JL.^ -, '^jT^i- IH""^ *. . ,*d THE PASSING OF THE NEW FREEDOM JAMES M. BECK "It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one y and thus to create, whatever the form of the government, a real despotism. * * * L e t there be no change by- usurpation; for though this may be in one instance, the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed" WASHINGTON'S FAREWELL ADDRESS. THE PASSING OF THE NEW FREEDOM BY JAMES M. BECK FORMERLY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES AUTHOR. OF "THE EVIDENCE IN THE CASE," "THE WA& AND HUMANITY," AND "THE RECKONING*' Moribus antiquis stat y res Romana virisque. NEW ^SiT YORK GEORGE H. DORAN COMPANY COPYRIGHT, 1920, BY GEORGE H. DORAN COMPANY PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TO HENRY CABOT LODGE SCHOLAR, STATESMAN, PATRIOT WHOSE RECENT SERVICE IN THE MAINTENANCE OF AMERICAN INSTITUTIONS WILL BE HIS TITLE CLEAR TO THE APPROVAL OF POSTERITY Justum, et tenacem propositi virum Non civium ardor prava jubentium. HORACE 4 4 524 FOREWORD I need offer no apology for this frank discussion of the essential nature of President Wilson's policies. They are now on trial before the great quadrennial assize of the American people. No public official is above honest criticism, and, without such criticism, democracy would cease to be. Moreover, Woodrow Wilson now belongs to his- tory. His complex personality and his world-wide policies will be the subject of acute discussion for gen- erations to come. To tell the truth about them, as one sees the truth and who now sees it, except as through a glass darkly ? is the highest duty of citizenship. In this spirit, this book has been written. If I am criticized for discussing grave political ques- tions in dialogue form, let me reply that while these imaginary conversations are, in part, satirical in spirit, nothing was further from my intention than "to set on some quantity of barren spectators to laugh." Shaw, Landor, Gobineaux and Erasmus did not disdain to employ the dramatic dialogue as a literary medium, and indeed the greatest single product of the human mind in all the ages seems to me to be the Book of Job, where the great riddle of existence is discussed with unequalled power and sublimity in the imaginary con- versation of the man of Ur and his three would-be comforters, who proved to be somewhat irritating dis- putants. Even a later age could not resist the temptation to [vii] FOREWORD break into this most wonderful discussion by the inter- polation of the character of Elihu. An acknowledgment is due Mr. Henry Litchfield West for valuable suggestions and careful revision of the proofs and to the courtesy of the publishers of The North American Review and The National Re- view in permitting me to republish in revised and amplified form the second of these dialogues, "It Might Have Been." In both of these dialogues, I have put in quotation marks such speeches as were actually uttered by the character to whom they are attributed. I have done this in fairness to my distinguished dramatis persona, so that the reader can easily distinguish between state- ments which were actually made and those which only represent my interpretation of the words and acts of the distinguished participants in the Paris Peace Con- ference. Obviously these quotations are scattered ex- cerpts from addresses and writings at different times and places. My readers will distinguish between those portions of my imaginary conversation which are written in the spirit of jocose satire and those which have a more serious meaning. Thus my allusion in the first of these dialogues to the reservation of the island of Yap for the United States, if read too seriously, would indicate a belief on my part that our Allies did not deal generously with America in the Paris Peace Conference. Such is not the fact or my opinion. The United States could have had anything in reason for the asking. In- deed, Constantinople, the golden prize of the Centuries, was offered to America. Mr. Wilson truly represented his country at Paris in declining to accept any part in the division of territorial spoils. Our moral in- [viii] FOREWORD fluence in the councils of the nations will be the greater for such renunciation. Whatever else may be said of our part in the World War, it cannot be denied that we emerged from the titanic conflict, as we had en- tered, with a lofty spirit of altruism, which will be a landmark in history. I should publish this book with greater hesitation if there were not ample assurance that Mr. Wilson has happily recovered from his distressing malady, in which he has had the deep sympathy of all Americans, without respect to party. His recovery is a subject for gratification even to those who differ with his policies; for American politics would be the poorer if this picturesque personality were eliminated. The United States, after next March, will need a vigorous opposition party, and who is more capable to lead it than the twentieth century Jefferson? JAMES M. BECK. New York, September i, 1920. fix] CONTENTS CHAPTER I MR. WILSON EXPLAINS THE NEW FREEDOM . . 15 CHAPTER II THE OLD FREEDOM 60 CHAPTER III "!T MIGHT HAVE BEEN" 95 CHAPTER IV THE APOSTLE OF THE NEW FREEDOM . . . . 136 THE PASSING OF THE NEW FREEDOM THE PASSING OF THE NEW FREEDOM CHAPTER I MR. WILSON EXPLAINS THE NEW FREEDOM * / Quam parva sapienti regitur mundus. SCENE : Paris. PLACE: Premier's Room, Qual d'Orsay. TIME: January 15, ipip. [As the curtain rises PREMIER CLEMENCEAU, PRIME MINISTER LLOYD GEORGE and BARON MAKING are seated around a council table. They are looking over a map, and drawing the lines of the new boundaries. PICK ON and BALFOUR are also present, but take little part in the discussion and thus recognise tlwt once again the destinies of the world are for a time in the keeping of a new triumvirate, Clemenceau, Lloyd George and Wilson.'] CLEMENCEAU. We are, then, agreed as to the divi- sion of Germany's overseas dominions. The Pacific islands north of the equator are to go to Japan; those to the south shall be given to Great Britain, together THE PASSING OF THE NEW FREEDOM with Germany's possessions in Africa and a protec- iorato over Persia and Mesopotamia. France will have its compensation in ' Syria, Morocco, and the Rhine frontier, including the Saar Basin. To Italy are given the Dalmatian littoral and the Trentino. LLOYD GEORGE. [Leaning back with the satisfied smile of one who has had a good mealJ] Is not this the greatest real estate transaction since the Almighty gave Adam a fee to the world? CLEMENCEAU. You forget that Caesar, Pompey and Crassus divided the world. BALFOUR. Did not Pope Alexander VI also draw a longitudinal line through the Atlantic Ocean and divide the unknown Western World between Spain and Portugal? LLOYD GEORGE. How long did it last? MAKING. My honorable confreres must not forget that, in deference to our illustrious American col- league's views, we only take the larger tracts of land as mandatories. [All laugh heartily.'} LLOYD GEORGE. You laugh at the scheme of man- datories; but it cost me much to reconcile President Wilson with Premier Hughes on this point. Our diffi- culties are unusually complicated by these new states- men from the four corners of the earth. CLEMENCEAU. Mandatories ! Mon dieu! Great is the legerdemain of language. Our American colleague blandly tells us, who have sacrificed millions of lives and billions of treasure, that there are to be no annexa- tions or indemnities. We defer to his views by calling annexations "mandatories" and the indemnities "rep- arations." However, our beneficial enjoyment of the [16] MR. WILSON EXPLAINS THE NEW FREEDOM territories thus acquired will be the same whether our title be absolute or nominally in trust. MAKING. Does not my honorable confrere forget the League of Nations to which the mandatory is to be responsible? [Renewed laughter, in which all join.'] CLEMENCEAU. I confess I at first opposed the Lea- gue of Nations; but I now see that, as a camouflage for the old diplomacy, it is not without its merit. MAKING. But should we not, for form's sake, offer something to the United States? CLEMENCEAU. When, in any conference, was any- thing offered to a nation that did not ask for it ? Presi- dent Wilson, with or without his country's approval, has asked no territorial compensation for the sacrifices which the United States has made to win the war. Are we not justified in taking him at his word? MAKING. Still, as a matter of form, would it not be advisable to have America participate in the spoils of the victory? CLEMENCEAU. There is much force in that sug- gestion. [They examine a map of the Pacific OceanJ] CLEMENCEAU. Eureka! Here is an island that we have overlooked. It rejoices in the singular name of Yap. Have either of your Excellencies ever heard of Yap? LLOYD GEORGE. I confess that I have not. But then, I never heard of Teschen until some of our smaller allies quarreled among themselves as to this part of Europe. OLEMENCEAU. Well, as the island of Yap has not [17] THE PASSING OF THE NEW FREEDOM been distributed, I suggest that we offer it to Mr. Wilson. LLOYD GEORGE and MAKINO. Agreed. LLOYD GEORGE, For good measure, let us also give the United States a mandatory over Armenia. As even the boundaries of that mountainous desert have not yet been determined, let our American colleagues define them. Do we want Armenia? CLEMENCEAU. It is a liability, not an asset. Give it to the great idealist. LLOYD GEORGE. The territory of a considerable portion of the world being thus happily disposed of, our chief difficulty will be in adjusting the frontiers of Europe, and especially in the creation of new boundaries in Southeastern Europe. I fear that our smaller allies may quarrel among themselves to our embarrassment. CLEMENCEAU. They are like a lot of hens being held by the feet and carried to market although all doomed to the same fate, they contrive to fight each other while awaiting it. LLOYD GEORGE. May not our chief difficulty be to adjust the inevitable differences as to boundaries be- tween Jugo-Slavia and Italy? We have made some progress in the division of the Adriatic littoral ; but have apparently reached the limit of concessions. It looks to me as if the fatal difference will be with reference to Fiume. MAKING. Is it likely that our American colleague will wish to be consulted upon this question? CLEMENCEAU. Why should he? When did a sane statesman ever interfere in a quarrel between other [18] MR. WILSON EXPLAINS THE NEW FREEDOM nations in which his own nation had no practical in- terest and in which it could only play the cat's paw to pull some very hot chestnuts out of a very hot fire? I venture to say that the American President, until this controversy arose, never heard of Fiume, and I am afraid our own previous knowledge was not much greater. LLOYD GEORGE. I fear we are all somewhat defi- cient in geographical and ethnic knowledge. They tell me that during the war and when America was neutral, our esteemed colleague and loyal ally, M. Paderewski, applied to a member of President Wilson's cabinet for a Government transport to carry food to Dantzig and thence down the Vistula River into Poland. Mr. Wil- son's learned cabinet minister heard the application, and then denied it on the ground that he could not risk a government transport by sending it through the Mediterranean. 1 [All join in renewed laughter.] [Enter CLEMENCEAU'S secretary, with the announce- ment: "His Excellency, the President of the United States. 