LEAGUE OF NATIONS 
 
 CONSCRIPTION —MILITARISM 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 '■CS 
 
 OF 
 
 HON. WILLIAM E. BORAH 
 
 OF IDAHO 
 
 IN THE 
 
 SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 
 
 WEDNESDAY, JUNE 25, 1919 
 
 124302—19544 
 
 WASHINGTON 
 
 1919 
 
f 
 
 / 
 
SPEECH 
 
 OF 
 
 HON. WILLIAM B. BORAH, 
 
 The Senate had under consideration the bill (11. R. 6227) making 
 appropriations for the support of the Army for the fiscal year ending 
 June 30, 1920. 
 
 Mr. BORAH. Mr. President, I reserved a certain amendment 
 for a separate vote in the Senate, and in making the reservation 
 it was my desire to present the question of the increase in the 
 size of the Army from about 300,000 to about 400,000, that being 
 tlie difference between the size of the Army provided for by the 
 House and tiie size which will be provided for by the bill in case 
 it passes in the Senate as it was passed in Committee of the 
 Whole. 
 
 I do not want unnecessarily to delay the consideration of this 
 measure, but the proposition which I have presented by my 
 reservation of the vote is to my way of looking at the situation 
 a rather Important one. I think we ought to reflect upon our 
 program not only with reference to the bill which is now pending, 
 but with reference to all other measures which have to do with 
 the question of armament. 
 
 The amount of the original estimate for the Military Estab¬ 
 lishment for the fiscal year of 1920 as presented by the depart¬ 
 ment was $1,208,322,269. The amount carried by th'e bill as it 
 passed the House was $718,654,591. The bill as reported to the 
 Senate carries $888,703,848.50. In so far as the House curtailed 
 the amount of the original estimate from $1,268,322,269 to $718,- 
 674,591, I am entirely satisfied. It does not seem to be from 
 what I have learned during the debate and from the report that 
 Riere is any occasion for increasing the Army in size and increas¬ 
 ing the appropriation for the Army from the amount provided 
 by the House to the amount which is now proposed by the 
 Senate. 
 
 Mr. McKELLAR. I think the Senator should add to $888,- 
 000,000 the sum of $100,000,000 which is reappropriated, as shown 
 on page 34 of the bill, as I recall it. So the amount will be 
 $988,000,000, as reported by the Senate committee. 
 
 Mr. BORAH. Mr. President, there was a very general belief, 
 and pretty well justified by reason of declarations which have 
 been made by practically all the governments of the world, that 
 the close of this war would witness a real and substantial move¬ 
 ment toward disarmament. The people anxiously awaited for 
 souie manifestation of good faith that such a program would be 
 initiated and carried to a successful conclusion. The people 
 were attracted to the whole scheme involved in the treaty of 
 Versailles, including what is known as the league- of nations, 
 by reason of what they believed to be a fair assurance that 
 there would be a guaranty, and such guaranty backed by actual 
 performance, of disarmament. 
 
 124392—19544 o 
 
4 
 
 Mr, JONES of New Mexico. Mr. President- 
 
 Mr. Bt)RAH. I yield to the Senator. , a 4 . 
 
 Mr. JONES of New Mexico. I understand that the Senator 
 from Idaho is very much opposed to the covenant of the league 
 of nations? 
 
 Mr. BORAH. lam. ^ . n w,, 
 
 Mr JONES of New Mexico. In that connection I should like 
 
 to inquire if the Senator feels that if the covenant of the league 
 of nations Is not adopted the movement toward disarmament 
 will receive very much impetus? In other words, if the league 
 of nations is not entered into by the United States, does the 
 Senator feel that the United States then would be warranted 
 in not going ahead with its Army preparedness? 
 
 Mr BORAH Mr. President, the Senator has submitted a 
 question to which I intend to address my reniarks; and there¬ 
 fore, without" answering specifically the question that is now 
 presented, I shall undertake to proceed with the matter as I 
 had outlined it in my mind, trusting that my positnm will be 
 made clear as I proceed; and if not, I shall be very ghid to be 
 infprniDtGd by th6 SGii8.tor. 
 
 Mr. JONES of New Mexico. Of course, I shall be quite con¬ 
 tent to have thg-Senator deal with it in his own way._ 
 
 - Mr BORAH. But,' as I was saying, notwithstanding the de¬ 
 sire upon the part of all people to see a program of disarma¬ 
 ment and to see a situation brought about which wouldjustify 
 disarmament, we have presented to us a program in the form 
 of the treaty and of the league which gives no_ guaranty or 
 assurance of disarmament, and we have also an interpretation 
 or construction of the treaty and the league by the Governments 
 most responsible for it, which indicates beyond question that 
 the makers of the treaty themselves do not expect or want dis¬ 
 armament. Upon the other hand, there is to be the most stu¬ 
 pendous program of annaments which the world has ever con¬ 
 templated in a time of peace. 
 
