Rosenfeld Susan. Encyclopedia of American Historical Documents

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

It is also declared to be the friendly right of each

Member of the League to bring to the attention of the

Assembly or of the Council any circumstance whatever

affecting international relations which threatens to disturb

international peace or the good understanding between

nations upon which peace depends.

Article 12

The Members of the League agree that if there should

arise between them any dispute likely to lead to a rupture,

they will submit the matter either to arbitration or to

inquiry by the Council, and they agree in no case to resort

to war until three months after the award by the arbitrators

or the report by the Council.

In any case under this Article the award of the arbi-

trators shall be made within a reasonable time, and the

report of the Council shall be made within six months after

the submission of the dispute.

Article 13

The Members of the League agree that whenever any dis-

pute shall arise between them which they recognise to be

suitable for submission to arbitration and which cannot be

satisfactorily settled by diplomacy, they will submit the

whole subject-matter to arbitration.

Disputes as to the interpretation of a treaty, as to any

question of international law, as to the existence of any fact

which if established would constitute a breach of any inter-

national obligation, or as to the extent and nature of the

reparation to be made for any such breach, are declared to

be among those which are generally suitable for submis-

sion to arbitration.

For the consideration of any such dispute the court of

arbitration to which the case is referred shall be the Court

agreed on by the parties to the dispute or stipulated in any

convention existing between them.

The Members of the League agree that they will

carry out in full good faith any award that may be ren-

dered, and that they will not resort to war against a Mem-

ber of the League which complies therewith. In the event

of any failure to carry out such an award, the Council

shall propose what steps should be taken to give effect

thereto.

Article 14

The Council shall formulate and submit to the Members of

the League for adoption plans for the establishment of a

Permanent Court of International Justice. The Court shall

be competent to hear and determine any dispute of an

international character which the parties thereto submit to

it. The Court may also give an advisory opinion upon any

dispute or question referred to it by the Council or by the

Assembly.

Article 15

If there should arise between Members of the League any

dispute likely to lead to a rupture, which is not submitted

to arbitration in accordance with Article 13, the Members

of the League agree that they will submit the matter to the

Council. Any party to the dispute may effect such submis-

sion by giving notice of the existence of the dispute to the

Secretary General, who will make all necessary arrange-

ments for a full investigation and consideration thereof.

For this purpose the parties to the dispute will com-

municate to the Secretary General, as promptly as possi-

ble, statements of their case with all the relevant facts and

papers, and the Council may forthwith direct the publica-

tion thereof.

The Council shall endeavour to effect a settlement of

the dispute, and if such efforts are successful, a statement

shall be made public giving such facts and explanations

regarding the dispute and the terms of settlement thereof

as the Council may deem appropriate.

If the dispute is not thus settled, the Council either

unanimously or by a majority vote shall make and publish

a report containing a statement of the facts of the dispute

and the recommendations which are deemed just and

proper in regard thereto.

Any Member of the League represented on the Coun-

cil may make public a statement of the facts of the dispute

and of its conclusions regarding the same.

If a report by the Council is unanimously agreed to by

the members thereof other than the Representatives of

one or more of the parties to the dispute, the Members of

the League agree that they will not go to war with any

party to the dispute which complies with the recommen-

dations of the report.

If the Council fails to reach a report which is unani-

mously agreed to by the members thereof, other than the

Representatives of one or more of the parties to the dis-

pute, the Members of the League reserve to themselves

the right to take such action as they shall consider neces-

sary for the maintenance of right and justice.

If the dispute between the parties is claimed by one of

them, and is found by the Council, to arise out of a matter

which by international law is solely within the domestic

jurisdiction of that party, the Council shall so report, and

shall make no recommendation as to its settlement.

The Council may in any case under this Article refer

the dispute to the Assembly. The dispute shall be so

referred at the request of either party to the dispute, pro-

vided that such request be made within fourteen days after

the submission of the dispute to the Council.

In any case referred to the Assembly, all the provisions

of this Article and of Article 12 relating to the action and

powers of the Council shall apply to the action and powers

of the Assembly, provided that a report made by the

1282 ERA 7: The Emergence of Modern America

Assembly, if concurred in by the Representatives of those

Members of the League represented on the Council and

of a majority of the other Members of the League, exclu-

sive in each case of the Representatives of the parties to

the dispute, shall have the same force as a report by the

Council concurred in by all the members thereof other

than the Representatives of one or more of the parties to

the dispute.

Article 16

Should any Member of the League resort to war in disre-

gard of its covenants under Articles 12, 13 or 15, it shall

ipso facto be deemed to have committed an act of war

against all other Members of the League, which hereby

undertake immediately to subject it to the severance of all

trade or financial relations, the prohibition of all inter-

course between their nationals and the nationals of the

covenants-breaking State, and the prevention of all finan-

cial, commercial or personal intercourse between the

nationals of the covenant-breaking State and the nationals

of any other State, whether a Member of the League or

not.

It shall be the duty of the Council in such case to rec-

ommend to the several Governments concerned what

effective military naval or air force the Members of the

League shall severally contribute to the armed forces to be

used to protect the covenants of the League.

The Members of the League agree, further, that they

will mutually support one another in the financial and eco-

nomic measures which are taken under this Article, in

order to minimise the loss and inconvenience resulting

from the above measures, and that they will mutually sup-

port one another in resisting any special measures aimed at

one of their number by the covenant-breaking State, and

that they will take the necessary steps to afford passage

through their territory to the forces of any of the Members

of the League which are co-operating to protect the

covenants of the League.