1 ' MR. WILSON enters. He has the exalted manner of a prophet. He literally exudes omniscience. He slowly approaches the council table and solemnly greets his associates.] CLEMENCEAU. Welcome, Mr. President. We were just discussing the necessary division of occupied Ger- man territory and the readjustment of European boun- daries. In Signor Orlando's absence, we may say to 1 This actually happened, but the Cabinet Minister in question was not alone in making a little blunder in geography. [19] THE PASSING OF THE NEW FREEDOM you that we fear difficulty between his country and Jugo-Slavia, and the chief difficulty is with Fiume. WILSON. What? CLEMENCEAU. Fiume. WILSON". Is it a man or a place? LLOYD GEORGE. A little town on the Adriatic, com- posed of somewhat less than fifty thousand inhabitants, and your excellency may well be pardoned for not knowing of its existence. So small a place would hardly interest you or your great country. WILSON. How have you disposed of it? LLOYD GEORGE. Our disposition is to give it to Italy, even though the territory of which it is the chief seaport is predominantly Slavic. WILSON. This will never do. Let me offer to your solemn contemplation the Fourteen Points. CLEM EN CEAU. The what ? WILSON. The Fourteen Points which I gave to the world in January, 1918, as the comprehensive basis of the peace. CLEMENCEAU. I confess I never read them. WILSON. What! You amaze me. And yet your country accepted the Fourteen Points as the basis of the Armistice and the future treaty of peace. CLEMENCEAU. Yes, I accepted the Fourteen Points, of which I had heard by name, when your Colonel House intimated that in the event of our failure to accept them, he could not say what your action might be. What could I do? My concern then was to win the war. I knew that, without respect to your wishes or mine, the terms of peace would be adjusted by cir- cumstances and not by academic formulas. [20] MR. WILSON EXPLAINS THE NEW FREEDOM WILSON. I fear you do not consider sufficiently the sanctity of my Fourteen Points. "These are days of great perplexity, when a great cloud of trouble hangs and broods over the greater part of the world. It seems as if great, blind material forces had been re- leased, which had for long been held in leash and re- straint. I imagine I see, I hope that I see, I pray that it may be that I do truly see, great spiritual forces lying waiting for the outcome of this thing to assert themselves, and asserting themselves even now to en- lighten our judgment and steady our spirits. There- fore, I came to Paris, literally to fight for my Four- teen Points, and I owe it to my people to see to it, in so far as in me lies, that no false or mistaken inter- pretation is put upon them and no possible effort omitted to realize them. It is now my duty to play my full part in making good what my soldiers offered their lives and blood to obtain. I can think of no call to service which could transcend this." LLOYD GEORGE. You constantly refer to "my" Fourteen Points. May I not remind your Excellency that I had advanced this programme of peace adjust- ment before you promulgated the famous Fourteen? MAKING. I am heartily glad to know that your Excellency will put the adjustment of peace upon so high and noble a plane. And this reminds me of a matter of spiritual significance in which my country has a vital interest. What spiritual ideal can there be of greater nobility than the Fatherhood of God and the common Brotherhood of man? This emboldens me to bring up the matter of racial equality, to which, in this moral regeneration of the world upon which [21] THE PASSING OF THE NEW FREEDOM we are now entering under your inspiring guidance, there should be the recognition of the Peace Confer- ence. WILSON. I think this subject had better be de- ferred. There are embarrassing circumstances, grow- ing out of racial differences in my country, which would make it embarrassing to me to recognize the equality of races which our confrere from Japan sug- gests. The fact is, I may confidentially say to you, that my political strength in America is largely drawn from a section of the country which has a deep-rooted and unconquerable aversion to any suggestion of racial equality, and my reelection was largely determined by the vote of a State which, situated on the Pacific Coast, feels deeply the question of Japanese equality and would never take kindly to your Excellency's request. I believe in the "great spiritual forces lying waiting for the outcome of this thing to assert themselves"; but, after all, my dear colleagues, we must draw the line somewhere. MAKING. [Rises indignantly.] With such a fatal negation of the fundamental condition of the perma- nent pacification of the world, I think that my presence would not, at the moment, add value to your delibera- tions. I will therefore withdraw, to relieve you of any present embarrassment; but, as the moral leaven of the new idealism works in Paris, I shall venture, on a later occasion, to bring again to your attention the just claims of my great people to equality with any other. With less than this, my people would not be contented. [BARON MAKING bows gravely and withdraws."] MR. WILSON EXPLAINS THE NEW FREEDOM LLOYD GEORGE. We must satisfy our Japanese colleague upon this point. After all, the recognition of racial equality is only of sentimental importance, and your Declaration of Independence did affirm that "all men are born free and equal." WILSON [Grimly] But not so free and equal as to ignore the ethnic difference as profound as the dif- ference between the yellow and white races. CLEMENCEAU. Deeply and naturally as our Japa- nese colleague feels upon this subject, I think we can reconcile him to a negative reply by a concession of Japanese domination over Shantung. Your Excellency [turning to WILSON] will not object to this adjustment of the matter? WILSON. How many people are there in Shantung? LLOYD GEORGE. Nearly forty millions. WILSON. Is not that a very considerable concession for yielding on a point of only sentimental interest? LLOYD GEORGE. I fear it may be necessary, as England cannot afford to disappoint so faithful an ally as Japan. We trust we may have your Excel- lency's permission to offer such a compromise to the Japanese representatives. WILSON. But it violates my great principle of self- determination. Have I not said very solemnly I say everything very solemnly that "every people has a right to choose the sovereignty under which they shall live." x It offends me to the soul to sanction such a clear departure from that noble ideal. The Confer- ence has not begun, and yet three of my Fourteen Points have been overridden. Have I not solemnly 1 Address on League of Nations, May 27, 1916. [23] THE PASSING OF THE NEW FREEDOM proclaimed the right of weak and small states to preser- vation against aggression? You now ask me to bar- gain away the rights of forty millions of people with- out their leave and against their protests. You forget that my prestige is at stake. LLOYD GEORGE. After all, Mr. President, self- determination is a mere abstraction and biologically unsound at that; for when did man or nation, from the cradle to the grave, ever truly have the privilege of self-determination? CLEMENCEAU. The first apostle of self-determina- tion was my own countryman, Rousseau. He carried it to its logical results. "There is no other god but Self, and Rousseau is his prophet. " We owe to him in great part the rampant individualism of the present day, and it is interesting to discover where the principle of self-determination led him. On his own confession, he was about the most unmitigated scoundrel in the New- gate calendar of literature. BALFOUR. Quite so. Our Milton tells us that when Satan asserted the principle of self-determination against the Almighty, he fell for nine days before he touched bottom. CLEMENCEAU. Even in your country, Mr. Presi- dent, there has been no consistent adherence to self- determination. You did win your freedom by invok- ing it as a right ; but we French helped you determine your independence. In your Civil War, you gave a half million lives and spent some billions of your dollars to deny it as a principle. I confess that I admired your Mr. Lincoln when he summoned the strength of his country to deny to the seceding States [24] MR. WILSON EXPLAINS THE NEW FREEDOM a right of self-determination which conflicted with national sovereignty. However, we can give Shantung to Japan, with the understanding that she will give it back to China. LLOYD GEORGE. Upon such terms as they agree upon. WILSON. That alters matters. After all, we must satisfy our Japanese colleague to ensure his nation's adherence to the League of Nations. Let it be so arranged. CLEMENCEAU [Aside to LLOYD GEORGE]. An easy adjustment. When Japan exacts the terms, China will, I fear, pay dearly for the province of Confucius. [Enter CLEMENCEAU'S Secretary.} SECRETARY [Addressing WILSON]. A delegation has called and insists that I should hand your Excel- lency a petition, as matter of special urgency. [WILSON takes the packet, breaks the steals, and examines it intently; then -takes out his memorandum book.} WILSON [Addressing Secretary}. Tell them that "this question will form the subject of a thorough examination by the competent authorities of the Con- ference." I must give them an appointment. Let me see what my engagements are for to-morrow. [Opens memorandum book.} "li A. M. Dr. Wellington Koo, to present the Chinese Delegation to the Peace Conference; 11:10 THE PASSING OF THE NEW FREEDOM A. M.,. Marquis de Vogue and a delegation of seven others, representing the Congres National Frangais, to present their view as to the disposition of the left bank of the Rhine; 11:30 A. M., Assyrian and Chaldean Delegation, with a message from the Assyrian-Chaldean nation; 11:45 A. M., Dalmatian Delegation, to present to the President the result of the plebiscite of that part of Dalmatia occupied by Italians; Noon, M. Bucquet, Charge d' Affaires of San Marino, to convey the action of the Grand Coun- cil of San Marino, conferring on the President Hon- orary Citizenship in the Republic of San Marino; 12:10 P. M., M. Colonder, Swiss Minister of Foreign Affairs; 12:20 P. M., Miss Rose Schneiderman and Miss Mary Anderson, delegates of the National Wom- en's Trade Union League of the United States; 12 :3O P. M., the Patriarch of Constantinople, the head of the Orthodox Eastern Church; 12 145 P. M., Essad Pasha, delegate of Albania, to present the claims of Albania; I P. M., M. M. L. Coromilas, Greek Minister at Rome, to pay his respects; Luncheon, Mr. Newton D. Baker, Secretary of War; 4 P. M., Mr. Herbert Hoover; 4:15 P. M., M. Bratiano, of the Roumanian Delegation; 4:30 P. M., Dr. Alfonso Costa, former Portuguese Minister, Portuguese Delegate to the Peace Conference; 4:45 P. M., Boghos Nubar Pasha, president of the Armenian National Delegation, ac- companied by M. A. Aharoman and Professor A. Der Hagopian, of Robert College; 5 .-15 P. M., M. Pasitch, of the Serbian Delegation; 5:30 P. M., Mr. Frank Walsh, of the Irish-American Delegation." [26], MIL WILSON EXPLAINS THE NEW FREEDOM Frank Walsh, from Ireland? How did my stupid secretary come to make that appointment. It was very careless. This gives me an excuse to put off the Irish delegation. [Turning to the secretary.'] Tell the delegation from Corsica that I shall be pleased to consider their claims to autonomy to-morrow at four- thirty for fifteen minutes. CLEMENCEAU. The what delegation? WILSON. Why, I have a petition from the people of Corsica asking that I do what I can to secure them full autonomy on the principle of self-determination. CLEMENCEAU. Is your Excellency aware of the. fact that Corsica is a part of France? WILSON. Why, no; for the moment I had over- looked the fact. 1 Such a mistake is very distressing [Turning to secretary. ~\ Tell the Corsican delegation that of course I cannot interfere with the internal af- fairs of a friendly ally, and it is impossible for me to see them. LLOYD GEORGE. I hope your Excellency, with that shining consistency which has characterized your pub- lic utterances and actions, will apply the same rule to Ireland, which, I need not remind you, is still a part of Great Britain. Your vague ideal of self-determina- tion is already having a most unhappy effect upon the integrity of the Great Empire which I have the honor to represent. After all are we not your Ally? WILSON. Associate, not ally. * See Dillon's The Peace Conference, page 90, where the in- cident is related. Whether the blunder was that of the President or one of his Secretaries Dr. Dillon does not say. That President Wilson should even momentarily have forgotten that Corsica is -a part of France seems unlikely. [27] THE PASSING OF THE NEW FREEDOM CLEMENCEATJ. Did your soldiers consider this dis- tinction when they died with ours in a common cause? WILSON. Ireland's claim for self-determination is very embarrassing, and my freedom of action is some- what affected by the fact that my political strength in America is very largely drawn from the Irish-Ameri- can vote. It will take some finesse to keep the eminent Irish-Americans, who are here in Paris to insist upon the right of self-determination at bay, but I shall manage it in some way. It is unfortunate that I did not bring Mr. Tumulty with me. He could have ar- ranged it. I cannot trust these matters to Mr. Lansing, who is lacking in the nice skill which we statesmen must have of LLOYD GEORGE. "Keeping the word of promise to the ear, and breaking it to the hope." WILSON. Your quotation is indelicate, and, may I not say, annoying. I never palter in a double sense. But may I not again remark that this Irish question makes me regret that I did not leave about nine- tenths of my learned experts in America and bring with me the resourceful Tumulty. CLEMENCEAU. Mon Dieu! Let us drop these side issues and address ourselves to the present problem of making it impossible for