incorporated in this 
 constitution that is not found in Gen. Smuts’s constitution. As 
 is known to all, Gen. Smuts, a South African, is one of the 
 most remarkable men under the English rule to-day. That 
 you may not think I am stating it strongly, let me read a word 
 from the London Times on the second day after this constitu¬ 
 tion was adapted: . 
 
 The project, if not the same as that' outlined by G en * 
 like it as its brother. * * * It is a cause for legitimate pride to 
 
 recognize in the covenant so much of the work of Englishmen. . , 
 
 It is again a source of legitimate pride to Englishmen that article 
 19 in the covenant might almost be taken as an exposition of the 
 principles animating thl relations of Great Britain with India and 
 the dominions. 
 
 Listen to this language— 
 
 That the dominions are in this document recognized as nations 
 before the world is also a fact of profound significance in the history 
 of these relations. 
 
 The gentleman who wrote that editorial had not acquired 
 the capacity of using language to conceal his thoughts; lie 
 labored under the disadvantage of having to use language to 
 convey his thoughts. The fact that the dominions of Great 
 Britain and her colonies are recognized as nations is a matter 
 of “ profound significance.” Yes; when they finally settle 
 dow r n to business England will have one vote, Canada one vote, 
 New Zealand one vote, Australia one vote, and South Africa 
 one vote, whilst the American Nation, brought into being by 
 our fathers at so much cost of blood and treasure and pie- 
 served through the century by the vigilance and sacrifice of 
 our forbears, this Nation with all her wealth and. resources 
 will have one vote. In both the executive council and the 
 delegate body the same proportion obtains, and those two 
 bodies direct, dominate, and mark out the policy of this entire 
 program, whatever it is to be, under the league. A matter of 
 “ profound significance ! ” 
 
 I ask you who are in favor of this league, are you willing 
 to give to any nation five votes against our one? Do you 
 presume that the questions of interest, of ambition, of selfish¬ 
 ness, of caprice, of humor will not arise in the future? Have 
 they not already, in a proper way, but none the less in an 
 10G587—19309 
 
 « 
 
13 
 
 unmistakable way, made their appearance since the armistice 
 was signed? Are we not already advised that we must use 
 the same intelligence, the same foresight, the same prevision, 
 and the same patriotism that our fathers used against the in¬ 
 herent, the inevitable selfishness of all nations? Yet we are 
 seriously proposing that we shall join a league whose consti¬ 
 tutional powers shall determine—what? Shall determine poli¬ 
 cies, politic and economic, upon the two continents and shall 
 give to our greatest commercial rival five votes to our one. 
 
 _ Mr. President, I have called attention to some of the obliga¬ 
 tions which we assume. Let me repeat a single statement. You 
 have now observed the number of votes in the executive coun¬ 
 cil, but thaf is not all. There are Italy and Japan associated 
 with England, and more nearly like her in their systems and 
 in their policies than they- are like the United States. There 
 are already treaties between those nations and England, which 
 Mr. Balfour frankly says are not to be abrogated: in other 
 words, we are in the very beginning put up not only against 
 this extraordinary vote by one nation but we have the disad¬ 
 vantage of contending against a system, which system covers 
 other nations as well as that of Great Britain, 
 s We all want the friendship and the respect of and future ami¬ 
 cable relations between Great Britain and this country. That 
 also was Washington’s wish; that was Jefferson’s wish ; that was 
 also Lincoln’s wish; but never for a moment did they sur¬ 
 render any power or any authority or compromise their capacity 
 in any way to take care of the situation in case there should not 
 be an agreement between the two powers. 
 
 What has England given up in this league of nations? What 
 has she surrendered? Will some one advise me? Did she sur¬ 
 render the freedom of the seas? That was pushed aside at the 
 first meetings of the conference as not subject to its jurisdic¬ 
 tion. Has she surrendered her claim for the largest navy? 
 What has she surrendered? 
 
 On the other hand, we have surrendered the traditional for¬ 
 eign policy of this country, which has been established for 100 
 years; and we have gone behind these powers and placed at 
 their disposal our finances, our man power, and our full capacity 
 to guarantee the integrity of their possessions all over the globe. 
 Is it an even balance, is it an equitable, is it an honest arrange¬ 
 ment between these great powers and the United States? 
 