 If one will examine the program as outlined in England foi 
 its army and for the increase of its nayy, in France, in Japan, 
 and in the United States, he will have no trouble in coming to 
 the conclusion that those who are most familiar with the 
 terms of the treaty and the league do not for a moment regard 
 it as a program of disarmament. It is, on the other hand, calling 
 for such an armament as none of these nations in their separate 
 and individual action has -ever heretofore contemplated. It 
 presents such a program that none of these nations have here¬ 
 tofore thought it was necessary to have. England, France, and 
 Japan are burdening their people as never before in order, it is 
 said, to db their part under the league. 
 
 I call attention to the provision with reference to disarma¬ 
 ment and to the construction which has been placed upon this 
 provision, to the action which is already being taken in the light 
 of the provision and to the different budget systems which are 
 being framed in contemplation of carrying out the provision. 
 
 I do not undertake to go into the question whether or not 
 we could disarm at this time, although I have my views upon 
 it but what I desire to call to the attention of the Senate and 
 the country is that the construction which has been placed upon 
 article 8'by the advocates of the league befdre the public is 
 not the construction which is being placed upon it in the legis- 
 ‘124392—19544 
 
5 
 
 lative assemblies or in parliaments where the question of the 
 amounts necessary to carry it into effect are considered in a 
 concrete and practical way. It is given one construction in 
 popular parlance and before the people at large. It is given 
 an entirely different construction in the appropriation com¬ 
 mittees and in the parliaments which have to deal wdth the 
 subject. 
 
 Article 8 provides: 
 
 The members of the league recognize that the maintenance of a 
 peace requires the reduction of national armaments to the lowest point 
 consistent with national safety and the enforcement by common 
 action of international obligations. 
 
 The language in which this statement is couched is somewhat / 
 
 significant of itself. It says: “ The members of the league 
 recognize.” Without any particular commendation or any par¬ 
 ticular urgency of the principle, it recognizes that the mainte¬ 
 nance of peace requires the reduction of national armament, 
 a principle which all thinking, reflecting, sane people do recog¬ 
 nize. Without the i-eduction of national armament and a pro¬ 
 gram which insures and guarantees that reduction, it is idle 
 to talk about a world at peace. 
 
 An armed world is a fighting world. Nations armed to the 
 teeth are not the elements of a peaceful world, and unless we 
 can find a provision in the league which gives us the assurance 
 that_ a program has been provided which can be enforced and 
 carried out, it is not fair to the people of the world to say, as 
 has been repeatedly said upon the public rostrum, that the 
 league means disarmament. Reading further, the language is: 
 
 The council, taking account of the geographical situation and cir¬ 
 cumstances of each State,- shall formulate plans for such reduction for 
 the consideration and action of the several Governments. 
 
 • Such plans shall be subject to reconsideration and revision at least 
 every 10 years. 
 
 After these plans shall have been adopted by the several Govern¬ 
 ments. limits of armaments therein fixed shall not be exceeded without 
 the concurrence of the council. 
 
 “After these plans shall have been adopted by the several Gov¬ 
 ernments.” Tb.at leaves the question, Mr. President, of dis¬ 
 armament precisely where it was before. What is the difference 
 between then and now and uow and then? They recognize the 
 principle that disarmament to the lo^mst point consistent witli 
 national safety is a sound principle, and every Government, I 
 presume would have been willing to say at any time within the 
 last fifty years that they recognized that principle, and yet the 
 inline nation or the same government proceeded at once to arm 
 and to build vast fighting machines. 
 
 After recognizing this principle in paragraph 1, they turn 
 about and leave the question of disarmament precisely wliere it 
 was befoie, resting upon the individual discretion and judgment 
 and initiative of each separate and individual nation. 
 
 It is true that after the program has been accepted they must 
 consult the council with reference to increasing it. I do not now 
 enter upon the question of tlie power of the council to enforce 
 any such understanding; I do not care to discuss that; but the 
 initiative, the original program, is left solely and absolutely in 
 the discretion of each individual nation. The program seems 
 to he now that at no distant day Germany is to be admitted to 
 the league of nations. I take it that there never would be 
 witlnn the lifetime of anyone who sits in this Chamber any 
 124392—1954.1 
 
V 
 
 thought or consideration of disarmament to the slightest degree 
 if the German Government is permitted, after it enters the 
 league, to determine for themselves what their armament shall 
 be. I take it, Mr. President, that there would not be the 
 slightest step toward disarmament if the Japanese Govern¬ 
 ment is permitted to determine for itseif what its disarmament 
 shall be. If they Avanted to disarm, when was there a better 
 time to begin than when they were sitting together at the close 
 of this war and thn enemy reduced to helplessness. So, Mr. ’ 
 President, we have the same program precisely, unchanged in 
 the slightest from the program of the past, that each nation 
 keeps its eye upon the other nations of the earth and arms or 
 disarms according to its individual discretion and according 
 to what it conceives to be its interest, the same old race of 
 armaments. 
 