Any Member of the League which has violated any

covenant of the League may be declared to be no longer a

Member of the League by a vote of the Council concurred

in by the Representatives of all the other Members of the

League represented thereon.

Article 17

In the event of a dispute between a Member of the League

and a State which is not a Member of the League, or

between States not Members of the League, the State or

States not Members of the League shall be invited to

accept the obligations of membership in the League for

the purposes of such dispute, upon such conditions as the

Council may deem just. If such invitation is accepted, the

provisions of Articles 12 to 16 inclusive shall be applied

with such modifications as may be deemed necessary by

the Council.

Upon such invitation being given the Council shall

immediately institute an inquiry into the circumstances of

the dispute and recommend such action as may seem best

and most effectual in the circumstances.

If a State so invited shall refuse to accept the obliga-

tions of membership in the League for the purposes of

such dispute, and shall resort to war against a Member of

the League, the provisions of Article 16 shall be applicable

as against the State taking such action.

If both parties to the dispute when so invited refuse to

accept the obligations of membership in the League for

the purposes of such dispute, the Council may take such

measures and make such recommendations as will prevent

hostilities and will result in the settlement of the dispute.

Article 18

Every treaty or international engagement entered into

hereafter by any Member of the League shall be forthwith

registered with the Secretariat and shall as soon as possible

be published by it. No such treaty or international engage-

ment shall be binding until so registered.

Article 19

The Assembly may from time to time advise the reconsid-

eration by Members of the League of treaties which have

become inapplicable and the consideration of international

conditions whose continuance might endanger the peace

of the world.

Article 20

The Members of the League severally agree that this

Covenant is accepted as abrogating all obligations or

understandings inter se which are inconsistent with the

terms thereof, and solemnly undertake that they will not

hereafter enter into any engagements inconsistent with the

terms thereof.

In case any Member of the League shall, before

becoming a Member of the League, have undertaken any

obligations inconsistent with the terms of this Covenant, it

shall be the duty of such Member to take immediate steps

to procure its release from such obligations.

Article 21

Nothing in this Covenant shall be deemed to affect the

validity of international engagements, such as treaties of

arbitration or regional understanding like the Monroe doc-

trine, for securing the maintenance of peace.

Article 22

To those colonies and territories which as a consequence

of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of

Causes and Consequences of World War I 1283

the States which formerly governed them and which are

inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves

under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there

should be applied the principle that the will-being and

development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civili-

sation and that securities for the performance of this trust

should be embodied in this Covenant.

The best method of giving practical effect to this prin-

ciple is that the tutelage of such peoples should be

entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their

resources, their experience or their geographical position

can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing

to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by

them as Mandatories on behalf of the League.

The character of the mandate must differ according to

the stage of the development of the people, the geograph-

ical situation of the territory, its economic conditions and

other similar circumstances.

Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turk-

ish Empire have reached a stage of development where

their existence as independent nations can be provisionally

recognised subject to the rendering of administrative

advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as

they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these commu-

nities must be a principal consideration in the selection of

the Mandatory.

Other peoples, especially those of Central Africa, are

at such a stage that the Mandatory must be responsible for

the administration of the territory under conditions which

will guarantee freedom of conscience and religion, subject

only to the maintenance of public order and morals , the

prohibition of abuses such as the slave trade, the arms traf-

fic and the liquor traffic, and the prevention of the estab-

lishment of fortifications or military and naval bases and of

military training of the natives for other than police pur-

poses and the defence of territory, and will also secure

equal opportunities for the trade and commerce of other

Members of the League.

There are territories, such as South-West Africa and

certain of the South Pacific Islands, which, owing to the

sparseness of their population, or their small size, or their

remoteness from the centres of civilisation, or their geo-

graphical contiguity to the territory of the Mandatory, and

other circumstances, can be best administered under the

laws of the Mandatory as integral portions of its territory,

subject to the safeguards above mentioned in the interests

of the indigenous population.

In every case of mandate, the Mandatory shall render

to the Council an annual report in reference to the terri-

tory committed to its charge.

The degree of authority, control, or administration to

be exercised by the Mandatory shall, if not previously

agreed upon by the Members of the League, be explicitly

defined in each case by the Council.

A permanent Commission shall be constituted to

receive and examine the annual reports of the Mandatories

and to advise the Council on all matters relating to the

observance of the mandates.

Article 23

Subject to and in accordance with the provisions of inter-

national conventions existing or hereafter to be agreed

upon, the Members of the League:

(a) will endeavour to secure and maintain fair and

humane conditions of labour for men, women, and chil-

dren, both in their own countries and in all countries to

which their commercial and industrial relations extend,

and for that purpose will establish and maintain the neces-

sary international organisations;

(b) undertake to secure just treatment of the native

inhabitants of territories under their control;

sion over the execution of agreements with regard to the

traffic in women and children, and the traffic in opium and

other dangerous drugs;

(d) will entrust the League with the general supervi-

sion of the trade in arms and ammunition with the coun-

tries in which the control of this traffic is necessary in the

common interest;

(e) will make provision to secure and maintain free-

dom of communications and of transit and equitable treat-

ment for the commerce of all Members of the League. In

this connection, the special necessities of the regions dev-

astated during the war 1914–1918 shall be borne in mind;

(f) will endeavour to take steps in matters of interna-

tional concern for the prevention and control of disease.

