MASTER OR SERVANT?

Ex-President Poincare of France recently remarked that the Conference at Versailles made a great mistake in assuming that President Wilson represented all America. Coming from such a prominent Frenchman, this significant remark shows that the position of the United States in regard to the League is beginning to dawn on European minds. The Covenant was originated by our former President, who, while he probably considered himself a servant of his people, had no conclusive evidence as to the desires of those he undertook to represent, and consequently became a self-appointed master.

This raises a nice question in political philosophy as regards our democracy. Is the President of the United States rightly a master or a servant of the people? To say that he is a master is an obvious denial of the very purpose of a representative government. On the other hand, to require the President to submerge his abilities as a mere servant to those who choose him is absurd. In-so-far as all his power is derived from the people must he subordinate his personal biases to public opinion, and in-so-far as popular confidence in him has been shown by the ballot is he to exercise his own judgment and initiative.

That the people of the United States discredited Mr. Wilson's assumed authority as their true representative was partially demonstrated in the recent election. Accordingly, the League is a Wilsonian and not an American product. To say that the signature of the former President obligates the United States to ratify the Covenant and the Treaty is outside of common sense. The American people deeply regret the present situation, but refuse to be responsible for it. The stand of the new administration in this regard is in accordance with the wish of the majority. Perhaps M. Viviani will return to France with evidence in support of M. Poincare's statement.