The Elkins Inter Mountain

A VOICE FROM GENEVA

Dr. Charles H. Levermore, who returned to his duties
after gaining some public attention by reason of having
been awarded the Bok Peace Prize, again made his way
into the limelight recently by asserting that the "great
majority of the American people are either ignorant of
the significance of the League or indifferent to it." That
shows how little Mr. Levermore is in touch with American
public opinion. He is over in Geneva so it could hardly
be expected that he would understand either the great
majority" or even a small minority of the people of the
United States.

If the statement had been that the great majority of
the people of the United States are not familiar with the
details of the organization and work of the League it
would quite likely be correct. But it is not true to say
that a great majority do not understand the significance
of the League. They do not understand that, and that is
why they are against American membership in it.

Americans understand the ambition of the League to
be a sort of super state to which the United States was
asked to surrender some of its sovereignty, the extent of
the surrender being uncertain and depending upon the
aggressiveness with which the League asserts its authority
and the willingness of governmental administrations here
to acquiesce in League demands or usurpation. Americans
understand the League to be an organization controlled
by European nations in general and Great Britain in particular. Just now, while Great Britain has a radical national
government, the League is an extremely radical organization fostering the socialistic movement. The character
of the League will change as the political character
of the governments controlling it may change.

All these facts being known, the American people see
an important significance in the League and a vital importance in the question whether the United States shall
join.

When the United States enter into a treaty with
some other nation, the terms are written with greatest
care and the rights and obligations of this nation under
that treaty are made specific and certain. Membership
in the League of Nations would not be in the nature of a
treaty—it would be a loose agreement to do whatever the managers of the League might see fit to demand of us. Of course we could refuse if we thought the
demands unjustified but we would thus expose ourselves
to the charge of "welshing". An administration friendly to
the agencies controlling the League would go far in yielding to the demands of League managers. Refusal by an
administration having positive opinions and courage to
back them would engender international enmity.

Recognizing these inherent to League membership
the great majority of the people have therefore agreed that the
United States shall have no part in it. We are glad to see
it operate as an agency for promoting cooperation among
the nations of Europe which have not cooperated very
much in the past. To the extent that we approve the work
it is doing, we are willing to work in harmony. But we
are not willing to enter into any agreement which will deprive us of the right to determine for ourselves at all times
to what extent we shall cooperate and in what manner. An
eminent British writer recently said the League is now
composed of a lot of theorists of mediocre ability and of
socialistic tendencies. The people of the United States
have no intention of surrendering any of their sovereignty
to any such aggregation as that. We are neither ignorant
nor indifferent.