Article 24

There shall be placed under the direction of the League all

international bureaux already established by general

treaties if the parties to such treaties consent. All such

international bureaux and all commissions for regulation of

matters of international interest hereafter constituted shall

be placed under the direction of the League.

In all matters of international interest which are regu-

lated by general conventions but which are not placed

under the control of international bureaux or commissions,

the Secretariat of the League shall, subject to the consent

of the Council and if desired by the parties, collect and dis-

tribute all relevant information and shall render any other

assistance which may be necessary or desirable.

The Council may include as part of the expenses of

the Secretariat the expenses of any bureau or commission

which is placed under the direction of the League.

1284 ERA 7: The Emergence of Modern America

Article 25

The Members of the League agree to encourage and pro-

mote the establishment and co-operation of duly autho-

rized voluntary national Red Cross organizations having as

purposes the improvement of health, the prevention of

disease and the mitigation of suffering throughout the

world.

Article 26

Amendments to this Covenant will take effect when rati-

fied by the Members of the League whose Representatives

compose the Council and by a majority of the Members of

the League whose Representative compose the Assembly.

No such amendment shall bind any Member of the

League which signifies its dissent therefrom, but in that

case it shall cease to be a Member of the League.

Source:

Landmark Documents in American History, Facts On File, Inc..

Schenck v. United States, 1919

U.S. Supreme Court decision issued on March 3, 1919,

upholding the Espionage Act of 1917 and ruling that freedom

of speech, though guaranteed by the First Amendment, may be

suppressed if it creates a “clear and present danger” of bring-

ing about “substantive evils.” Charles T. Schenck, a member of

the American Socialist Party, had been convicted under the

Espionage Act of distributing a pamphlet urging draft resis-

tance during World War I. The Supreme Court unanimously

held that the pamphlet might cause insubordination and

obstruction to military service, which represented a “clear and

present danger.” In arguing the limits of free speech, Justice

Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote: “The most stringent protection

of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire

in a theater and causing a panic.”

The same year, the U.S. Supreme Court decision in

Abrams v. United States

(250 U.S. 616) upheld the U.S. Sedi-

tion Act of 1918. At issue were leaflets in Yiddish and English

opposing the U.S. expeditionary force to Siberia (Russia).

Using Holmes’s arguments in

Schenck

, Justice John H. Clark

concluded that the leaflets constituted a clear and present dan-

ger and were not protected by the First Amendment. Holmes,

however, had modified his position and, without repudiating

Schenck

, dissented. Writing for himself and Justice Louis D.

Brandeis, he argued for the protection of free speech, even of

unpopular opinions, unless such ideas pose an imminent

threat to national safety: “The ultimate good desired is better

reached by free trade in ideas. . . . The best test of truth is the

power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition

of the market.”

________________________

_______________________

Mr. JUSTICE HOLMES delivered the opinion of the

Court.

This is an indictment in three counts. The first charges

a conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act of June 15, 1917,

c.30, tit. 1, Section 3, 40 Stat. 217, 219 (Comp. St. 1918,

Section 10212c), by causing and attempting to cause

insubordination, &c., in the military and naval forces of the

United States, and to obstruct the recruiting and enlist-

ment service of the United States, when the United States

was at war with the German Empire, to-wit, that the

defendant willfully conspired to have printed and circu-

lated to men who had been called and accepted for mili-

tary service under the Act of May 18, 1917, c. 15, 40 Stat.

76 (Comp. St. 1918, Sections 2044a–2044k), a document

set forth and alleged to be calculated to cause such insub-

ordination and obstruction. The count alleges overt acts in

pursuance of the conspiracy, ending in the distribution of

the document set forth. The second count alleges a con-

spiracy to commit an offense against the United States, to-

wit, to use the mails for the transmission of matter

declared to be non-mailable by title 12, Section 2, of the

Act of June 15, 1917 (Comp. St. 1918, Section 10401b), to-

wit, the above mentioned document, with an averment of

the same overt acts. The third count charges an unlawful

use of the mails for the transmission of the same matter

and otherwise as above. The defendants were found guilty

on all the counts. They set up the First Amendment to the

Constitution forbidding Congress to make any law abridg-

ing the freedom of speech, or of the press, and bringing

the case here on that ground have argued some other

points also of which we must dispose.

[1] It is argued that the evidence, if admissible, was not

sufficient to prove that the defendant Schenck was con-

cerned in sending the documents. According to the testi-

mony Schenck said he was general secretary of the Socialist

party and had charge of the Socialist headquarters from

which the documents were sent. He identified a book

bound there as the minutes of the Executive Committee of

the party. The book showed a resolution of August 13,

1917, that 15,000 leaflets should be printed on the other

side of one of them is use, to be mailed to men who had

passed exemption boards, and for distribution. Schenck

personally attended to the printing. On August 20 the gen-

eral secretary’s report said “Obtained new leaflets from

printer and started work addressing envelopes” &c.; and

there was a resolve that Comrade Schenck be allowed $125

for sending leaflets through the mail. He said that he had

about fifteen or sixteen thousand printed. There were files

of the circular in question in the inner office which he said

were printed on the other side of the one sided circular and

Causes and Consequences of World War I 1285

were there for distribution. Other copies were proved to

have been sent through the mails to drafted men. Without

going into confirmatory details that were proved, no rea-

sonable man could doubt that the defendant Schenck was

largely instrumental in sending the circulars about. As to

the defendant Baer there was evidence that she was a

member of the Executive Board and that the minutes of its

transactions were hers. The argument as to the sufficiency

of the evidence that the defendants conspired to send the

documents only impairs the seriousness of the real defense.