 I can not find anything in article 8 which authorizes in any 
 way or in any way assures or guarantees a program other than 
 that which has existed at all times during the last 100 years. 
 If there had been in -good faith a determination to disarm, there 
 could have been placed in the league of nations and in the 
 treaty certain standards or certain principles to which the dif¬ 
 ferent nations signing or agreeing would have agreed positively 
 and affirmatively to accede; but no such program has been pro¬ 
 vided for—and why? 
 
 Notwithstanding the secrecy which has prevailed with refer¬ 
 ence to this matter at Versailles, every one knows precisely w’hy 
 it was not inserted. It was because the nations of Europe were 
 unwilling to have anything inserted which would in the slight¬ 
 est degree embarrass them in their program as it has obtained 
 heretofore. Therefore, we have only a general statement, a 
 general recognition of an axiomatic principle, that disarmament 
 must necessarily precede peace without any substantial pro¬ 
 vision or guaranty whatever that any disarmament is to take 
 place. 
 
 Not only does this present draft provide no program of dis¬ 
 armament and no means by which it can be assured or enforced, 
 but the original draft was redrafted in this particular in order 
 to’ weaken to a certain extent the power of the league over the 
 question of armament. 
 
 The last vestige of authority or power, the last semblance 
 of agreement of disarmament, according to any lair construc¬ 
 tion of the language, was eliminated from the second draft; and 
 it was eliminated because the imperialistic powers and the im¬ 
 perialistic sentiments outside, I think I am justfied in say¬ 
 ing—although I do not knoAV the internal workings of the con¬ 
 ference outside of our own representatives—were for a full and 
 unlimited discretion with reference to each individual govern¬ 
 ment, as to what extent they should arm. Had the program 
 of disarmament ever proceeded to the point where it could be 
 enforced by the league, or had the league depended upon any sub¬ 
 stantial program of disarmament, the league would not have 
 been framed, for it is an imperialistic league, not a league based 
 upon disarmament or upon the principles which were announced 
 before tbe President went to Versailles. 
 
 Mr. President, I am frank to say^that I am led to make these 
 remarks to-day by reason of a statement which was made a 
 124392—19544 
 
7 
 
 few days ago, at Wichita, Kans., I believe, by the ex-PresIdent, 
 wherein, referring to article 8, he said: 
 
 Thus we are to stop forever the race for armaments, the truculence 
 of bullying they endanger, their temptation to war, and their cruel and 
 enormous destructiveness when war ensues. 
 
 Speaking further to the Kansas farmers, anxious to be rid 
 of the great burdens of taxes which are imposed upon them by 
 reason of this armament, he says: 
 
 Unless we have this league of nations, this race of armament must go 
 on with the dreary round of events — first burdensome taxation and 
 consumption and waste of producing capacity, then war, then world 
 suicide. These are the only alternatives to a league. 
 
 This statement is made in the face of the plain language 
 which leaves action with each Government as before, in the face 
 of the huge budgets for armaments in all Governments members 
 of the league, in face of the fact that the ex-President advocates 
 conscription in time of peace. 
 
 There is no more seductive proposition that could be pre¬ 
 sented to the people of this country in favor of the league of 
 nations than this proposition stated by the ex-President, that 
 without the league disarmament could not take place, and with 
 the league we are rid of armaments and the great fighting 
 machines of the world. The one thing for which men have 
 prayed during these years, long before this war began, was 
 some system or organization or means by wli'ich these great 
 burdens could be lifted for all time. When they are told by an 
 ex-President that the league of nations Is a guarauty to them 
 of that which they have been hoping for it is the most conclusive 
 argument which could be presented to them. 
 
 But it is up to the ex-President. to state to the people of 
 this country how disarmament can take place when every 
 government decides for itself to-day, as it has heretofore, -r 
 
 what armaments it sliall have. It is up to those who make 
 such statements to point out the language by which, if Japan 
 wants to build eight warships, she can be compelled to be 
 satisfied with but two, and if Japan builds eight how many 
 will the United States build? If the United States builds 
 eiglit, how many will England build? So the round goes, leav¬ 
 ing it to the individual discretion and action of each particular 
 nation, wdthout any power whatever in the league or without 
 any agreement among the nations as to a proper standard of 
 armament. 
 
 Mr. President, Horace Greeley once said that “ the way to 
 resume specie payments was to resume,” and the only way to 
 disarm is to disarm. The only possible means by which it 
 cobdd be accomplished would be to put into the league itself, or 
 the treaty, the standards by which armament should be 
 measx:red, the clear, positive agreement that certain concrete 
 steps looking to disarmament should bo taken. 
 