 I come now to another feature, which to me is even more 
 interesting, more menacing, than those over which we have 
 passed. Conceal it as you may, disguise it as some will attempt 
 to do, this is the first step in internationalism and the first dis¬ 
 tinct effort to sterilize nationalism. This is a recognized fact, 
 tacitly admitted by all who support it aqd expressly admitted 
 by many, that the national State has broken down and that 
 we must now depend upon the international State and inter¬ 
 national power in order to preserve our interests and our civi¬ 
 lization. The national State can no longer serve the cause of 
 civilization, and therefore we must resort to the international 
 State. That is disclosed in every line and paragraph of this 
 instrument. It begins with the preamble and ends with the last 
 article—a recognition that internationalism must take the place 
 of nationalism. 
 
 106587—19309 
 
14 
 
 May I call attention to a statement from perhaps the most 
 famous internationalist now living. I read from a book en¬ 
 titled “ The Bolsheviki and World Peace,” by Trotzky. He 
 says: 
 
 The present war is at bottom a revolt of the forces of production 
 against the political form of nation and State. It means the collapse 
 of the national State as an independent economic unit. 
 
 In another paragraph: 
 
 The war proclaims the downfall of the national state. * * * 
 
 We Russian Socialists stand firmly on the ground of internationalism. 
 
 * * The German social democracy was to us not only a party 
 
 of the international—it was the party par excellence. 
 
 Again, he declares: 
 
 The present war signalizes the collapse of the national states. 
 
 He proceeds to argue that the only thing which can take the 
 place of the national state is internationalism, to international¬ 
 ize our governments, internationalize our power, internation¬ 
 alize production, internationalize our economic capacity, and 
 become an international state the world over. That is at the 
 bottom of this entire procedure, whether consciously or uncon¬ 
 sciously, upon the part of those who are advocating it. It will 
 be the fruit of this effort if it succeeds—the dead sea fruit 
 for the common people everywhere. It is a distinct announce¬ 
 ment that the intense nationalism of Washington, the intense 
 nationalism of Lincoln, can no longer' serve the cause of the 
 American people, and that we must internationalize and place 
 the sovoreign powers of this Government to make war and 
 control our economic forces in an international tribunal. 
 
 A. few days ago one of the boldest and most brilliant inter¬ 
 nationalists of this country—a man, no doubt, who believes in 
 it as firmly as I believe in nationalism—wrote this paragraph: 
 
 i JS e u£; atJl AT 0f CoL Roosevelt was a shock, I think, to everybody who 
 if S' “an ever Jived who had more fun in 61 years ; and yet 
 inp- hm* A Wlta th - at la ? t f £ a ntic reiteration of Americanism and noth¬ 
 ing but Americanism, fresh from his pen. was like a symbol of the 
 of life. The boyish magnetism is all gone out of those words 
 They die in the dawn of revolutionary internationalism. 
 
 . ^ sometimes wonder, Can it be true? Are we, indeed yield¬ 
 ing our Americanism before the onrushing tide of revolutionary 
 internationalism? Did the death of this undaunted advocate of 
 Amencan nationalism mark an epoch in the fearful, damnable 
 downward trend? ’ 
 
 Yes, Mr. President, this many-sided man touched life at 
 every point, and sometimes seemed inconsistent; but there was 
 one supreme passion which gave simplicity and singleness of 
 purpose to all lie said or did—his abounding Americanism. In 
 tins era of national infidelity let us be deeply grateful for this. 
 Though he had erred a thousand times, and grievously erred 
 we would stiU pay sincere tribute to his memory for holding 
 aloft at ail times, and especially in the world’s greatest tur¬ 
 moil, the banner of the true faith. Huntsman, plainsman, au- 
 th°£ political leader, governor, Vice President, President, and 
 ex-President, this was always the directing and dominating 
 theme. Even in his full, rich life, replete with noble deeds 
 a ° d brillian t achievements, it runs like a golden thread through 
 all of the bewildering activities of his wide-ranging genius 
 It gave consistency to every change of view and justified what 
 sometimes seemed his merciless intolerance. When the final 
 106587—19309 
 
 
15 
 
 estimate is placed upon bis career, and all ilia services to his 
 fellows are weighed and judged, his embodiment of the na¬ 
 tional spirit, his vigilant defense of our national integrity, 
 his exemplification of our national ideals will distinguish him, 
 as says in effect this internationalist, from all the men of his 
 day and generation. 
 