[2–4] It is objected that the documentary evidence

was not admissible because obtained upon a search war-

rant, valid so far as appears. The contrary is established.

Adams v. New York, 192 U. S. 585, 24 Sup. Ct. 372, 48 L.

Ed. 575; Weeks v. United States, 232 U. S. 383, 395, 396,

34 Sup. Ct. 341, 58 L. Ed. 652, L. R. A. 1915B, 834, Ann.

Cas. 1915C, 1177. The search warrant did not issue against

the defendant but against the Socialist headquarters at

1326 Arch street and it would seem that the documents

technically were not even in the defendants’ possession.

See Johnson v. United States, 228 U. S. 457, 33 Sup. Ct.

572, 57 L. Ed. 919, 47 L. R. A. (N. S.) 263. Notwithstand-

ing some protest in argument the notion that evidence

even directly proceeding from the defendant in a criminal

proceeding is excluded in all cases by the Fifth Amend-

ment is plainly unsound. Holt v. United States, 218 U. S.

245, 252, 253, 31 Sup. Ct. 2, 54 L. Ed. 1021.

[5] The document in question upon its first printed

side recited the first section of the Thirteenth Amend-

ment, said that the idea embodied in it was violated by the

conscription act and that a conscript is little better than a

convict. In impassioned language it intimated that con-

scription was despotism in its worst form and a monstrous

wrong against humanity in the interest of Wall Street’s cho-

sen few. If said, “Do not submit to intimidation,” but in

form at least confined itself to peaceful measures such as a

petition for the repeal of the act. The other and later

printed side of the sheet was headed “Assert Your Rights.”

It stated reasons for alleging that any one violated the Con-

stitution when he refused to recognize “your right to assert

your opposition to the draft,” and went on, “If you do not

assert and support your rights, you are helping to deny or

disparage rights which it is the solemn duty of all citizens

and residents of the United States to retain.” It described

the arguments on the other side as coming from cunning

politicians and a mercenary capitalist press, and even silent

consent to the conscription law as helping to support an

infamous conspiracy. If denied the power to send our citi-

zens away to foreign shores to shoot up the people of other

lands, and added that words could not express the con-

demnation such cold-blooded ruthlessness deserves, &c.,

&c., winding up, “You must do your share to maintain, sup-

port and uphold the rights of the people of this country.”

Of course the document would not have been sent unless

it had been intended to have some effect, and we do not

see what effect it could be expected to have upon persons

subject to the draft except to influence them to obstruct

the carrying of it out. The defendants do not deny that the

jury might find against them on this point.

[6] But it is said, suppose that that was the tendency of

this circular, it is protected by the First Amendment to the

Constitution. Two of the strongest expressions are said to

be quoted respectively from well-known public men. It

well may be that the prohibition of laws abridging the free-

dom of speech is not confined to previous restraints,

although to prevent them may have been the main pur-

pose, as intimated in Patterson v. Colorado, 205 U. S. 454,

462, 27 Sup. Ct. 556, 51 L. Ed. 879, 10 Ann. Cas. 689. We

admit that in many places and in ordinary times the defen-

dants in saying all that was said in the circular would have

been within their constitutional rights. But the character of

every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is

done. Aikens v. Wisconsin, 195 U. S. 194, 205, 206, 25 Sup.

Ct. 3, 49 L. Ed. 154. The most stringent protection of free

speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in

a theatre and causing a panic. It does not even protect a

man from an injunction against uttering words that may

have all the effect of force. Gompers v. Buck’s Stove &

Range Co., 221 U. S. 418, 439, 31 Sup. Ct. 492, 55 L. Ed.

797, 34 L. R. A. (N. S.) 874. The question in every case in

whether the words used are used in such circumstances

and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present

danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that

Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proxim-

ity and degree. When a nation is at war many things that

might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its

effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as

men fight and that no Court could regard them as pro-

tected by any constitutional right. It seems to be admitted

that if an actual obstruction of the recruiting service were

proved, liability for words that produced that effect might

be enforced. The statute of 1917 in section 4 (Comp. St.

1918, Section 10212d) punishes conspiracies to obstruct as

well as actual obstruction. If the act, (speaking, or circulat-

ing a paper,) its tendency and the intent with which it is

done are the same, we perceive no ground for saying that

success alone warrants making the act a crime. Goldman v.

United States, 245 U. S. 474, 477, 88 Sup. Ct. 166, 62 L.

Ed. 410. Indeed that case might be said to dispose of the

present contention if the precedent covers all media con-

cludendi. But as the right to free speech was not referred

to specially, we have thought fit to add a few words.

[7, 8] It was not argued that a conspiracy to obstruct

the draft was not within the words of the Act of 1917. The

words are “obstruct the recruiting or enlistment service,”

and it might be suggested that they refer only to making it

1286 ERA 7: The Emergence of Modern America

hard to get volunteers. Recruiting heretofore usually hav-

ing been accomplished by getting volunteers the word is

apt to call up that method only in our minds. But recruit-

ing is gaining fresh supplies for the forces, as well by draft

as otherwise. It is put as an alternative to enlistment or vol-

untary enrollment in this act. The fact that the Act of 1917

was enlarged by the amending Act of May 16, 1918, c. 75,

40 Stat. 553, of course, does not affect the present indict-

ment and would not, even if the former act had been

repealed. Rev. St. Section 13 (Comp. St. Section 14).