 The men who went to Versailles to formulate the treaty went 
 there under the solemn pledge to do specific things with refer¬ 
 ence to disarmament. Before the conference was called certain 
 things had been promised to the people of the world—not that 
 we will disarm, in the far-off and mo.st illusive sometime, not 
 that we will reco.gnize the principle that disarmament precedes 
 peace, but they said, “ We will do this concrete thing,” and, doing 
 this concrete thing, disarmament necessarily and inevitably 
 
 12-1392 — 19544 
 
8 
 
 
 ,y 
 
 follows. For instance, before they went to Versailles we were 
 informed that the first essential, indispensable step toward the 
 peace of the world was to establish the principle of the freedom 
 of the seas. The establishment of that principle is just as 
 prerequisite to the destruction of navalism as the destruction 
 of conscription is indispensable to the destruction of the curse 
 
 of militarism. ^ ^ x, 
 
 These two principles—the establishment of the freedom of 
 the seas and the elimination of conscription were the two great 
 principles which were promised to the people of the world by the 
 men who controlled and shaped affairs at Versailles before they 
 went there; and the very fact that both of these things, the 
 very basis of navalism and militarism, were eliminated, rejected 
 out of hand, must "be satisfactory proof to any reflecting man 
 that, whatever they thought before they met, they came to the 
 conclusion that disarmament was not-ptacticable. That is what 
 the people should be told, that they have not provided for dis¬ 
 armament because they found that it was impracticable to do so. 
 It is a system of misrepresentation, seldom excelled, to tell the 
 people, after these broken promises, that disarmament is to 
 
 follow. , , 
 
 The Versailles conference had not been in session 24 hours— 
 indeed, if I remember correctly, It had not yet met—when the 
 English authorities announced that the question of the freedom 
 of the seas would not be submitted to the jurisdiction of the 
 Versailles 'tonference, and, in order to render it safe beyond 
 discussion, M. Olemenceau announced in the public press that 
 upon that proposition he would stand by Great Britain. So 
 before the conference had been convened, or at least before it 
 had proceeded to any considerable extent, the first concrete 
 proposition of disarmament was rejected, or rather disowned, by 
 the conference. Placidly, almost facetiously, they put it aside. 
 
 During the campaign in England just prior to the peace con¬ 
 ference Lloyd-George made a solemn pledge, as the representa¬ 
 tive of England, that the second step toward disarmament, the 
 rejection of the principle of conscription, would be written ihto 
 the treaty. He said : 
 
 On the eve of this important election, -which means so much to the 
 country, I "wish to make It clear beyond all doubt that I stand for the 
 abolition of conscript armies in all lands. 
 
 Give attention to this language: 
 
 Without that the peace conference would be a failure and a sham. 
 These great military machines are responsible for the agony the world 
 has passed through, and it would be a i or ending to any peace con¬ 
 ference that allowed them to continue. 
 
 Mr. REED. From what is the Senator reading? 
 
 Mr. BORAH. I am reading from a speech made by Lloyd- 
 George to the electors of England in the last election. 
 
 Mr. LA FOLLETTB. What was the date? 
 
 Mr. BORAH. I have not the date here, but it took place, as 
 the Senator will recall, after the armistice but before the peace 
 conference had assembled. 
 
 Mr. LODGE. It was in December, 
 
 Mr. BORAH. The Senator from Massachusetts states that 
 It was in December. 
 
 Mr. President, I am unable to pass over this statement of 
 Lloyd-George with a simple reading of it. It not only states 
 124392^9544 
 
 4^ 
 
9 
 
 a principle, but states in a single paragraph all I contend for 
 here, and that is that without these two fundamental steps, 
 the establishment of the freedom of the seas and the inhibition 
 on conscription, any talk about peace is a delusion and a sham. 
 ■Lloyd-George set up his own test of disarmament, his own test 
 of a genuine treaty of peace, and that test I invoke. I ask 
 those who are talking to the people of this country about dis¬ 
 armament to give some attention to this merciless condemna¬ 
 tion of the league which we are asked to accept as a guaranty 
 of peace. 
 
 Germany is disarmed.; she is reduced, so far as her military 
 force is concerned, to a state of helplessness; conscription, if I 
 remember the treaty correctly, is inhibited in Germany ; and yet, 
 while the only enemy whom we have feared, the only possible 
 enemy who could have called us out of our isolation into the 
 turmoil of Europe, the only enemy who we believe could in any 
 sense threaten the civilization of the world, is disarmed and 
 conscription prohibited within her borders, the nations which 
 pledged themselves to disarmament refuse to apply, even in the 
 slightest degree, the principle which Mr. Lloyd-George said was 
 Essential to peace to the other nations of the world. While 
 Germany is disarmed, other nations are left to arm to their 
 content or to their discretion, without any agreement amongst 
 themselves or any understanding amongst themselves that their 
 armaments shall be within certain confined limits or according to 
 certain standards. 
 
 Permit me to read again: 
 
 On the eve of this Important election, which means so much to the 
 country, I wish to make it clear beyond all doubt that I stand for the 
 abolition of conscript armies In all lands. Without that the peace con¬ 
 ference would be a failure and a sham. 
 