Germany to renew this war. Until that is accomplished, of what avail is it to divide the world? Over two months have passed since the Armistice, and we have as yet made no progress. Let us imitate Napoleon's celerity after Jena. Our task grows more difficult with delay. LLOYD GEORGE. Can we, with fairness, take up MR. WILSON EXPLAINS THE NEW FREEDOM any of these problems until our worthy confrere of Italy arrives? CLEMENCEAU. I received word from him that he would be here in a half hour. I agree with you that we should do nothing until he comes. BALFOUR. While waiting for him, I am wondering whether our illustrious colleague would not explain to us some of the features of the American Constitu- tion, which we European statesmen have not as yet sufficiently understood. If European and American politics are hereafter to be intermingled, it is necessary for us in Europe to know more of American institu- tions than we have hitherto known, and [turning to WILSON] to what fountain head of knowledge could we better repair than to your Excellency? Your lec- tures on constitutional government have their admirers beyond the classic walls of the famous University of which you were once the distinguished head. WILSON. I shall be most happy to explain any features of our Constitution which you do not under- stand; but I may say to you that you will find little enlightenment in my lectures at Princeton ; for, when I entered public life and first became a candidate for office, a new light came to me, as that which fell upon Paul on his way to Damascus. I put aside, as child- ish things, many of my former views. At Prince- ton, I was a conservative, I had almost said, a re- actionary. But when I became a candidate for the Governorship of New Jersey, things seemed different. I gave to my countrymen a new Gospel in a book which I called "The New Freedom," which clearly discloses that my contact with the new Qirrents of [29] THE PASSING OF THE NEW FREEDOM thought in America had made me reject essential features of the old freedom with which my country- men were short-sighted enough to be satisfied. CLEMENCEAU. Do explain to us the difference be- tween the old and the new freedom. As you know, I lived in your country and learned something of its institutions. I have studied the Constitution and the writings of those like the authors of the "Federalist" papers, who were once regarded as its great commen- tators. From them, I derived the idea that the under- lying spirit of your government was sleepless jealousy of governmental power, whether it was legislative, executive, or even judicial. Thus, as I understand the writings of your Hamilton and Madison, you es- tablished a government of checks and balances, where- by the legislative should prevent usurpations by the executive, and the executive, usurpations by the legis^ lative branch of the government, and the judiciary should hold both in check. As a Frenchman, I take some pride in the fact that this idea of a division of governmental authority into three separate and partly independent departments was derived by the f ramers of your Constitution from my great compatriot, Montes- quieu. I have therefore been greatly puzzled by the events of the last three or four years; for we in Europe have seen a consolidation of authority, and if you will allow it, an unchallenged exercise of one-man power which would not be possible even in governments which did not follow the Montesquieu doctrine. It would thus seem that the whole nature of your Gov- ernment has undergone a profound and portentous transformation, and, as all this has happened since I [30] MR. WILSON EXPLAINS THE NEW FREEDOM left America, I should be deeply interested to know how such a revolution came to pass. WILSON. It is my inestimable privilege to have wrought this transformation. May I not say that I have exercised a power greater than all my predeces- sors? LLOYD GEORGE. But how did you bring it about, when we, in England, who have no written constitu- tion, apparently cannot make constitutional changes so easily as you with your rigid written Constitution? Our last change in government, the impairment of the legislative power of the House of Lords, only fol- lowed the most acrimonious debate and a prolonged struggle, which nearly culminated in civil war. Only the moral authority of the King averted the peril. WILSON. It was my new freedom that wrought the mighty change in the American government. I discovered a great truth and converted my country- men to its acceptance. You will find it all in "The New Freedom." With this magnum opus, I in- augurated the new revolution to overcome the theory of the Constitution as Hamilton gave it to us. He was "a great man, but not a great American." He had not fed upon the imperishable food, "the food of those visions of the spirit where a table is set before us laden with palatable fruits, the fruits of hope, the fruits of imagination, those invisible things of the spirit, which are the only things upon which we can sustain ourselves through this weary world without fainting." BALFOUR [Looks puzzled'}. I am not sure that I grasp your Excellency's meaning. We in England THE PASSING OF THE NEW FREEDOM greatly admire Hamilton, and envy America in having had such a master builder in the foundation of its institutions. Was it not his merit that he fed his countrymen upon the substantial bread of hard facts? Does not his superiority to Jefferson lie in the fact that the latter inflamed the minds of his people with impossible visions; whereas Hamilton built upon ac- tual conditions the superstructure of a workable gov- ernment ? WILSON. I admit that Washington, Franklin, Hamilton and Madison constructed a Constitution that was admirably adapted to their day, when the land- owners were the real rulers of America. But this is the day of the People, and they need a stronger gov- ernment. The Constitution has worked well ; but that is "no proof that it is an excellent constitution, be- cause Americans could run any constitution." The Constitution was a reactionary document. It dis- trusted democracy, and its careful provisions for a representative government must be destroyed ; and this they will be by the initiative and the referendum, which I once denounced in my classes at Prince- ton; but which, since my entry into public life, I now advocate. I recognize that "we stand in the presence of a revolution. We are upon the eve of a great re- construction. The old order changeth with the noise and heat and tumult of reconstruction. Society stands ready to attempt nothing less than a radical reconstruc- tion, which only frank and honest counsels can hold back from becoming a revolution. We are in a temper to reconstruct economic society, as we were once in a temper to reconstruct political society, and political [32] MR. WILSON EXPLAINS THE NEW FREEDOM society may itself undergo a radical modification in the process. I doubt if any age was ever more conscious of its task or more unanimously desirous of radical and extended changes in its economic and political practice." You will find the new gospel set forth in my "The New Freedom," published by Doubleday, Page & Co., at the modest price of one dollar. In that book, I showed that public opinion was in a state of flux. I was satisfied that we stood "in the presence of a revolution, not a bloody revolution, but a silent revolution." * In this potential revolution, I recognized the possibility of the agitator. I warned the people that "some man with eloquent tongue, without con- science, who did not care for the nation, could put this whole country into a flame. This country, from one end to the other, believes that something is wrong. What an opportunity it would be for some man with- out conscience to spring up and say : This is the way. Follow me!' and lead in the paths of destruction." 2 CLEMENCEAU (aside to Lloyd George.) Appar- ently the man was found. (Addressing Wilson.) But you could not thus reconstruct your country without changing the point of view of the masses. As your country was contented and prosperous beyond any other country in the world, how could you convert a contented people into that state of discontent without which no revolution is possible? WILSON. A revelation came to me that those who founded my government and framed its Constitution, while estimable men according to their lights, neverthe- less proceeded upon a false theory. Washington, 1 Wilson's The New Freedom, p. 30. 'Id., p. 28. [33] THE PASSING OF THE NEW FREEDOM Hamilton, Madison, Wilson and Franklin are not un- worthy of commendation when we consider their limited qualifications and narrow outlook. They lived in a little w r orld, and had the light of the New Freedom suddenly shone upon them, they would have been blinded by the effulgent light of the twentieth century. They were practical men; but, as such, incapable of seeing a great vision and hearing voices in the air. CLEMENCEAU. I confess that to me their great virtue was that they kept their feet on the ground, That which they saw, they saw clearly. WILSON. Columbus saw a vision, and discovered America; Jeanne d'Arc heard voices in the air, and saved France. I, too, hitched my wagon to a star. CLEMENCEAU. A very hazardous method of trans- portation. Not all visions become realities, and not all voices in the air become harmonies that are attuned to mortal ears. But what was the profound truth with which you made so great a change in the American form of government? WILSON. One day at Princeton "it was my good fortune to entertain a very interesting Scotsman who had been devoting himself to the philosophical thought of the seventeenth century. His talk was so engaging that it was delightful to hear him speak of anything and presently there came out of the unexpected region of his thought the thing I had been waiting for. He called my attention to the fact that in every generation all sorts of speculation and thinking tend to fall under the formula of the dominant thought of the age. For example, after the Newtonian theory of the universe had been developed, almost all thinking tended to ex- [34] MR. WILSON EXPLAINS THE NEW FREEDOM press itself in the analogies of the Newtonian theory, and since the Darwinian theory has reigned amongst us, everybody is likely to express whatever he wishes to expound in terms of development and accommoda- tion to environment Now, it came to me, as this interesting man talked, that the Constitution of the United States had been made under the dominion of the Newtonian theory. * * * * The makers of our Fed- eral Constitution read Montesquieu with true scientific enthusiasm. They were scientists in their way the best way of their age those fathers of the nation. Jef- ferson wrote of 'the laws of Nature,' and then by way of afterthought 'and of Nature's God/ And they constructed a government as they would have constructed an orrery, to display the laws of nature. Politics in their thought was a variety of mechanics. The Constitution was founded on the law of gravita- tion. The government was to exist and move by virtue of the efficacy of 'checks and balances/ The trouble with the theory is that government is not a machine, but a living thing. It falls, not under the theory of the universe, but under the theory of organic life. It is accountable to Darwin, not to Newton. It is modi- fied by its environment, necessitated by its tasks, shaped to its function by the sheer pressure of life. No living thing can have its organs offset against each other, as checks, and live." * BALFOUR. I once read Madison's record of the debates of your Constitutional Convention. I do not recall any reference to Newton or his theory of gravitation. 