Source:

Supreme Court Reporter, Vol. 39, pp. 247–249.

Woodrow Wilson, Exposition of the

League of Nations, 1919

Address delivered by U.S. president Woodrow Wilson before

the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on August 19,

1919, in an unsuccessful attempt to persuade the Senate to rat-

ify the Covenant of the League of Nations, which had been

included in the Treaty of Versailles (1919) that ended World

War I. Wilson’s exposition answered earlier concerns about

the covenant, stating that it respected the Monroe Doctrine,

gave the league no authority to act in domestic matters, rec-

ognized the right of nations to withdraw from the league, and

safeguarded the congressional right to determine all questions

of war and peace.

Republican Henry Cabot Lodge of Massachusetts, chair-

man of the Foreign Relations Committee and the league’s pri-

mary opponent in the Senate, proposed 14 resolutions to

modify the covenant, which had been presented to the Senate

for ratification as part of the Treaty of Versailles. The proposed

amendments, designed to protect American interests and

national sovereignty, included a key provision for Congress to

retain the right to decide the conditions under which the U.S.

would join the league in collective security measures. Presi-

dent Woodrow Wilson rejected the reservations, claiming that

they would nullify rather than ratify the treaty. He especially

disliked the Lodge reservation about the permanent territorial

borders agreed upon at Versailles.

Wilson conducted a national tour to gather support for

ratification of the Covenant of the League of Nations. The

“heart of the covenant,” according to his speech, was Article

Ten, in which Wilson stated, “that no member of the League

. . . shall impair the territorial integrity or the political inde-

pendence of any other member of the League” and that the

covenant was essential for the preservation of international

peace and to give meaning to the sacrifices made by American

soldiers in World War I. Shortly after delivering a speech in

Pueblo, Colorado, Wilson collapsed, suffering a stroke that

ended his tour and effectively ended all hopes for ratification.

The Lodge reservations were defeated in the Senate, as was

treaty ratification, in March 1920.

Although the league was established, the United States

never became a full member. Because the United States

emerged from the World War as a major power, its absence

compromised the league’s effectiveness.

________________________

_______________________

Mr. Chairman, I have taken the liberty of writing out a lit-

tle statement in the hope that it might facilitate discussion

by speaking directly on some points that I know have been

points of controversy and upon which I thought an expres-

sion of opinion would not be unwelcome. I am sincerely

glad that the committee should have responded in this way

to my intimation that I would like to be of service to it. I

welcome the opportunity for a frank and full interchange

of views.

I hope, too, that this conference will serve to expedite

your consideration of the treaty of peace. I beg that you

will pardon and indulge me if I again urge that practically

the whole task of bringing the country back to normal con-

ditions of life and industry waits upon the decision of the

Senate with regard to the terms of the peace.

I venture thus again to urge my advice that the action

of the Senate with regard to the treaty be taken at the ear-

liest practicable moment because the problems with which

we are face to face in the readjustment of our national life

are of the most pressing and critical character, will require

for their proper solution the most intimate and disinter-

ested cooperation of all parties and all interests, and can

not be postponed without manifest peril to our people and

to all the national advantages we hold most dear. May I

mention a few of the matters which can not be handled

with intelligence until the country knows the character of

the peace it is to have? I do so only by a very few samples.

The copper mines of Montana, Arizona, and Alaska,

for example, are being kept open and in operation only at a

great cost and loss, in part upon borrowed money; the zinc

mines of Missouri, Tennessee, and Wisconsin are being

operated at about one-half their capacity; the lead of Idaho,

Illinois, and Missouri reaches only a portion of its former

market; there is an immediate need for cotton belting, and

also for lubricating oil, which can not be met—all because

the channels of trade are barred by war when there is no

war. The same is true of raw cotton, of which the Central

Empires alone formerly purchased nearly 4,000,000 bales.

And these are only examples. There is hardly a single raw

material, a single important foodstuff, a single class of man-

ufactured goods which is not in the same case. Our full,

normal profitable production waits on peace.

Our military plans of course wait upon it. We can not

intelligently or wisely decide how large a naval or military

force we shall maintain or what our policy with regard to

Causes and Consequences of World War I 1287

military training is to be until we have peace not only, but

also until we know how peace is to be sustained, whether

by the arms of single nations or by the concert of all the

great peoples. And there is more than that difficulty

involved. The vast surplus properties of the Army include

not food and clothing merely, whose sale will affect normal

production, but great manufacturing establishments also

which should be restored to their former uses, great stores

of machine tools, and all sorts of merchandise which must

lie idle until peace and military policy are definitively

determined. By the same token there can be no properly

studied national budget until then.

The nations that ratify the treaty, such as Great

Britain, Belgium, and France, will be in a position to lay

their plans for controlling the markets of central Europe

without competition from us if we do not presently act. We

have no consular agents, no trade representatives there to

look after our interests.

There are large areas of Europe whose future will lie

uncertain and questionable until their people know the

final settlements of peace and the forces which are to

administer and sustain it. Without determinate markets

our production can not proceed with intelligence or confi-

dence. There can be no stabilization of wages because

there can be no settled conditions of employment. There

can be no easy or normal industrial credits because there

can be no confident or permanent revival of business.

But I will not weary you with obvious examples. I will

only venture to repeat that every element of normal life

amongst us depends upon and awaits the ratification of

the treaty of peace; and also that we can not afford to lose

a single summer’s day by not doing all that we can to mit-

igate the winter’s suffering, which, unless we find means

to prevent it, may prove disastrous to a large portion of

the world, and may, at its worst, bring upon Europe con-

ditions even more terrible than those wrought by the war

itself.