 Yet, Mr. President, the ex-President of the United States is 
 stating that without the league of nations, which provides for 
 nothing covering the subject matter to which Mr. Lloyd-George 
 referred, and under which the question of armaments is still 
 left open, we proceed at once to the realization of the hopes of 
 the people that disarmament is to be had. 
 
 There was a good reason, in my judgment, for refusing to in¬ 
 hibit conscription. The volunteer system, in my humble opinion, 
 would always be sufficient to protect this Republic. I am not 
 now proposing to enter upon an argument against the con¬ 
 scription system, so far as it applied to this warf I expressed 
 my views _^at the time that question was pending, a?(id I have 
 in no sense modified them; but the volunteer system could, with 
 apparent safety, be relied upon to protect the Republic when the 
 Republic was in peril. The volunteer system, however, could 
 never be relied upon to send soldiers to protect the territorial 
 Integrity of all the nations of Europe and Asia. Without the 
 conscript system, without the power to conscript, it.would be 
 practically impossible to raise an army sufficient to perform 
 our duties to the league under article 10, article 11, and 
 article 16. Furthermore, if conscription were abolished war 
 would be, to some extent, in the control of those who would 
 have to fight. But with conscription men can be forced to fight 
 regardless of their sense of justice or their belief in the 
 righteousness of the cause. It was well understood by these 
 men that men would volunteer to fight when their own coun- 
 124392—19544 
 
 / 
 
10 
 
 trios were in peril, but if tliey were to be reflucecl to the miser¬ 
 able role of Hessians they wonlcl have to be conscripted. 
 
 Mr. Taft admitted that proposition in a speech in New York 
 some time ago, when this particular question was presented as 
 to wliere we were going to get the soldiers to police or to pro¬ 
 tect the territorial integrity of the different nations of the 
 earth, and as to whether or not it was expected that American 
 boys would volunteer to perform any such service. Mr. Taft 
 frankly admitted that we would secure them by conscription. 
 He said; 
 
 Very liftte service of any kind has been exacted from the great body 
 of the people. Conscription is needed to discipline our native young 
 men and to teach them respect for authority. It is needed to teach our 
 millions of newly created citizens loyalty. Congress should enact a con¬ 
 scription-law making provision not only for the present but for the 
 future, after the war shall end. 
 
 So, Mr. President, instead of what Lloyd-George promised, an 
 inhibition against conscription, it is permitted to stand, and we 
 have already the assurance that it is to be applied in time of 
 peace. England is to-day raising an army of close to a million 
 men, it being only a few figures under that number. How is Eng- 
 <land proceeding to secure that army? By conscription in time 
 of peace; and just so surely as we enter this league of nations 
 and the obligations of articles 10 and 11 are imposed upon us 
 and the conditions of those articles are to be carried out by find¬ 
 ing American boys to perform the services which will be re¬ 
 quired, just that certain we will have conscription in this coun¬ 
 try in time of peace. We have now our great organizations 
 already conducting a campaign for universal military training; 
 we have a condition being imposed upon us which will require 
 conscription, and upon top of that We have the promise made 
 that we will perform our part of the service of policing the dif¬ 
 ferent parts of the world, w'hich in itself would require conscrip¬ 
 tion, if nothing else did. 
 
 Let it be understood, Mr. President, that this is the situation; 
 let the people know the facts; and then, if the American people 
 want to assume the obligation and accept this program, I shall 
 be silent. I am perfectly willing that what a majority of the 
 American people determine to be for the best intei’est of our 
 Government shall prevail; but I seriously object to its being 
 presented to those who are asked to approve the proposition 
 that it means one thing, when in fact it means an entirely dif-^ 
 ferent thing. 
 
 Mr. President, there has never been any intention to disarm. 
 When this Congress closed on the 4th of March with a little un¬ 
 finished business on hand there was pending in the Congress of 
 the United States a bill providing an appropriation of $750,- 
 000,000 to build what was stated to be the largest navy in the 
 world. This bill was being advocated and urged in the light of 
 the league, and, as stated by the advocates of both the bill and 
 the league, in order to carry out the terms of the league. Seven 
 hundred and fifty million dollars is more money than was ex¬ 
 pended by Germany, France, and England combined upon their 
 navies in 1913; $750,000,000 is the largest appropriation twice 
 over that any nation ever made for naval purposes in time of 
 peace. Why was it proposed to appropriate that amount? 
 Admiral Badger says in his testimony before the House com¬ 
 mittee : 
 
 124392—19544 
 
4 
 
 11 
 
 The Navy of the United States Should ultimately be equal to the most 
 powerful maintained by any other nation in the world. It should be 
 gradually Increased to tbis point by such a rate of development year 
 by year as may be permitted by the facilities of the country, but the 
 limit above defined should be obtained not later than 1925. Navies 
 must be the principal support of a league of nations, and the United 
 States, from its wealth, its Influence, and its power, will be called upon 
 to contribute a very large share of the international police force neces¬ 
 sary to render such a league effective. 
 