1 Wilson's The New Freedom, pp. 45-47. [35] THE PASSING OF THE NEW FREEDOM CLEMEN CEAU. Nor do I recall anything in the Federalist papers which (indicates that those men, who, notwithstanding your Excellency's modest esti- mate of their worth, I should regard as supremely great, ever conformed their theory of government to Newton's Principia. It may be so; but they were strangely silent on the subject. WILSON. Well, so my friend from Scotland told me, and certainly this theory of the influence of the Newtonian theory of the siderial universe upon the formulation of the Constitution seemed impressive to the undergraduates at Princeton, when I explained it to them in my lectures. CLEMENCEAU. Possibly they did not understand your theory. It sounds like the solemn obscurities of Hegel. That which we do not understand is apt to seem profound. But we do not yet understand what was your discovery. WILSON. My discovery was that the Newtonian theory, as applied to the American Government, was a monstrous error, and that, in place of Newton's theory, it was necessary to substitute the Darwinian theory. CLEMENCEAU. Mon Dieu! What an extraordinary intellect. Who but your Excellency would have thought either the Newtonian or the Darwinian theory had any reference to a form of government, or that the problems of government could be resolved into the elements of mechanics? But what feature of the Dar- winian theory did you apply in your great work of reforming the Constitution of the United States? WILSON. The basic principle of the Darwinian [36] MR. WILSON EXPLAINS THE NEW FREEDOM theory is the struggle for existence and the survival of the fittest. I reached the conclusion that there had been and would always be an inevitable struggle be- tween the Executive and Legislative branches of the government for power, and that the fittest would sur- vive. I determined to be the fittest, and I proved to the satisfaction of the world that such is the fact. LLOYD GEORGE. But how did you accomplish it, Mr. President? WILSON. I knew that the Constitution had made the Presidential office immensely powerful in its con- trol over public patronage. Long ago, I had pointed out in my earlier work on "Constitutional Government in the United States" that "there are illegitimate means by which the President may influence the action of Congress. He may bargain with members, not only with regard to appointment, but also with regard to legislative measures. He may use his local patronage to assist members to get or retain their seats. He may interpose his powerful influence, in one covert way or another, in contests for places in the Senate. He may also overbear Congress by arbitrary acts which ignore the laws or virtually override them. He may even sub- stitute his own orders for acts of Congress which he wants but cannot get." 1 At that time I characterized any such attempt by the Executive to concentrate the power of the Government in his office as "deeply im- moral." I even said that "no honorable man includes such agencies in a sober exposition of the Constitution or allows himself to think of them when he speaks 1 Wilson's Constitutional Government in the United States, P. 71- [37] THE PASSING OF THE NEW FREEDOM of the influence of 'life* which govern each genera- tion's use and interpretation of that great instrument, our sovereign guide and the object of our deepest rever- ence. Nothing in a system like ours can be constitu- tional which is immoral or touches the good faith of those who have sworn to obey the fundamental law. The reprobation of all good men will always over- whelm such influences with shame and failure." With such views I did not utilize such crude means. I did not "overbear Congress by arbitrary acts" or substitute my orders for their will. I merely used my influence to redistribute the powers of the Govern- ment so that the Executive would be of overshadowing importance. In this way, I sought to defeat the system of checks and balances which the Darwinian theory had shown to be fundamentally unsound. Conscious of my power, I forced Congress, although after a bit- ter debate, to pass the so-called "Overman Law," by which the powers of Congress over the machinery of our government were materially impaired and I was given almost unlimited power to reconstruct the Exec- utive branch of the Government according to my own views. My theory was that popular Government was promoted by the greatest possible concentration of governmental power in one man, for the time being myself. BALFOQR. Does not your statement of the Dar- winian theory ignore the fact that its disciples placed too much emphasis on the struggle for exist- ence ? Darwin also taught such cooperation and mutual dependence as the framers of your Constitution in- 1 Wilson's Constitutional Government in the Umted States, p. 71. [38] MR. WILSON EXPLAINS THE NEW FREEDOM tended in the coordination of the different branches of your Government. Did you not encounter serious opposition in making Congress abdicate its dominating position in your Government as the law-makers? WILSON. I did that which any of my predecessors could have done and which many of them had at- tempted to do with less success. You do not appreciate the enormous influence of the President through his control of patronage, and, by patronage, I mean not merely the power of appointment, but the greater power to direct the business energies of the Federal Government and to influence the business energies of the people. With the lever of party patronage alone, the President can destroy the equilibrium of power which is supposed to exist between the President and the Congress. "The President can, if he chooses, be- come national boss by the use of his enormous patron- age, doling out his local gifts of place to local party managers in return for support and cooperation in the guidance and control of his party. His patronage touches every community in the United States. He can often by its use disconcert and even master the local managers of his own party by combining the arts of the politician with the duties of the statesman, and he can go far towards establishing a complete per- sonal domination. He can even break party lines asunder and draw together combinations of his own devising." 1 As I have said, I despised such crude methods, I knew that the mere power over patronage was as effective as its exercise. My party associates in Congress well knew that I could deprive them of 1 Wilson's Constitutional Government, p. 215. [39] THE PASSING OF THE NEW FREEDOM appointments in their territorial sphere of influence. They did my will. When did politicians not prefer to "crook the pregnant hinges of the knees" to political suicide ? CLEMENCEAU. Quite so. All this is intelligible, even to old world politicians. A former king of my country anticipated you in his famous assertion of a "new freedom" for himself when he said "I'etat, c'est wioi." I think his successor said, "After me, the deluge." But how did you reconcile your country- men to the new freedom? The new freedom must have succeeded in some less obvious way. WILSON. I discovered the vulnerable heel of that Achilles of government, the United States. It was its fixed tenure of office. My people are a practical one and make little fuss over anything that cannot be im- mediately remedied. They prefer inaction to im- potent action. Given a fixed tenure of office and the immeasurable power of a Chief Executive, and I knew that I could do much which, in a parliamentary form of government, would be impracticable. Impeachment was too slow and hazardous a process to be a cor- rective. Given a fixed tenure of office for four years, I could easily make it eight years, and in that time I could concentrate such power in the Executive that my will would be supreme. With a fixed tenure of office, parliamentary government exists in form, but not in substance. Congress becomes mere clay for me to mold into such shape as pleases me. My only weak- ness is once in four years, when a reelection is neces- sary. It is not that the American people are fatalists, so much as that they are realists, and they accept what [40] MR. WILSON EXPLAINS THE NEW FREEDOM they cannot promptly defeat. My predecessors, with their old-fashioned respect for a governmental system of checks and balances, had not realized this. Unable to displace me until the expiration of my term of office, I enjoyed a power which even the German Kaiser did not have in like measure. LLOYD GEORGE. You amaze us. We had supposed that a rigid Constitution, subject to interpretation and enforcement by your Supreme Court of the United States, would have been less easily changed. Was this your only method? For, if so, it would seem to us, accustomed as we are to parliamentary forms of government, that, sooner or later, your Congress would have, challenged your assertion of almost absolute power. In my country, we have no constitutional limi- tations in the true sense, and yet the power of the House of Commons over the purse of the nation has held kings in check, even in the time of seemingly arbitrary power. How could you avoid those Con- stitutional requirements which make the office of President dependent upon Congress, not merely in the matter of appropriations, but even in the matter of ap- pointment? Take, for example, the matter of foreign relations. We have noted with interest that the Presi- dent must not only get the consent of the Senate to the appointment of an ambassador or minister, but even an insignificant consul in the remotest corner of the world cannot be appointed by you without the con- sent of the Senate. This would seem to us to give the Senate a very practical and far-reaching control of the Executive's conduct of foreign relations. WILSON. Under the theory of the Constitution, [41] " THE PASSING OF THE NEW FREEDOM your observations would be fully justified. But I de- veloped a plan which enabled me, in the matter of foreign relations, to govern the United States outside of the Constitution. CLEMENCEAU. You deeply interest us. How did you do that? We sit as Saul at the feet of Gamaliel to learn how written constitutions can be overcome by indirection. WILSON. It was very simple, and it is passing strange that the possibility of an extra-Constitutional government did not occur to any of my predecessors, especially those of imperious will, like Andrew Jack- son. In the six years that I have been President of the United States, I have controlled its foreign re- lations and even, to some extent, its domestic policies by appointing, on my own responsibility, officials who, not being created either by the Constitution or by the Congress, were responsible only to me. Under the archaic theory of the Constitution, the power was vested in Congress "to make all such laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof." Under this power, the great departments of the government, whose responsible heads constitute the so-called "Cabinet," were created by Congress. Thus, Congress provided at the beginning of the government that there should be "at the seat of government an executive de- partment, to be known as the Department of State, and a Secretary of State, who shall be the head thereof." It is true that I nominate the head of the department; [42] MR. WILSON EXPLAINS THE NEW FREEDOM but the nomination is subject to the consent of the Sen- ate, and the powers and duties of the Secretary oi State are determined by Congress. Under this theory, the members of my Cabinet are not my secretaries and subordinates ; but they are servants of the government with rights, duties and limitations prescribed by Con- gress. If Congress required them to do a certain act or to refrain from doing a certain act, then the Cabinet officer must obey the command or respect the limita- tion, without regard to my wishes. If, for example, Congress prohibited the Secretary of the Treasury from compromising a claim against the United States except with the advice of the Attorney General, the Constitution, theoretically, deprives me of power to direct the Secretary of the Treasury to compromise the claim on my own direction. While the members of my Cabinet, being a part of the Executive branch of the government, are theoretically subject to my di- rections, yet my directions are theoretically limited by the power vested in such heads of departments by Con- gress and the limitations which it prescribes with ref- erence to specific acts. All this is destructive of the power which the Presi- dent should have. It is Newtonian, and not Dar- winian. It vainly attempts to confine the Executive and the Legislative branches within their prescribed orbits. LLOYD GEORGE. This is very interesting. But how did you overcome the difficulty which presented so serious a limitation to your power ? WILSON. The solution was very simple. I con- verted a Newtonian form into a Darwinian, and, in the [43] THE PASSING OF THE NEW FREEDOM struggle for existence between the different branches of the Government, proved myself the fittest to sur- vive by creating an extra-Constitutional government, which was directly responsible to me. I left to the heads of the Departments the minor details of gov- ernment; but I assumed sole responsibility for the larger public policies of the state and conducted them through agents who were solely responsible to me. I compelled Congress to be the instrument of its own undoing by inducing them to pass some fifty special war emergency bills, which virtually gave to me almost unlimited powers of administration. Under these powers, I was enabled to build up my extra-Constitu- tional government. To Mr. Gompers, for example, I assigned all ques- tions which concerned labor, and I identified myself with his great organization by appearing in person