Nothing, I am led to believe, stands in the way of the

ratification of the treaty except certain doubts with regard

to the meaning and implication of certain articles of the

covenant of the league of nations; and I must frankly say

that I am unable to understand why such doubts should be

entertained. You will recall that when I had the pleasure of

a conference with your committee and with the Commit-

tee of the House of Representatives on Foreign Affairs at

the White House in March last the questions now most

frequently asked about the league of nations were all can-

vassed with a view to their immediate clarification. The

covenant of the league was then in its first draft and sub-

ject to revision. It was pointed out that no express recogni-

tion was given to the Monroe doctrine; that it was not

expressly provided that the league should have no author-

ity to act or to express a judgement on matters of domestic

policy; that the right to withdraw from the league was not

expressly recognized; and that the constitutional right of

the Congress to determine all questions of peace and war

was not sufficiently safeguarded. On my return to Paris all

these matters were taken up again by the commission on

the league of nations and every suggestion of the United

States was accepted.

The views of the United States with regard to the

questions I have mentioned had, in fact, already been

accepted by the commission and there was supposed to be

nothing inconsistent with them in the draft of the covenant

first adopted—the draft which was the subject of our dis-

cussion in March—but no objection was made to saying

explicitly in the text what all had supposed to be implicit in

it. There was absolutely no doubt as to the meaning of any

one of the resulting provisions of the covenant in the

minds of those who participated in drafting them, and I

respectfully submit that there is nothing vague or doubtful

in their wording.

The Monroe doctrine is expressly mentioned as an

understanding which is in no way to be impaired or inter-

fered with by anything contained in the covenant and the

expression “regional understandings like the Monroe doc-

trine” was used, not because anyone of the conferees

thought there was any comparable agreement anywhere

else in existence or in contemplation, but only because it

was thought best to avoid the appearance of dealing in

such a document with the policy of a single nation. Abso-

lutely nothing is concealed in the phrase.

With regard to domestic questions article 16 of the

covenant expressly provides that, if in case of any dispute

arising between members of the league the matter

involved is claimed by one of the parties “and is found by

the council to arise out of a matter which by international

law is solely within the domestic jurisdiction of that party,

the council shall so report, and shall make no recommen-

dation as to its settlement.” The United States was by no

means the only Government interested in the explicit

adoption of this provision, and there is no doubt in the

mind of any authoritative student of international law that

such matters as immigration, tariffs, and naturalization are

incontestably domestic questions with which no interna-

tional body could deal without express authority to do so.

No enumeration of domestic questions was undertaken

because to undertake it, even by sample, would have

involved the danger of seeming to exclude those not men-

tioned.

The right of any sovereign State to withdraw had been

taken for granted, but no objection was made to making it

explicit. Indeed, so soon as the views expressed at the

White House conference were laid before the commission

it was at once conceded that it was best not to leave the

answer to so important a question to inference. No pro-

1288 ERA 7: The Emergence of Modern America

posal was made to set up any tribunal to pass judgment

upon the question whether a withdrawing nation had in

fact fulfilled “all its international obligations and all its obli-

gations under the covenant.” It was recognized that that

question must be left to be resolved by the conscience of

the nation proposing to withdraw; and I must say that it did

not seem to me worth while to propose that the article be

made more explicit, because I knew that the United States

would never itself propose to withdraw from the league if

its conscience was not entirely clear as to the fulfillment of

all its international obligations. It has never failed to fulfill

them and never will.

Article 10 is in no respect of doubtful meaning when

read in the light of the covenant as a whole. The council of

the league can only “advise upon” the means by which the

obligations of that great article are to be given effect to.

Unless the United States is a party to the policy or action

in question, her own affirmative vote in the council is nec-

essary before any advice can be given, for a unanimous

vote of the council is required. If she is a party, the trouble

is hers anyhow. And the unanimous vote of the council is

only advice in any case. Each Government is free to reject

it if it pleases. Nothing could have been made more clear

to the conference than the right of our Congress under our

Constitution to exercise its independent judgment in all

matters of peace and war. No attempt was made to ques-

tion or limit that right. The United States will, indeed,

undertake under article 10 to “respect and preserve as

against external aggression the territorial integrity and

existing political independence of all members of the

league,” and that engagement constitutes a very grave and

solemn moral obligation. But it is a moral, not a legal, obli-

gation, and leaves our Congress absolutely free to put its

own interpretation upon it in all cases that call for action.

It is binding in conscience only, not in law.

Article 10 seems to me to constitute the very back-

bone of the whole covenant. Without it the league would

be hardly more than an influential debating society.

It has several times been suggested, in public debate

and in private conference, that interpretations of the sense

in which the United States accepts the engagements of the

covenant should be embodied in the instrument of ratifi-

cation. There can be no reasonable objection to such inter-

pretations accompanying the act of ratification provided

they do not form a part of the formal ratification itself.

Most of the interpretations which have been suggested to

me embody what seems to me the plain meaning of the

instrument itself. But if such interpretations should consti-

tute a part of the formal resolution of ratification, long

delays would be the inevitable consequence, inasmuch as

all the many governments concerned would have to

accept, in effect, the language of the Senate as the lan-

guage of the treaty before ratification would be complete.