 Then the admiral urges, as an advocate of the league, the 
 large Navy, because It Is essential and indispensable for the 
 service of the United States in the performance of its portion of 
 its duty under the league. At the same time, Mr. President, we 
 had, when Congress closed, pending before us a bill providing 
 for an Army of 500,000 men,. Gen. March stated in his testi¬ 
 mony a few days ago that if the other nations of the world do 
 their part, 500,000 men may be sufficient to enable the United 
 States to perform its part under the league of nations. If ftie 
 other nations of the world do their part, we can get along with 
 an Army of 500,000 men; but if they should fail to do their part, 
 heaven only knows the size of the Army which would be re¬ 
 quired upon the part of this Government in order to carry out, 
 in good faith, its portion of the contract. 
 
 ' We ai-e to have the largest Navy in the world, and an Army 
 ot 500.000 men, not because we are not entering into the league 
 of nations, not because we are reverting to the old system and 
 the old program, but in order to carry out our portion of our 
 duty under the league of nations.- 
 
 • Some one may say that without the league of nations we 
 might have to have more Army. That is a matter of specula- 
 tiou; but certainly no one is justified in saying what has been 
 said by the ex-President, that the league means disarmament 
 when those wdio are advocating it say that the largest Navy in 
 the world is necessary to perforin our duty under it, and an 
 Army of 500,000 men is essential to perform our portion'of the 
 police duty. 
 
 Gpn. Maurice, when interviewed upon this subject some time 
 hgo, spoke with considerable frankness in regard to it and 
 said that— ’ 
 
 , Not only must the United States furnish the financial support for 
 reconstruction of the war-stricken countries—without which assistance 
 lIi*6 lG&gu 0 would bG stillborn—but tliEt u gi'G&t AniGricun Nq.vv is ubso- 
 lately essential to the maintenance of the league. 
 
 Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, will the Senator give the 
 Senate the date of that announcement? 
 
 Mr. BORAH. According to my memorandum here that was 
 pn February 21. The Navy,t|Oen. Maurice declared, is abso¬ 
 lutely essential to the maintenance of the league, and is its 
 chief administrative weapon and the oniy means by which the 
 principle of economic pressure can be- sufficiently applied under 
 the league; and the great American Republic must furnish its 
 portion of the Army to maintain the integrity of the league. 
 
 Mr. President, no one who reflects for a moment upon article 
 10 and article 11 will disagree with Gen. Maurice. If we are 
 going to enforce economic pressure every time there is a dis¬ 
 turbance, or if we are going to police the world, he is a gib¬ 
 bering idiot who supposes for a moment that that means any¬ 
 thing other than the most stupendous armaments, because you 
 must be prepared every instant to oversee and police the whole 
 124392—19544 
 
 
12 
 
 civilized world, and that means arming to the utmost. Whether 
 we use our lighting machine or not, it must be ready every 
 
 moment. , „ , , .1 i. 
 
 Mr. Bonur Law said in the House of Commons last week that 
 
 there are 23 wars now raging in Europe. Mr. Simonds, the 
 famous war correspondent of the New York Tribune, gives a 
 list last Sunday of 18. The New York Times gives a list two or 
 three weeks ago Sunday of 16. Somewhere between Id and J.6 
 wars are now raging in Europe, and perhaps every one of them 
 involves the question of' territorial integrity or political inde¬ 
 pendence. Gen. March was modest enough when he said that 
 if the other nations of the world do their part 500,000 men may 
 be enough to take care of 23 wars. t ^ 
 
 Mr. President, no wonder the men at Versailles abandoned 
 disarmament and provided for armament. When they sat down 
 and looked at the practical side of this question they said; 
 “This promise which Lloyd George made to the electois is all 
 right for the electors, but it will not guard the territorial in¬ 
 tegrity of the different nations of the earth. 
 
 INIr. REED. Mr. President- 
 
 Mr. BORAH. Just a moment. “That can only be accom¬ 
 plished by conscription.” And, Mr. President, let me say here 
 and now that conscription is the basis of Prussian miiitarism. 
 Without it it could not exist. No modern military hero has 
 been able to carry his program to any extent whatever without 
 the power to place the grip of government upon the men who 
 are to fill the trenches and crowd the hospitals of pam. Gon- 
 scription is the groundwork of militarism, it makes no differ¬ 
 ence in what country it obtains. 
 
 Mr. REED, Mr. President-- 
 
 The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from 
 Idaho yield to the Senator from Missouri? 
 
 Mr. BORAH. , I do. . . t . 4 . 
 
 Mr. REED. The Senator has just passed the point. Is it 
 not a fact that England’s repudiation of the proposition of, dis¬ 
 armament was complete when England itself insisted that it 
 would not reduce its fleet by a siiigie siiip? Does it not follow, 
 from that fact that England’s chief confidence lay in her wooden 
 forts, as she used to call them—her steel forts or floating 
 fortresses now—and does it not also follow from that that if 
 England is to maintain an enormous fleet upon the seas, other 
 nations must either implicitly trust her or they must be.pre-, 
 pared to defend themselves? - ' 
 
 Mr. BORAH. I think the Seimtor’s statement is correct. . 
 