 Mr. President, I am not a pessimist. I find neither solace 
 nor guidance in the doleful doctrine. But who will gainsay 
 that we have reached a supreme hour in the history of the 
 Republic he loved? There is not a Government in existence 
 to-day but feels the strain of those inscrutable forces which 
 are working their willful way through all the established in¬ 
 stitutions of men. Church and creed, ancient governments and 
 new, despotic and liberal, order and law, at this time stand 
 under challenge. Hunger and disease, business anxiety, and in¬ 
 dustrial unrest threaten to demobilize the moral forces of organ¬ 
 ized society. In all of this turmoil and strife, in all this chaos of 
 despair and hope, there is much that is good if it can be brought 
 under direction and subordinated to the sway of reason. At the 
 bottom of it all there is the infinite longing of oppressed hu¬ 
 manity seeking in madness to be rid of oppression and to escape 
 from these centuries of injustice. How shall we help to bring 
 order out of chaos? Shall we do so by becoming less or more 
 American? Shall we entangle and embarrass the efforts of a 
 powerful and independent people, or shall we leave them in 
 every emergency and in every crisis to do in that particular hour 
 and in that supreme moment what the conscience and wisdom of 
 an untrammeled and liberty-loving people shall decide is wise and 
 just? Or shall we yoke our deliberations to forces we can not 
 control and leave our people to the mercy of powers which may 
 be wholly at variance with dur conception of duty? I may be 
 willing to help my neighbor, though he be improvident or un¬ 
 fortunate, but I do not necessarily want him for a business 
 partner. I may be willing to give liberally of my means, of my 
 council and advice, even of my strength or blood, to protect his 
 family from attack or injustice, but I do not want him placed 
 in a position where he may decide for me when and how I shall 
 act or to what extent I shall make sacrifice. I do not want this 
 Republic, its intelligence, and its patriotism, its free people and 
 its institutions to go into partnership with and to give control 
 of the partnership to those, many of whom have no conception 
 of our civilization and no true insight into our destiny. What 
 we want is what Roosevelt taught and urged—a free, untram¬ 
 meled Nation, imbued anew and inspired again with the national 
 spirit. Not isolation but freedom to do as our own people think 
 wise and just; not isolation but simply the unembarrassed and 
 unentangled freedom of a great Nation to determine for itself 
 and in its own way where duty lies and where wisdom calls. 
 There is not a supreme council possible of creation or conceivable 
 equal in wisdom, in conscience, and liumanitarianism to the 
 wisdom and conscience and humanitarianism of the hundred 
 million free and independent liberty-loving souls to whom the 
 living God has intrusted the keeping of this Nation. The mo¬ 
 ment this Republic comes to any other conclusion it has for¬ 
 feited its right to live as an independent and self-respecting 
 Republic. 
 
 106587—19309 
 
16 
 
 It was not, one likes to believe, a mere incident, but a sig¬ 
 nificant though strangely arranged fact that the last message 
 to the American people from the illustrious dead who, t e 
 internationalists tell us, was the last of the great Americans, 
 should have been upon this particular subject I believe it was 
 the night of his death that this message which I shall now lead 
 to you was read at a public meeting to which he had been in¬ 
 vited but was unable to attend: 
 
 Anv man who says he is an American but something else also 
 isn’t 'an American at all. We have room for hut one flag, the American 
 
 flaV ? *. we nave room for but one laug ! lage ' an , d , that 13 
 
 Fn^lish language: for we intend to see that the crucible turns our 
 people out as Americans, of American nationality, and not as dwellers 
 in a polvglot boarding house! and we have room for but one soul 
 loyalty to the American people. 
 
 Let us inscribe this upon our banner and hang it upon the 
 outer wall. In all the vicissitudes of our national life, in all 
 the duties which may come to us as a people, in all the future, 
 filled, as it will be, with profound and perplexing problems, let 
 us cling uncompromisingly to this holy creed. In these times, 
 when ancient faiths are disappearing and governments are 
 crumbling, when institutions are yielding to the tread of the 
 mad hosts of disorder, let us take our stand on the side of 
 orderly liberty, on the side of constitutional government. Let 
 us range ourselves along with Washington and Jefferson and 
 Jackson and Lincoln and Roosevelt. Let us be true to our¬ 
 selves ; and, whatever the obligations of the future, we can not 
 then be false to others. 
 
 10G587—19309 
 
 o