The assent of the German Assembly at Weimar would have

to be obtained, among the rest, and I must frankly say that

I could only with the greatest reluctance approach that

assembly for permission to read the treaty as we under-

stand it and as those who framed it quite certainly under-

stood it. If the United States were to qualify the document

in any way, moreover, I am confident from what I know of

the many conferences and debates which accompanied the

formulation of the treaty that our example would immedi-

ately be followed in many quarters, in some instances with

very serious reservations, and that the meaning and opera-

tive force of the treaty would presently be clouded from

one end of its clauses to the other…

Source:

Link, Arthur S., et al. eds., The Papers of Woodrow Wilson.

Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1966–94.

Postwar Society 1289

Postwar Society

Emma Goldman, “Anarchism: What It

Really Stands For,” 1917

This 1917 article by Emma Goldman seeks to define the phi-

losophy of anarchism. She identifies the three major forces that

stand in the way of its fulfillment: religion, property, and gov-

ernment. An advocate of total personal freedom, Goldman felt

that the human mind, body, and soul needed to be “liberated”

in order to obtain freedom. “Enslavement” to religion puts

God before man and takes away man’s power to think and rea-

son for himself. Property enslaves the needs of workers by

blocking their ability to fulfill themselves through meaningful

work and forcing them to produce goods that do not inspire

them mentally, spiritually, or physically. Government imposes

a tyranny over people’s daily conduct, steals from them in the

form of taxes, and kills them through forced participation in

war (the draft) and capital punishment.

Goldman was a controversial figure who was frequently

maligned by the media of her day, which portrayed her as a

bomb-throwing terrorist. She was often at odds with the

authorities as well: She was imprisoned six times between

1893 and 1921 on charges ranging from attempted murder to

speaking on birth control to inciting a riot. In 1919, after serv-

ing a two-year sentence for opposing the draft during World

War I, she was deported to Russia. There she quickly became

disillusioned with the Bolshevik Revolution after witnessing

the increasing bureaucracy of the Russian government and the

eroding personal freedoms of the people. She left Russia and

lived in exile in Europe for the remainder of her life, returning

only once to the United States for a brief visit in 1934.

Goldman was the first person to bring sexual politics into

the discussion of anarchism, arguing that the demolition of tra-

ditional sex roles, not political action, was the only way to

bring about real equality for women. She opposed suffrage for

women and advocated free love. Emma Goldman was a pow-

erful personality who brought a great deal of fame and even

notoriety to her cause. Her writings stand as a testament to her

idealism and dedication.

________________________

_______________________

THE history of human growth and development is at the

same time the history of the terrible struggle of every new

idea heralding the approach of a brighter dawn. In its tena-

cious hold on tradition, the Old has never hesitated to

make use of the foulest and cruelest means to stay the

advent of the New, in whatever form or period the latter

may have asserted itself. Nor need we retrace our steps

into the distant past to realize the enormity of opposition,

difficulties, and hardships placed in the path of every pro-

gressive idea. The rack, the thumbscrew, and the knout

are still with us; so are the convict’s garb and the social

wrath, all conspiring against the spirit that is serenely

marching on.

Anarchism could not hope to escape the fate of all

other ideas of innovation. Indeed, as the most revolution-

ary and uncompromising innovator, Anarchism must needs

meet with the combined ignorance and venom of the

world it aims to reconstruct.

To deal even remotely with all that is being said and

done against Anarchism would necessitate the writing of a

whole volume. I shall therefore meet only two of the prin-

cipal objections. In so doing, I shall attempt to elucidate

what Anarchism really stands for.

The strange phenomenon of the opposition to Anar-

chism is that it brings to light the relation between so-

called intelligence and ignorance. And yet this is not so

very strange when we consider the relativity of all things.

The ignorant mass has in its favor that it makes no pretense

of knowledge or tolerance. Acting, as it always does, by

mere impulse, its reasons are like those of a child. “Why?”

“Because.” Yet the opposition of the uneducated to Anar-

chism deserves the same consideration as that of the intel-

ligent man.

What, then, are the objections? First, Anarchism is

impractical, though a beautiful ideal. Second, Anarchism

stands for violence and destruction, hence it must be repu-

diated as vile and dangerous. Both the intelligent man and

the ignorant mass judge not from a thorough knowledge of

the subject, but either from hearsay or false interpretation.

A practical scheme, says Oscar Wilde, is either one

already in existence, or a scheme that could be carried out

under the existing conditions; but it is exactly the existing

conditions that one objects to, and any scheme that could

accept these conditions is wrong and foolish. The true cri-

terion of the practical, therefore, is not whether the latter

can keep intact the wrong or foolish; rather is it whether

the scheme has vitality enough to leave the stagnant waters

of the old, and build, as well as sustain, new life. In the

light of this conception, Anarchism is indeed practical.

More than any other idea, it is helping to do away with the

wrong and foolish; more than any other idea, it is building

and sustaining new life.

The emotions of the ignorant man are continuously

kept at a pitch by the most blood-curdling stories about

Anarchism. Not a thing too outrageous to be employed

against this philosophy and its exponents. Therefore Anar-

chism represents to the unthinking what the proverbial

bad man does to the child,—a black monster bent on swal-

lowing everything; in short, destruction and violence.

Destruction and violence! How is the ordinary man to

know that the most violent element in society is ignorance;

that its power of destruction is the very thing Anarchism is

combating? Nor is he aware that Anarchism, whose roots,

as it were, are part of nature’s forces, destroys, not health-

ful tissue, but parasitic growths that feed on the life’s

essence of society. It is merely clearing the soil from weeds

and sagebrush, that it may eventually bear healthy fruit.