before the American Federation of Labor, at its annual convention. I insured the cooperation of labor by at that time acknowledging the political partnership which existed between Mr. Gompers and myself. Then I created the War Industries Board and placed my most capable friend, Mr. Bernard Baruch, as its executive head. This gave me almost as com- plete control of capital as I already enjoyed, through Mr. Gompers, over labor. I took over the railroads and put them into the con- trol of my son-in-law, the Secretary of the Treasury. My enemies allege that I thus sought to convince the people of the folly of government ownership of rail- roads by a practical demonstration of its maximum incompetence. Such is not the case. I wanted among [44] MR. WILSON EXPLAINS THE NEW FREEDOM other reasons to control the subject of wages. I won my last election by that means. To Mr. Burleson, my very competent Postmaster- General, I allocated the telegraph and telephone lines. After the war had ended, I assumed control of the cable lines and thus controlled the transmission of news from the old world to the new. Thus I obtained a control over business such as my predecessors never enjoyed, and the so- called "captains of industry" were compelled to dance to the tune which I piped, and a merry dance it was. Then I secured from Congress a confidential fund, to be disposed of by me in my discretion. It amounted to one hundred millions of dollars, and was therefore far larger than the annual expenses of the Federal Government in the first half of my nation's history. I created the Bureau of Public Information, and placed George Creel, a very capable panegyrist, at its head, and thenceforth, no circus ever had a more en- terprising press agent. With the paeans of praise which he sounded in my honor in every part of the world and with the suppression of criticism through the Espionage Laws, and my control of the telegraphs, telephones, and cables, it was not difficult for me to create a public opinion which was irresistible. I had become the master of America, and, as you well know, the potential dictator of world policies. The triumph of the Darwinian theory was complete. CLEMENCEAU. But your Senate, Mr. President, could not have abdicated its authority, especially in the matter of your foreign relations, in a world crisis where power was so tempting and inviting. us] THE PASSING OF THE NEW FREEDOM WILSON. It was in this respect that I won my greatest triumph. I determined and I succeeded in dictating the foreign policies of the Government wholly on my own responsibility. In all previous crises in the foreign relations of America, my predecessors had weakly consulted the Senate, and, formally or in- formally, obtained its consent to the policy which the Executive followed. I ignored the Senate. I an- nounced the policy of my Fourteen Points in the name of America, without consulting it. I created an extra- Constitutional State Department, of which I appointed my close personal friend, Colonel Edward M. House, as the head. His apartment in New York became known as the "American Downing Street." I virtually made him a super-Secretary of State and super- Am- bassador to All Countries, and you will agree with me that his status as such was recognized in all your chancelleries. CLEMENCEAU. Did you send his name to the Sen- ate for its approval ? WILSON. Certainly not. Colonel House was my own appointee. He did not owe his status to Con- gress and was not subject to the limitations which that body had placed upon the Department of State. Thus, I have been enabled to conduct the most delicate and important negotiations outside of the State Depart- ment and in a manner that gave me a freedom that my predecessors never enjoyed. I first tested the sentiment of my countrymen with respect to this new method of conducting our foreign relations in the first hours of my administration in the Mexican embroglio. The Government had a [46] MR. WILSON EXPLAINS THE NEW FREEDOM diplomatic representative in the City of Mexico, who had been nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. It was my desire to displace the President of Mexico, whose actions were very offensive to me. LLOYD GEORGE. You deeply interest us, Mr. Presi- dent. The citizens of my country have nearly a billion dollars of investments in Mexico and they have suffered grave injuries from the disorder that there prevailed. Your handling of the Mexican problem is therefore of deep interest to us. What was your real objection to Huerta? WILSON. He had a refractory method of talking back to me, which I did not like. He was a strange man and little appreciated my efforts to secure a bet- ter government for Mexico. You will be surprised to know that, after I had disclaimed any intention to intervene in the internal affairs of Mexico, and after I had expressed my most "scrupulous regard for the sovereignty and independence of Mexico/' and had merely suggested to Huerta that Mexico should forth- with hold another election for the Chief Magistracy, in which he should not be a candidate, he resented this and was bold enough to assert the right of the Re- public of Mexico to have such government as it pleased, to hold an election and to elect whom it pleased. I resented the effrontery of this reply. In my classrooms at Bryn Mawr and Princeton, it had not been my custom to tolerate back talk from those who listened to my words of instruction. All this, I communicated to them not through the regular representative of the United States in Mexico, but through a special representative, whom I sent there [47] THE PASSING OF THE NEW FREEDOM upon my own responsibility and without consulting the Senate. CLEMEN CEAU. All this is very interesting. We, in the Old World, had been puzzled as to the exact status of your Colonel House. He came to us in 1915 arid 1916, and apparently the ambassadors and ministers which your country had sent to our governments be- came junctus officio, and we were left to deal with Colonel House; and yet we were ignorant as to the scope of his authority. We now understand it better. WILSON. Yes; the Colonel was very useful to me. He never talked back. His mind ran fully along with mine. As the war clouds gathered, he agreed with me as to their shape, whether I thought they looked like a camel, a weasel, or a whale. His whole-hearted en- thusiasm in accepting my point of view I shall always gratefully remember. I sent him to Berlin during the winter of 1914-15, and suggested to the German Gov- ernment that I could make peace for them if they abandoned the war, by giving them the freedom of the seas. LLOYD GEORGE. Yes; we marked that. Did your Excellency appreciate that the " freedom of the seas," as Germany defined the doctrine, meant the destruction of the naval power of England, and therefore the de- struction of my nation as a power of the first rank? WILSON. I wished to end the war, and the freedom of the seas, whatever its consequences, was a small price to pay. The fact that it was your country which would have paid the price is of minor importance. Un- fortunately, your country was unwilling to accept this attempt to bring about a peace without victory ex- [48] MR. WILSON EXPLAINS THE NEW FREEDOM cept for Germany and I therefore sent Colonel House a second time to Berlin, in January, 1916. I found its government quite willing to use my good offices to bring about a "peace without victory," provided that Germany received suitable reparations, guaranties, and, above all, the freedom of the seas. On his return from Berlin, I put Colonel House into communication with the German Ambassador, Count von Bernstorff. The advantage of my extra- Constitutional State Department then became mani- fest. The eyes of my country and of the world were upon the State Department, and the occasional pro- nunciamentos which it issued over Mr. Lansing's name most of which I wrote were given a con- sideration which they did not deserve. My real nego- tiations to bring about a "peace without victory" were with the German Ambassador, through the serviceable Colonel House. My choice was admirable. Bernstorff accredited House to his Foreign Office as "wholly neutral, very discreet and deserving." In the autumn of 1916, we had reached an under- standing that I was to negotiate a movement for a peace conference to end the war. The exigencies of the presidential election compelled me to defer it. Imagine my surprise when the German Government, contrary to our understanding and entirely anticipating my peace overtures, proposed a peace conference on December I2th! Ignoring this attempt, I, on De- cember 1 8th, took the first step to sound public opinion by my note of that date, in which I suggested that the belligerents were, on their own statements, fighting for the same principles. Unfortunately my misguided [49] THE PASSING OF THE NEW FREEDOM countrymen did not receive my efforts with approval, and your Governments rejected the idea of a confer- ence at a time when, as you claimed, the German Kaiser was in a position to rattle his saber at the con- ference table. I thereupon, on January 22nd, made my great address to the Senate, in which I publicly ad- vocated a "peace without victory," a peace where there would be no victors or vanquished. CLEMENCEAU. Did your Excellency really believe that England and France, after each had sacrificed a million lives and uncounted billions of treasure, would have accepted such a peace, which would have brought to nought our sacrifices of a million lives ? WILSON. What could you do when I demanded it? You knew and I knew that, without the raw materials, the manufactures, and food supplies from America, you could not continue the war. A word from me to Congress, and an embargo would have been placed upon all exports to the belligerent nations. I knew my power. Imagine, then, my amazement when the German Government, notwithstanding this promising movement towards "peace without victory," on Janu- ary 3 ist, canceled the submarine pledges and created in America such a storm of indignation that even I was unable to control it. Nothing remained for me to do but to give Count von Bernstorff his passports. While my efforts to bring the war to an end under conditions that would have left neither victors nor vanquished were thus defeated by the incredible stupidity and ingratitude of the German Government, yet the value of my extra-Constitutional State Depart- ment appeared strikingly manifested by the fact that [50] MR. WILSON EXPLAINS THE NEW FREEDOM all of the negotiations between Colonel House and Count von Bernstorff had been kept a profound secret. My neutrality remained uncompromised. I there- fore continued Colonel House as my super-Sec- retary of State and super- Ambassador to all countries, and, in this way, secured a domination over the affairs of the world that I can proudly say none of my pred- ecessors ever enjoyed. Long before the Armistice, my worthy subordinate was organizing an elaborate department for the peace negotiations, which, at the time of the Armistice, had numbered hundreds of ex- perts, who have, as you know, accompanied me on my great armada to your shores. As a matter of form, I have brought Mr. Lansing with me; but you will see that Mr. Lansing will know little and Colonel House will know much, during the progress of the negotiations that are before us, of my intentions. I have thus shown that I can conduct the foreign affairs of the government without the advice and con- sent of the Senate, and through personal appointees in whose selection the Senate has no voice. This has given me a great power, which has brought me the enthusiastic acclaims of men of all nations. Under the Newtonian theory, it would have been impossible. Under the Darwinian theory, it is but the "survival of the fittest." Thus, in the long contest between the Congress and the Executive, which has marked the history of the American Government from its be- ginning, I am triumphant. CLEMENCEAU. We, in turn, cannot regret the turn of affairs which the stupidity of our enemy brought about; for, great as were your intended services in [51] I THE PASSING OF THE NEW FREEDOM peace, they were even far greater in war, after you had brought your country into the conflict. WILSON. Yes; it is a matter of regret that I did not earlier get into the war; for I should have brought it to a speedier conclusion. "Until the advent of America in the war, the Allied armies were inspired by no high ideals and were fighting with lowered heads, and it was not until they heard the accents of Amer- ica's ideals that they lifted their heads and raised their eyes to Heaven, and " CLEMENCEAU. And you say this to us, who repre- sent the heroes of the Marne, of Ypres, and of