 Mr. HITCHCOCK. Mr. PresTdent, will the Senator quote 
 when England said, at any time in her history, that she would 
 not reduce her fleet by one vessel? 
 
 Mr. REED. Yes, sjr. 
 
 Mr. HITCHCOCK. I should like to hear it. 
 
 Mr. REED. During the early discussion of the peace league, 
 after the delegates had assembled, the question came up and 
 was discussed in the public press, not only for days but for 
 weeks, as to what the attitude of England would be. There was 
 a time when it was understood that it was doubtful whether 
 England would agree to go into a league of nations. Finally, 
 the language was devised and written into the league that in 
 
 124392—19544 
 
13 
 
 fixing the armament, account should be taken of the peculiar 
 situation of each nation. I can not recall the exact language. 
 
 Mr. HITCHCOCK, “ Geographical situation.” 
 
 Mr. REED. Yes; and peculiar conditions; and it was then 
 stated by a British statesman- 
 
 Mr. HITCHCOCK. Who stated It? 
 
 Mr. REED. And stated by the pre,ss generally- 
 
 Mr. HITCHCOCK. What statesman stated it? 
 
 Mr. REED. Just let me finish my statement. 
 
 Mr. BORAH. I can tell the Senator one of the statesmen 
 who stated it—Mr. Churchill. I have it on my desk, but can 
 not put my finger on it. 
 
 Mr. REED. Yes; that that language was sati.sfactory to 
 Great Britain, and it was repeatedly stated by British states¬ 
 men that Great Britain would not reduce her fleet to any 
 extent whatever. I did not suppose there was a man who 
 would deny that proposition. 
 
 Mr. HITCHCOCK. I deny it most emphatically. 
 
 Mr. REED. I assert it most positively, and I assert it upon 
 the strength of the general public press; and I shall take very 
 great pleasure in putting in the names and the quotations. I 
 do not carry them here with me at my desk. Moreover, I chal¬ 
 lenge the Senator to shcnv in a single instance where Great 
 Bi-itaiu has proposed to reduce her fleet, and I challenge him 
 if it is not a fact that Great Britain’s appropriations for keep¬ 
 ing up her fleet are as great as ever in the past, and if the 
 statement just made by the Senator from Idaho that Great 
 Britain’s army that she is now preparing for the coming year 
 is to consist of a million men is not correct? 
 
 Mr. BORAH. Mr. President, I think there is no doubt that 
 the Senator from Nebraska will find that Mr. Chufchill stated 
 that proposition in almost exactly that language. 
 
 Mr. HITCHCK^K. I hope the Senator will introduce it in 
 his remarks. I consider it a highly reckless statement to say 
 that Great Britain has said that she would not reduce her fleet 
 one vessel, because the public opinion of Great Britain is just 
 as powerful as the public opinion of the United States, and it 
 is overwhelmingly in favor of a limitation of armament both 
 on -sea and on land; and it is that public opinion which is going 
 to dominate the British Government from now on. 
 
 ■ Mr. BORAH. Now, Mr. President, speaking with all respect 
 for the Senator from Nebraska, how utterly—may I say ab¬ 
 surd— 
 
 Mr. HITCHCOCK. Yes; that is a good word. 
 
 Mr. BORAH. How utterly absurd it is for the Senator from 
 Nebraska and me to talk about public opinion in England, 
 except as it crystalizes itself into statutes and programs; and 
 the largest budget that England lias ever offered to her people 
 at any time in a peace period with reference to upbuilding 
 her navy and her aripy is now before the House of Commons, 
 and has proceeded so far with practically no opposition what¬ 
 ever. The thing which aroused the bitterness of England, so 
 far as a large portion of the press was concerned, was the very 
 suggestion by the President that there should be a decrease of 
 armament; and I have no doubt at all as to what it was that 
 compelled the Pre^tlent- to change the program which I have 
 124392—19544 
 
14 
 
 no doubt in the first instance was sincerely entertained. Eng¬ 
 land never would have consented for a moment—if we are to 
 judge by the expressions of such men as Churchill and Bal¬ 
 four, and the bill which is now pending in the House of Com¬ 
 mons—to any one except England herself having any say as to 
 the reduction of her armaments. 
 
 I read here, in this connection, a statement from Field 
 Marslial Sir Douglas Haig which tends to support the position 
 which we have taken. This was made only a few days ago at' 
 St. Andrews University, where he delivered an address. 
 
 Sir Douglas Haig, In his address, said we had all been appalled 
 by the magnitude of the World War now drawing to a close, and 
 would gladly believe that, even if we had not reached a stage of uni¬ 
 versal peace, at least mankind would never again become involved in 
 a cataclysm so general and so terrible. If, however, we were to avoid 
 a repetition of such catastrophes we must be prepared actively to 
 prevent them and must know what course to pursue. Though for a 
 while they might lie dormant, the passions from which war springs 
 were not yet dead in. the hearts of men. The seeds of future con¬ 
 flicts were to be found in every quarter of the globe, only awaiting 
 the right conditions, moral, political, and economical, to burst once 
 more into activity and cover the fields with harvests of armed men. 
 