Someone has said that it requires less mental effort to

condemn than to think. The widespread mental indolence,

so prevalent in society, proves this to be only too true.

Rather than to go to the bottom of any given idea, to exam-

ine into its origin and meaning, most people will either

condemn it altogether, or rely on some superficial or prej-

udicial definition of non-essentials.

Anarchism urges man to think, to investigate, to ana-

lyze every proposition; but that the brain capacity of the

average reader be not taxed too much, I also shall begin

with a definition, and then elaborate on the latter.

1290 ERA 7: The Emergence of Modern America

ANARCHISM:—The philosophy of a new social

order based on liberty unrestricted by man-made law; the

theory that all forms of government rest on violence, and

are therefore wrong and harmful, as well as unnecessary.

The new social order rests, of course, on the material-

istic basis of life; but while all Anarchists agree that the

main evil today is an economic one, they maintain that the

solution of that evil can be brought about only through the

consideration of every phase of life,—individual, as well as

the collective; the internal, as well as the external phases.

A thorough perusal of the history of human develop-

ment will disclose two elements in bitter conflict with each

other; elements that are only now beginning to be under-

stood, not as foreign to each other, but as closely related

and truly harmonious, if only placed in proper environ-

ment: the individual and social instincts. The individual

and society have waged a relentless and bloody battle for

ages, each striving for supremacy, because each was blind

to the value and importance of the other. The individual

and social instincts,—the one a most potent factor for indi-

vidual endeavor, for growth, aspiration, self-realization; the

other an equally potent factor for mutual helpfulness and

social well-being.

The explanation of the storm raging within the indi-

vidual, and between him and his surroundings, is not far to

seek. The primitive man, unable to understand his being,

much less the unity of all life, felt himself absolutely

dependent on blind, hidden forces ever ready to mock and

taunt him. Out of that attitude grew the religious concepts

of man as a mere speck of dust dependent on superior

powers on high, who can only be appeased by complete

surrender. All the early sagas rest on that idea, which con-

tinues to be the Leitmotiv of the biblical tales dealing with

the relation of man to God, to the State, to society. Again

and again the same motif, man is nothing, the powers are

everything. Thus Jehovah would only endure man on con-

dition of complete surrender. Man can have all the glories

of the earth, but he must not become conscious of himself.

The State, society, and moral laws all sing the same refrain:

Man can have all the glories of the earth, but he must not

become conscious of himself.

Anarchism is the only philosophy which brings to man

the consciousness of himself; which maintains that God,

the State, and society are non-existent, that their promises

are null and void, since they can be fulfilled only through

man’s subordination. Anarchism is therefore the teacher of

the unity of life; not merely in nature, but in man. There is

no conflict between the individual and the social instincts,

any more than there is between the heart and the lungs:

the one the receptacle of a precious life essence, the other

the repository of the element that keeps the essence pure

and strong. The individual is the heart of society, conserv-

ing the essence of social life; society is the lungs which are

distributing the element to keep the life essence—that is,

the individual—pure and strong.

“The one thing of value in the world,” says Emerson,

“is the active soul; this every man contains within him. The

soul active sees absolute truth and utters truth and cre-

ates.” In other words, the individual instinct is the thing of

value in the world. It is the true soul that sees and creates

the truth alive, out of which is to come a still greater truth,

the re-born social soul.

Anarchism is the great liberator of man from the

phantoms that have held him captive; it is the arbiter and

pacifier of the two forces for individual and social har-

mony. To accomplish that unity, Anarchism has declared

war on the pernicious influences which have so far pre-

vented the harmonious blending of individual and social

instincts, the individual and society.

Religion, the dominion of the human mind; Property,

the dominion of human needs; and Government, the

dominion of human conduct, represent the stronghold of

man’s enslavement and all the horrors it entails. Religion!

How it dominates man’s mind, how it humiliates and

degrades his soul. God is everything, man is nothing, says

religion. But out of that nothing God has created a king-

dom so despotic, so tyrannical, so cruel, so terribly exact-

ing that naught but gloom and tears and blood have ruled

the world since gods began. Anarchism rouses man to

rebellion against this black monster. Break your mental

fetters, says Anarchism to man, for not until you think and

judge for yourself will you get rid of the dominion of dark-

ness, the greatest obstacle to all progress.

Property, the dominion of man’s needs, the denial of

the right to satisfy his needs. Time was when property

claimed a divine right, when it came to man with the same

refrain, even as religion, “Sacrifice! Abnegate! Submit!”

The spirit of Anarchism has lifted man from his prostrate

position. He now stands erect, with his face toward the

light. He has learned to see the insatiable, devouring, dev-

astating nature of property, and he is preparing to strike

the monster dead.

“Property is robbery,” said the great French Anarchist

Proudhon. Yes, but without risk and danger to the robber.

Monopolizing the accumulated efforts of man, property

has robbed him of his birthright, and has turned him loose

a pauper and an outcast. Property has not even the time-

worn excuse that man does not create enough to satisfy all

needs. The A B C student of economics knows that the

productivity of labor within the last few decades far

exceeds normal demand. But what are normal demands to

an abnormal institution? The only demand that property

recognizes is its own gluttonous appetite for greater

wealth, because wealth means power; the power to sub-

due, to crush, to exploit, the power to enslave, to outrage,

to degrade. America is particularly boastful of her great

Postwar Society 1291