HYPOCRISY

Ever since Henry Ford's Peace Ship sailed to put an end to the war, peace has been the policy of the United States. Nor was this due to pacifism, but the more high-minded citizens were no less earnestly desirous of world harmony, though scrupulous as to the means of procuring it. It was hoped that the last war was truly a "war to end war", and in spite of the regrettable quibblings that caused the League fiasco as far as this country was concerned, the government has avowed its desire for honorable peace. If sometimes impractical in the execution of its purpose, it has always posed as the champion of international goodwill. It comes unexpectedly that the Chairman of the Naval Affairs Committee declares that since the spirit of the disarmament treaty is dead, "the race is on, and it's high time we should get ahead"--this in connection with the proposed increase in naval power now under consideration in Congress.

The question of increase naval armament thus brought up and its relation to the treaty is of less importance, however, than the light it sheds upon our government's attitude. If one treaty is thus considered another "scrap of paper", the whole fabric of our peaceful ideals will be shown to be nothing more than that. Yet we have seen fit to preach peace abroad. The accusation is obvious, and most of the facts substantiate it outwardly. America has done little enough to repair the damage of the war. It was previously hoped that at least we meant well, if we acted ineffectively. The debt settlements are evidently unsatisfactory to some nations, but the senators who justified them argued that our terms were generous. What becomes of our vaunted generosity and idealism, slightly shown before now that the disarmament treaty which we took the lead in formulating is to be disavowed as dead?