Verdun. When my poilus were saying to the armed millions of Germany, "You shall not pass/' your ideal, as I recall it, was that there was such a thing as "being too proud to fight." WILSON. You interrupt me. When, under my leadership, my armies came to your aid, "they were not like any other soldiers; they had a vision and were fighting in a dream, and they turned the whole tide of battle, and it never came back." LLOYD GEORGE. But, Mr. President, you will ad- mit the services of Great Britain's navy? They guarded your coasts as well as those of all the Allied nations. On all the waters of the high seas of all the world they kept watch and ward. WILSON [Calmly']. Even while I was typing my momentous addresses on the pride which will not fight and a peace without victory, I was "greatly sur- prised at the failure of the British Admiralty to use Great Britain's naval superiority in an effective way. I noticed that your Admiralty was helpless, to the [52] ' MIR. WILSON EXPLAINS THE NEW FREEDOM point of panic." Even after our entry into the war, my Secretary of the Navy made many suggestions, which they rejected for some reason of prudence. That your Jellicoes, Beattys, Beresfords and Fishers were un- willing to be guided by me and Daniels seemed very strange. To me, it was clear that it was not a time for prudence, but for boldness, even at the cost of great losses. For my part, I should willingly have sacrificed half of our fleet and half of your fleet to end the sub- marine peril. LLOYD GEORGE. Your willingness to make this sacrifice is very magnanimous. The only difficulty is that your nation had few, if any, of its battleships or larger cruisers in the zone of peril, and, had we fol- lowed your suggestion of a massed attack upon the submarine bases, we might have lost the flower of our fleet, and you, some smaller cruisers and torpedo chas- ers. However, it is a matter of regret that our Ad- miralty did not have the great advantage of your presence in London; for then our timidity and over- weaning prudence would have vanished. [Outside of the hall are heard loud cries of "WIL- SON! WILSON! Vive le President des Etats Unis!" Enter CLEMENCEAU'S secretary.} SECRETARY. Your Excellency, great crowds are massed outside and are loudly calling for President Wilson. [WILSON rises and assumes the pose of an inspired proplietJ] WILSON. Pardon me, gentlemen. The voice of the people calls me. Their will must be respected, [53] THE PASSING OF THE NEW FREEDOM even if governments are broken. The voice of the people is the voice of God. "I would a great deal rather know what the men on the train, by the way- side, in the shops and on the farms are thinking about and yearning for than hear any of the vociferous proclamations of policy which it is so easy to hear and so easy to read by taking up any scrap of printed paper." 1 CLEMENCEAU. Is not that a little hard on the rep- resentatives of the people? I am old-fashioned enough to deal with them, rather than with the men in the street. WILSON. I cannot agree with you. We must con- stantly renew our contacts with the people. "Unless a man gets these contacts, he grows weaker and weaker. * * * He needs them as Hercules needed the touch of Mother Earth. If you lift him up too high, or he lifts himself too high, he loses the contact, and therefore loses the inspiration." 2 CLEMENCEAU. May I venture to suggest to so great a scholar as the former president of Princeton University that it was not Hercules who needed the contact with his Mother Earth, but Antaeus, and that Hercules slew Antaeus by holding him up in the air until he grew weak, and then dashed him to the ground. I hope, for all our sakes, that your classical allusion may not prove to be a more telling analogy than we had anticipated; for your American Consti- tution is generally reputed by students of government 1 Address of Wilson on February 26, 1916, Congressional Rec- ord, Vol. LIII, p. 3308. 'Wilson's address at Congress Hall, Philadelphia, Oct. 25, Congressional Record, Vol. L, p. 5809. [54] MB. WILSON EXPLAINS THE NEW FREEDOM as a Hercules, and, if I correctly understand its funda- mental philosophy, it was conceived in a spirit of dis- trust towards unrestrained democracy, and its pro- visions, like the mighty muscles of Hercules, have from time to time first held aloft and then thrown statesmen who, like Antaeus, found their strength in contact with that most elusive and uncertain entity that we call "the people." [WILSON glares at CLEMENCEAU, who calmly folds his hands, covered with suede gloves, upon his knees and whose faced drops upon his breast in a prophetic reverie.] BALFOUR [Seeking to relieve a tense situation] . Your classical allusion, Mr. President, is delightful, even though a little inaccurate. I have noted in your par- liamentary discourses an unusual characteristic, and that is that you rarely quote any one. Except for some passing references in earlier writings to Bagehot and your effective use of Luther's famous phrase at the Diet of Worms, in your war address, I cannot recall an instance in which you have supported a view by quoting some great authority. WILSON. I do not quote; I am quoted. But the crowd still calls me. Pardon me, if, like Antaeus, I renew my contact with the people, and [looking sternly at CLEMENCEAU] no Hercules will break my strength. [He goes out on a balcony and addresses the multi- tude.'] LLOYD GEORGE. An extraordinary colleague, our American President. His "voices in the air" seem [55] THE PASSING OF THE NEW FREEDOM to be the voice of the mob; his "vision/' that of the typical exploiter of mob passion. But the masses ac- claim him as their hero. CLEMENCEAU. They also acclaimed Dr. Cook, for a time. Did not the Greeks say that " the laughter of the Gods is fatal to those who incite it" ? LLOYD GEORGE. Is he not the most egocentric of statesmen, unless we except the German Kaiser. I recall the words that Sidney Smith once wrote of Lord John Russell: "There is nothing he would not undertake. I be- lieve he would perform an operation for stone, build St. Peter's, assume (with or without ten months' notice) the command of the Channel Fleet; and no one would discover from his manner that the patient had died, that St. Peter's had tumbled down, and that the Channel Fleet had been knocked to atoms." CLEMENCEAU. An apt quotation. Only the Presi- dent would complain of such a limit upon his versatile capabilities. We spoke, a little while ago, of our di- vision of the world and reminded ourselves of Pompey, Caesar and Crassus. Our friend's assumed over-lord- ship reminds me of an analogy from classical myth- ology. You will remember that Jove made a similar division among an Olympian triumvirate. To Nep- tune, he assigned the sea; to Pluto, the lower regions; but, for himself, he claimed the rest of the earth, with an over-lordship over Neptune and Pluto. Our friend's conception of his place in Paris is not dis- similar. To England, he assigns the role of Neptune; to France, continental Europe, which, in its present chaos, is not unsuggestive of the Plutonic realm ; while MR. WILSON EXPLAINS THE NEW FREEDOM for himself, he reserves the control of the sunlit earth, with himself playing the role of Jove. [Loud cheers are heard: "Vive Wilson!"] Our friend returns. [Door opens and the President smilingly enter s.~\ WILSON. I have responded to their noble en- thusiasm. When I see the confidence they repose in me and the power that it gives me to destroy any government which opposes the people, I tremble at my own power. "The way to success is to show that you are not afraid of anybody, except God and His final verdict. If I did not believe in that, I would not believe in democracy." 1 [Door opens and CLEMENCEAU'S secretary again enters] SECRETARY. Your Excellency, a delegation is in an ante-chamber, which insists upon seeing President Wilson. They claim that he promised to see them in Paris, before the Peace Conference. WILSON. Who are they that thus intrude upon this inner conference where we are openly arriving at open covenants ? SECRETARY. They say they are a delegation of the Irish people. Their names are Messieurs Dunne, Ryan and Walsh. WILSON. Is Colonel House there? SECRETARY. Yes; he is talking with them and en- deavoring to dissuade them from insisting upon a; conference. 1 Address on July 4, 1914, at Philadelphia, Congressional Rec- ord, Vol. LI, App. 707. [57] THE PASSING OF THE NEW FREEDOM WILSON. Oh! that Tumulty were here. Tell House to keep them for ten minutes. [Exit secretary.'] WILSON [Turning to CLEMENCEAU]. Is there any private exit from this room? I have another engage- ment and I do not care to see these worthy gentlemen from America. They come to plead for a free Irish Republic. "It is not men that interest or disturb me primarily; it is ideas. Ideas live; men die." I cannot discuss the idea of an Irish Republic at this time. Let me out the side door. CLEMENCEAU [Turning to a door.] This way, your Excellency. We will meet again in the near future, and, in the meantime, I wish you a happy deliverance from your difficulties with the Irish delegation. [Exit MR. WILSON.] LLOYD GEORGE. The supreme egotist, as your Ex- cellency has defined him, seems to recognize one power stronger than his own. CLEMENCEAU. The Irish vote? I thought he feared nothing but God. LLOYD GEORGE. So Bismarck said of his Prussia; but he feared the Socialists, as our American friend fears his Irish fellow citizens. CLEMENCEAU. I cannot understand your concern and that of our valorous American idealist in the mat- ter of Irish aspirations. Your difficulties with the Irish people could be your greatest asset, and, appro-, priately exploited, would go far to pay your national debt [58] MB, WILSON EXPLAINS THE NEW FREEDOM LLOYD GEORGE. I fail to understand you. CLEMENCEAU. My suggestion would be that you recognize an Irish Republic but reserve the moving picture rights. Their commercial value would go far to relieve the anxiety of your Chancellor of the Exchequer. LLOYD GEORGE. I fear that Mr. Wilson has pre- empted that field. CLEMENCEAU. Well, we have had a lesson in Con- stitutional government, and we can now: understand much that was unintelligible to us before America's entry into the war. However, we dare not offend our friend; for he represents her power and resources. I have lived in America, and I know the passionate devotion of its people to their Constitution. For a time and especially during the period of a war they will remain silent while the Great Charter which their fathers gave them is treated as a "scrap of paper." But they are not fooled forever. Slowly but surely that mighty Hercules, the Ameri- can people, will hold our would-be Antseus aloft in the air, only to throw him to the Mother Earth of reality. After that rude shock, he will be the "mighty somnam- bulist of a shattered dream." [59] CHAPTER II THE OLD FREEDOM "Liberty, to be enjoyed, must be limited by law; for law ends where tyranny begins, and the tyranny is the same be it the tyr- anny of a monarch or of a multitude, nay, the tyranny of the multitude may be the greater, since it is multiplied tyranny." EDMUND BURKE. Having now considered the New Freedom, as ex- pounded by its foremost apostle, Mr. Wilson, let us briefly consider and contrast the Old Freedom, which was and fortunately still is. The Old Freedom under which the United States has grown immeasurably great was best defined by the founders of the American Commonwealth in the Con- stitution of the United States. Those who framed that wonderful document clearly recognized that in this democratic age all governments are obliged to steer between the Scylla of mobocracy and the Chary bdis of one-man despotism. They sought to avoid this by ordaining the noblest covenant of government that the wit of man has yet devised. Nothing was further from their thought than to give unrestrained power either to one man or to the people. The Constitution is a stand- ing protest against either despotism. It will be noted that in the Constitutional Conven- tion the very great men who participated in its debates never referred to democracy, except in condemnation [60] THE OLD FREEDOM of its excesses. The exact definition which they gave to the word democracy must be borne in mind. Democracy, as they defined it, was the direct action of the people. Republicanism, as they defined it and of which the Constitution is the noblest expression, was government by representatives chosen by the people. Thus James Madison, in the tenth of the Fed- eralist papers, declared that pure democracies "have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." Alexander Hamilton asserted that "the mem- bers most tenacious of republicanism were as loud as any in declaiming against