 * * • We could not afford to neglect military precautions, for to 
 
 do so would be to invite war. 
 
 That is the same old principle, precisely, upon which Eng¬ 
 land' has always proceeded. 
 
 If the responsibility for this war rested in any degree upon Great 
 Britain, it was because the state of her military preparations made 
 it seem to the foreign observer improbable, if not impossible, that 
 she would venture to take up the challenge which her enemies cast 
 at her feet. All available resources must be prepared and organized 
 in time of peace with the view to their being used If and when occa¬ 
 sion required. 
 
 That states not only the position of England, but the posi¬ 
 tion of Japan, the position of France, and the position ,of the 
 United States, as expressed in the bills now pending ' before 
 Congress; and instead of trying to gather up what public opin¬ 
 ion is by reading newspaper views or the views of others, we 
 can best gather it and best rely upon it as expressed in'the 
 budgets of the different nations which are now construing their 
 obligations to their people with reference to military prepared^- 
 ness in the light of the league itself. 
 
 Mr. President, how could we disarm under this league? 
 What a pitable situation, Avith article 10 and article 11 staying 
 us in the face day by day ! How are we qven to proceed in the 
 first instance to disarm? Let us read article 10, and see if It is 
 a disarming provision. See if it is a provision of peace, or. la 
 provision, as the able Senator from California [Mr. JohnsonJ 
 said, for organizing a war trust: 
 
 The members of the league undertake to respect and preserve as 
 against the external aggression the territorial integrity and existing 
 political independence of all members of the league. In case of any 
 such aggression, or in case of any threat or danger of such aggression, 
 the council shall advise upon the means by which this obligation shall 
 be fulfilled. 
 
 We not only agree to be prepared to preserve against external 
 aggression the territorial integi-ity of all members of the league, 
 which its enthusiastic advocates contemplate will be all nations 
 shortly, but we agree to take the advice of the five or nine men 
 sitting at Geneva as to how we shall perform our obligations 
 under article 10. 
 
 124392—19544 
 
15 
 
 There has been a great deal said here about the constitution¬ 
 ality of article 10, and the advice under article 10, and as to 
 what limitations that places upon the power of Congress with ref¬ 
 erence to declaring war, etc. That is an interesting discussion, 
 and I am generally as much interested in constitutional discus¬ 
 sions as anyone; but this does not concern me at this time. 
 Here is a solemn obligation, original, primary, that we will pre¬ 
 serve the territorial integrity of these nations. It does not make 
 any difference whether anyone advises or not; our duty is there, 
 and it is a solemn obligation that we will perform it. We can 
 only escape from it along the path of dishonor. It is an indi¬ 
 vidual obligation. Those who argue that we may get out of this 
 thing must adopt one of two courses: They must either show 
 that to enforce it would be unconstitutional, or they must escape 
 by disregarding and dishonoring our solemn contractf If we 
 go forward, we violate the Constitution. If \ve go back, we 
 violate national honor. If we go forward, we wreck the Consti¬ 
 tution. If we go backward, we wrdck the covenant of the league. 
 
 If we enter into this contract, there is no escape on earth from 
 it except through making it a “ scrap of paper.” It does not 
 make any difference whether it is unconstitutional or not. 
 
 The moment that council advised that we should send 100,000 
 men to Manchuria or to guard the territorial integrity of Japan, 
 Including Shantung, every newspaper in the country, and all 
 the power of public opinion would be centered upon Congress, 
 as they are to-day, to whip them into line, because some foreign 
 council had decided that civilization was imperiled; and the 
 Congress would likely do what it is said it is about to do— 
 surrender its own judgment and obey the dictates of the press. 
 
 Mr. LODGE. Mr. President, may I ask the ^nator one ques¬ 
 tion? 
 
 The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from Idaho 
 yield to the Senator from Massachusetts? 
 
 Mr. BORAH. I do. 
 
 '' Mr. LODGE. Is any action by the council necessary? Is not 
 thlat an individual guaranty from the United States? And if 
 ^ one member of the league appeals for the fulfillment of that 
 ^guaranty for her own protection are we not moraily bound to 
 respond to her call? ** 
 
 ■ ‘‘Mr. BORAH. Certainly, Mr. President. We could not stand 
 before the tribunal of the civilized world and make any plea 
 ^giiiilst the fulfillment of the contract. We would be branded 
 the world over as having entered into a solemn contract with 
 our eyes open, willing to accept its benefits and unwil lin g to 
 assume its obligations. I trust that the Republic will never be 
 placed in a predicament where it will have to assume that 
 position. 
 
 124392—19544 
 
 o