The isolationist school of thought in the United States has been strong enough to force the House of Representatives to consider and vote on a proposal for a mandatory national referendum before that country can' ever enter into any foreign war. The matter will come up for debate in the course of next week and in view of the fact that a majority of the House has supported the question being brought before it presents the case in a somewhat singular light. The fact that they have given their signatures to support the sponsor in forcing the debate does not necessarily mean that they will vote for the resolution after it has been considered. It may merely mean that they think the question of sufficient importance to warrant immediate consideration by the legislature and by no means indicates that, in the final vote, their suffrages have already been pledged. The argument of the sponsor of the resolution is an interesting one, and to many will seem unanswerable. It is contended that the people who bear the burdens of war, and sacrifice the most, should have a voice in deciding whether they want war, and this contention applies with very considerable force in the "farm belt" where the peace sentiment is very strong indeed. It is doubtful whether in the coastal states of America it will receive the same support for there the great difficulties of securing the isolation of the United States is more readily perceived, and their international responsibili-Yes more fully appreciated. Nevertheless that Mr. Louis Ludlow, from Indiana, will find considerable backing for his proposal is more than likely, though it is doubtful when ther Congress will pass such a resolution. In the first place it is opposed by President Roosevelt and his advisers. Mr. Roosevelt holds the opinion that such a resolution would not be in the interests of representative government, while Mr. Cordell Hull is more emphatic in stating that from the standpoint 1 of promoting peace and keeping the country jour of war, he was unable to see either the wisdom or practicality of the proposal. Con-grossman Sam D. Reynolds, chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee is even more emphatic, characterizing the whole proposal as "utterly ridiculous."
The enactment of such an amendment to the Constitution would completely disarm the diplomacy of the United States. It would take the "teeth" out of all protests made to other nations, for they could afford to disregard them in the belief that e majority of the whole of the Uinted States might never obtained in favour of a declaration of hostilities. In any event the slow method of arranging and holding a nationwide referendum would tie the hands of American diplomats for all the time necessary to ascertain he wishes of the nation. The proposal, it is} true, leaves the government free to declare war in the event of an im of the United States, but that is so that in thei concession there is no saving grace. Wars of the future may be expected to come suddenly. Nations may be expected to open hostilities without all the preliminaries leading to an ultimatum, and a country may find itself at war by the military action of the enemy taken without any warning at all. Such an action may involve the interests of the United States, and it seems unfitting that the decision as to whether those interests should be defended or not should be left to the decision of the whole mass of voters, who have at the polls deputed certain men to represent them in Congress. They should not be sent there with such a limitation imposed upon them as that contemplated by this proposed amendment to the Constitution, for it would, in fact, amount to a negation of the principles of representative government, and be carrying the doctrine of democracy to an absurd conclusion. Any nation bound by such an enactment would be able only to move with ponderous slowness against countries whose system of government provides for sudden decision and equally sudden action. The importance of this consideration is apparent when it is remembered that the immediate damage which may be wreaked on the outbreak of war may in the~ future decide its ultimate outcome. Aggression may prove the best form of defence in wars of the future, and there is no value in an aggression which has to be publicly canvassed throughout a nation for weeks before it is commenced.
President Roosevelt and his administration are probably confident that the resolution will not be passed by Congress. Constitutional amendment requires a two-thirds vote by both Houses before it goes to the various States for approval. Three-fourths of the States have then to ratify it before it becomes the law of the land. It is plain from the foregoing that Mr. Ludlow's resolution will have to run quite a gauntlet of "opposition before it reaches the statute books of the United States. That a majority of the House of Representatives favour the matter being considered does not mean that a majority will eventually support the proposal and still less that the two-thirds majority will be secured in either of the two Houses of Congress. The Administration may be depended upon to fight the proposal every inch of the way, and though there is some division amongst the President's adherence in connection with other matters, there is reason to believe that party loyalty will bring about a healing of the schism, if only temporarily for the purpose of defeating this isolationist proposal. That the peace movement in the United States is strong has been apparent for months past, but what its leaders fail to appreciate is that the passage of such an amendment would not necessarily ensure that tranquillity of which they are in search, but might prove an important contributory factor, inducing to that very warfare which they are so eager, and very properly so, to avoid. The policies followed by other nations during the past few years have been based on disillusionment. The failure to bring about universal disarmament or even permanent reduction of armies and navies, has forced home the conclusion that only by adequate preparation for war can there be any sort of peace. The enactment of such an amendment to the United States' Constitution would in fact amount to the disarmament of American diplomacy to such an extent as to bereave it of much of the authority which should belong to it and would refer to the masses a matter on which they may not be so capable as their representatives tQ form a proper judgment.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.