the evils of democracy," and added : "Give all the power to the many, they will oppress the few; give all the power to the few, they will oppress the many. Both, therefore, ought to have the power, that each may defend itself against the other." To establish a government which would, in Hamilton's phrase, "unite public strength with indi- vidual security," the Constitution of the United States was ordained. When the Fathers met in the Constitutional Con- vention of 1787, they determined to create a repre- sentative democracy, and not a direct one. With full agreement on this basic idea, their final success was not reached without acute and almost fatal differences upon other questions. For nearly four months they labored in secret, with multiplied and accentuated dif- ferences : but the suspense ended and the crisis passed, Franklin, pointing to the half-disk of the sun, painted on the chair of the president of the convention, made THE PASSING OF THE NEW FREEDOM the prophetic remark that, while he had often, in the weary and arduous months of the Convention, won- dered whether that sun was a symbol of a rising or a setting sun for that America, to which he had freely given more than half a century of his noble life, con- cluded : "But now at length I have the happiness to know that it is a rising and not a setting sun." To-day, when the Sun, whose rising Franklin so clearly saw, is seemingly in its noontide splendor, with its rays illumining the whole world, we can see the full realization of the sage's prophecy. Its partial eclipse, which we owe to the "New Freedom," will be like all eclipses, only temporary. Indeed the sun of our constitutional freedom emerged in 1787 from an eclipse of popular government. The present organic unity of the United States blinds us to the terrible conditions out of which the Constitution grew, and this notwithstanding the fact that there is a re- markable similarity between world conditions in 1787 and those of the present hour. Then, as now, a world war had just ended. Then, as now, there had been a swift and terrible reaction in the souls of men from the nobility of purpose and the divine spirit of self- sacrifice that had animated the nations in their fierce struggle for existence. As Washington said, "The whole world was in an uproar," and again he said the difficulty was "to steer between Scylla and Charybdis." Especially deplorable were the conditions in the colonies in the years that had intervened between the THE OLD FREEDOM treaty of peace and the meeting of the Constitutional Convention. The days that followed Yorktown were as truly the times "that tried men's souls," as the period of bitter struggle, when the fortunes of Washington's little army found their lowest ebb at Valley Forge. In fact, the times were graver; for a nation can always resist external aggression better than internal dissension. The spirit of anarchy, or, as we would now say, Bolshevism, had swept a people already gravely tried in the fiery furnace of war. , Credit was gone, business paralyzed, and lawlessness rampant. Not only between class and class, but be- tween State and State, there were acute controversies and an alarming disunity of spirit. The currency of the little nation was valueless. It had shrunk to the nominal ratio of one cent on the dollar. Even its bonds were sold at one- fourth their value. The slang expression, "Not worth a Continental," is a surviving evidence of the contempt for the financial credit of the country. Tradesmen derisively plastered the walls of their shops with worthless bills. The armies were unpaid and only their love for their great leader kept them from open revolt. It seemed to many and to Washington himself that the heroic struggle for in- dependence would end in a general fiasco, which would confound the lovers of liberty in every land and again enthrone autocracy or anarchy. To weld thirteen jeal- ous and discordant States, inhabited by men of differ- ent races, creeds and classes, into a unified and efficient nation, was a seemingly impossible task. Its final [63] THE PASSING OF THE NEW FREEDOM accomplishment blinds us to the difficulty of the prob- lem. In those trying times it was to Washington that a distracted people turned. Having surrendered his com- mission as Commander-in-Chief, he had retired to Mount Vernon, believing that "the noon-tide of life was past" and that all that remained was "to glide quietly down a stream) which no human effort can ascend." He felt that his life-work was over; but viewed with acute apprehension the growing anarchy. At times even his brave spirit was discouraged. Writ- ing in 1786, he said: "I think often of our situation, and view it with concern. From the high ground we stood upon, from the plain path which invited our footsteps, to be so fallen, so lost, is mortifying; but everything of virtue has, in a degree, taken its departure from our land." When invited to attend the proposed Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, he at first declined. Sud- denly the news of Shay's rebellion in Western Massa- chusetts came to his startled ears. It was essentially, as we would now say, a Bolshevist movement, an up- rising of debtors to prevent the collection of debts or of taxes. Courts of law were seized to subvert order and destroy property rights. The revolution spread from Massachusetts to adjoining States, and threat- ened to strangle the infant Republic at its birth. Only an army of five thousand men and an actual battle sufficed to end it. Civil war had come. Washington saw this in his retirement at Mount Vernon. With acute anguish of spirit, he wrote : [64] THE OLD FREEDOM "What, gracious God, is man that there should be such inconsistency and perfidiousness in his conduct? It was but the other day that we were shedding our blood to obtain the constitutions under which we now live, and now we are unsheathing our swords to over- turn them. The thing is so unaccountable that I hardly know how to realize it or to persuade myself that I am not under an illusion of a dream." Once again the Father of his people came to their rescue. Turning his back upon the sweet retirement of Mount Vernon, which he had thought would be his solace for the nine years of absence during the great struggle, Washington again accepted the call of his country. So little was the interest in the project and so weak the faith in the possibility of any favorable result, that only a few delegates had arrived on the day set for the beginning of the Convention and for many days it was impossible to secure a quorum, but when it became known that Washington had come from Virginia, it had the same inspiring effect as when he galloped down the Freehold road and rallied his re- treating army at the Battle of Monmouth. While waiting for enough delegates to form a bare quorum of the proposed convention, Washington gathered the faithful few about him and, as Gouver- neur Morris narrated years afterwards, said: "It is too probable that no plan that we propose will be adopted. Perhaps another dreadful conflict is to be sustained. If, to please the people, we offer what we ourselves disapprove, how can we afterwards defend our work ? Let us raise a standard to which the wise [65] THE PASSING OF THE NEW FREEDOM and just can repair. The event is in the hand of God." How splendidly his faith was vindicated! By ap- pealing to the best in men, and not the worst, a work was wrought which has hitherto endured and which is the admiration of all men. The lesson then taught, which all generations of Americans can profitably re- member, is that the best- way to make democracy prac- ticable is to trust it by telling it the truth. This the Fathers did and their faith had the richest reward. When the terrible conditions out of which the Con- stitution was created are remembered, one can para- phrase the words of St. Paul : "It was sown in corruption, it is raised in incorrup- tion; it was sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it was sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it was sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body." It is a spiritual body; for the Constitution is something more than a written formula of government. It is a great spirit, the most quickening that now exists in the world. It is the highest assertion and, indeed, vindication, of the morality of government that the science of politics has yet given to the world. Under- lying its formal provisions is a profound moral philos- ophy, and it is this fact which gives to its perpetuity a deep ethical significance. Should the Constitution now be undermined by the inundating waves of So- cialism and Bolshevism, or by the more insidious and therefore more dangerous ideas of the "New Free- dom/' not only would the best hope of man in political [66] THE OLD FREEDOM institutions perish, but the cause of righteousness would suffer in the destruction of some of its basic principles. The great purpose of the Constitution is to reconcile the authority of government with the rights of the individual as a responsible moral being. It not merely "renders unto Caesar (the political state) the things that are Csesar's" ; but, in safeguarding the fundamen- tal moral rights of the individual, it "renders unto God the things that are God's." It must not be understood, however, that the Con- stitution was formulated in a spirit of political doc- trinarianism. Nothing was further from its purpose. Its simplicity and brevity alike repel the suggestion. Read as a mere legal document, it is as dry and pas- sionless as a manual of parliamentary law. Although it represented the concrete thought of more than fifty exceptionally able men, who had labored upon it for nearly four months, it contains little more than four thousand words, eighty-nine sentences, and about one hundred and forty distinct provisions. No document ever set forth more simply and briefly a comprehensive scheme of government. None of its provisions even remotely suggests a speculative political philosophy or theoretical abstrac- tions. The men who framed it were very practical men, and they were never more practical than when they formulated this wonderful instrument of govern- ment. They saw no visions and heard no voices in the air. In 1776 the task was to make America safe for democracy; in 1787 it was to make democracy safe for America. The latter was the more difficult task. [67] THE PASSING OF THE NEW FREEDOM While the Constitution apparently only deals with the practical and essential details of government, yet underlying these simply but wonderfully phrased dele- gations of power is a broad and accurate political philosophy, which constitutes the true doctrine of America, and, indeed, the "whole law and the prophets" of free government. Its principles are of eternal verity. They are founded upon the fundamental rights of man. They are not of the day or of temporary circumstances. If they are destroyed in principle, then the spirit of our government is gone, even if the form survive. The essential principles of the Constitution, which form its political philosophy and which at least at one time constituted the American doctrine of free govern- ment, may be summarized as follows : The first is representative government. In the dis- cussions before the Constitutional Convention, all speakers made a distinction between that which they called "democracy'* and that which they called "repub- licanism." By the former they meant direct legislative action by the people, or, as we would say, a pure de- mocracy. By "republicanism," they meant representa- tive government. However much the Fathers disagreed upon other questions, they were substantially of one accord in the opinion that wise, direct legislative action was im- possible without conference and that, in a common- wealth of many scattered communities, such a confer- ence was impracticable, especially in cities, where the size of the population made a town meeting impos- sible. Even in New England, the home of the town meet- [68] THE OLD FREEDOM ing, it was provided as early as 1635 that wherever a community had more than five thousand inhabitants legislation should be committed to representatives, to whom they gave the title "Selectmen." The fathers had in mind the weakness of former republics, such as those of Greece and Italy, where the peoples attempt- ed themselves to enact laws in tumultuous assemblies with only one result disunion, civil strife and final anarchy. The second principle of the Constitution was our dual form of government. The thirteen colonies were most reluctant to surrender even a portion of their sovereignty to the Federal Government. They were widely scattered communities and varied greatly in racial origin and local habits and customs. They were tenacious of the great principle of home rule, and, even when our country did not extend beyond the Alle- ghenies, there was, on the part of the local communi- ties a deep-rooted objection to being governed by a central power. Only the immense influence of Wash- ington triumphed over this feeling of local independ- ence, and success could only be secured by confining the Federal Constitution to those matters of general con- cern which required of necessity a common rule and which each state was incompetent to determine for it- self. For this reason the Tenth Amendment, without which the Constitution would not have been ratified, was formulated, providing that all rights not expressly delegated to the Federal Government should be re- served forever to the States and the people thereof. The third principle was the guaranty of individual liberty through Constitutional limitations. This marked [69] THE PASSING OF THE NEW FREEDOM the great contribution of America to the science of government. In all previous government building, the state was regarded as a sovereign, which would grant to individuals or classes, out of its plenary power, certain privileges or exemptions, which were called "liberties." Thus the liberties which the barons wrung from King John at Runnymede were virtually exemp- tions from the power of government. Our fathers did not believe in the sovereignty of the state in the sense of absolute power, nor did they believe in the sover- eignty of the people in that sense. The word "sover- eignty" will not be found in the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence. They believed that each individual, as a responsible moral being, had certain "inalienable rights" which neither the state nor the people could rightfully take from him. This conception of individualism was wholly new and is the distinguishing characteristic of American constitutionalism. As to such reserved rights, guaran- teed by Constitutional limitations, and largely by the first ten Amendments to the Constitution, a man, by virtue of his inherent and God-given dignity as a human soul, has rights, such as freedom of the press, liberty of speech, property rights, and religious free- dom, which even one hundred millions of people can not rightfully take from him. The Fathers did not believe that the oil of anointing that was supposed to sanctify the monarch and give him infallibility had fallen upon the multitudinous tongue of the people to give it either infallibility or omnipotence. They be- lieved in individualism. They were animated by a sleepless jealousy of governmental power. They be- [70] THE OLD FREEDOM lieved that the greater such power, the greater the danger of its abuse. They believed that that people was best governed which was least governed. They felt that the individual could generally best work out his own salvation, and that his constant prayer to Gov- ernment was that of Diogenes: "Keep out of my sun- light." The worth and dignity of the human soul, the free competition of man and man, the nobility of labor, the right to work, free from the tyranny of state or class, this was their Gospel. Socialism was to them abhorrent. This theory of government gave a new dignity to manhood. It exalted the human soul as no previous governmental institution had ever done. It said to the State : "There is a limit to your power. Thus far and no further, and here shall thy proud waves be stayed." Closely allied to this doctrine of limited govern- mental powers, even by a majority, is the fourth prin- ciple of an independent judiciary. It is the balance wheel of the Constitution, and to function it must be beyond the possibility of attack and destruction. Our country was founded upon the rock of property rights and the sanctity of contracts. Both the nation and the several States are forbidden to take away life, liberty or property "without due process of law." The guar- antee is as old as Magna Charta; for "due process of law" is but a paraphrase of "the law of the land," without which no freeman could be deprived of his liberties or possessions. "Due process of law" means that there are certain fundamental principles of liberty, not defined or even THE PASSING OF THE NEW FREEDOM enumerated in the Constitution, but having their sanc- tion in the free and enlightened conscience of just men, and that no man can be deprived of life, liberty or property, or of his right to the pursuit of happiness, except in conformity with these fundamental decencies of liberty. It is the contradiction of Bolshevism, which means the unrestrained rule of a class. To protect these even against the will of a majority, however large, the Judiciary was given unprecedented powers. It threw about the individual the solemn circle of the law. The fifth fundamental principle was a system of governmental checks and balances, whereby it was sought to divide official authority and responsibility in order that power should never be concentrated in one man, or even in one branch of the Government. The founders of the Republic were not enamored of power. They had just thrown off the tyranny of a king. They were as little disposed to accept the tyranny of a Parliament or Congress. As they viewed human history, the worst evils of government were due to excessive concentration of power, which like Othello's jealousy "makes the meat it feeds on." The sixth fundamental principle was a concurrent power of the Senate and the Executive over the for- eign relations of the Government. Nothing, excepting the principle of home rule, was of deeper concern to the framers of the Constitution, and in nothing did they make a more radical departure from all existing forms of government. When the Constitution was framed, nearly every government of Europe was a monarchy, and it was the accepted prin- THE OLD FREEDOM ciple that whatever control parliaments or other legis- lative bodies had over domestic concerns the right to determine the foreign relations of the government, including the issues of peace and war, was the exclu- sive prerogative of the sovereign. In England, the freest of all governments at that time, the only check on the power of the King to select the diplomatic rep- resentatives of the government, to make treaties, and generally to determine the issues of peace and war, was the power which the House of Commons had over the purse of the nation. If the King had the necessary means to make war without a parliamentary grant, he was free to do so. But, as he rarely had sufficient means, he was generally dependent upon Parliament for the necessary grants. Many of the greatest strug- gles for English liberty concerned the attempt of the King to exact money without parliamentary grant, in order to carry on wars in which his dynasty was engaged. When the Constitutional Convention met, it was at first resolved that the power to appoint ambassadors, ministers, and consuls, and to make treaties, should be ves; ?d exclusively in the Senate, as the body that most directly and equally represented the constituent States. It was, however, recognized by these practical men that the Senate was not always in session, and that it was not easy for a body, consisting originally of twenty-six men, to negotiate treaties with advantage, and therefore it was finally resolved that the President should "with the advice and consent of the Senate," appoint ambassadors, ministers and consuls, and make treaties; but that, if a declaration of war was contem- [73] THE PASSING OF THE NEW FREEDOM plated, only the concurrence of both houses of Congress could authorize such a declaration. The language of the Constitution was drawn with the greatest precision. It is a model of literary style. In it, there is no tautology 7 , not even a wasted word, and when, therefore, the Constitution made necessary the ''advice and consent of the Senate," something more than a mere ratification of an appointment or of a treaty was in contemplation. The word "advice" clearly meant cooperation with the Executive in an advisory capacity before a conclusion was reached and the nation, to some extent, morally committed. It was the undoubted intention of the Fathers to make the Senate the final and principal treaty-making power, and, as such, to enable it, at any stage of the negotiations, either to propose a treaty to the Execu- tive, to whom the task of negotiation with other na- tions was committed, to express disapproval of treaties in contemplation, to determine the suitability of those who were appointed to negotiate a treaty, to advise with the President at any stage of the negotiations, and, finally, to consent to, or reject, or to amend, any tentative draft. As America is now the first power of the world and is destined to play the most potential part in shap- ing its destinies, it is vitally important that any deci- sion which affects the future relations of this govern- ment with the rest of the world should have the con- sideration and approVaJ, nort: merely of the Chief Magistrate, but of that body of Congress which, in a peculiar way, represents the sovereign common- wealths of the Federal Union. [74] THE OLD FREEDOM This was recognized by the first Presidents, those who had sat in the Constitutional Convention which framed the Constitution, and therefore knew best the intentions of its framers. Thus, President Washington on more than one occasion appeared before the Senate and asked its instructions as to the character of the negotiations which he intended to initiate. In his con- duct of foreign relations he kept in the most intimate touch with the Senate, in order to be sure that he would not exceed their wishes in what he was attempting to do. Thus, on April 16, 1794, he consulted the Senate as to the propriety of sending John Jay to England to negotiate the so-called "J a y Treaty," and gave his reasons and suggested the policy that he would instruct Mr. Jay to follow. Washington's successor, President Adams, followed the same procedure. Jefferson, when he sent Living- ston and Monroe to France to negotiate for the acqui- sition of Louisiana, suggested his proposed policy and invited the Senate's assent or dissent. Gradually, however, a different procedure was adopted. For many reasons the President preferred to initiate the negotiations on his own responsibility and to defer any formal consultation with the Senate until he was prepared to submit a treaty in a concrete form. Even in these cases the President generally conferred informally with Senators, in order to be sure that he did not go to lengths which they would not sanction. In ignoring the Senate in the initial stages of negotia- tion, these former Presidents did so only in cases where they felt a reasonable certainty that the Senate would subsequently ratify their action. In all cases of doubt [75] THE PASSING OF THE NEW FREEDOM the President, in order to prevent such a catastrophe as has now happened, either took the advice of the Senate as a body before initiating or concluding nego- tiations, or at least conferred with the Committee on Foreign Relations. Thus, as late as December I7th, 1861, President Lincoln sent to the Senate a draft of a convention proposed by the Mexican Government, not for ratification, but merely to ask their advice and whether he should proceed with the negotiations. A year later he again asked advice as to what instructions he should give the American diplomatic representative in Mexico, and when the Senate passed a resolution that it regarded the proposed policy inadvisable, Presi- dent Lincoln, in a message dated June 23rd, 1862, said : "The action of the Senate is, of course, conclusive against acceptance of the treaties on my part." In 1871 President Grant transmitted a dispatch from the American Minister to the Hawaiian Islands and asked the advice of the Senate as to the policy to be pursued. Again, in 1872, the same President asked the advice of the Senate with respect to the differences which had arisen with England under the Treaty of Washington. In 1884 President Arthur asked the advice of the Senate as to how he should proceed with negotiations with the King of Hawaii for the extension of the exist- ing reciprocity treaty. In 1888 the Senate asked President Cleveland to open negotiations with China for the regulation of immigration. Without multiplying precedents, which are numer- ous, it is enough to say that not only have previous [76] THE OLD FREEDOM Presidents kept in touch with the Senate in negotia- tions, but the power of the Senate to shape them finally has been demonstrated by the fact that, in the matter of sixty-eight treaties with foreign countries, the Senate refused its ratification until amendments which they advised were accepted. The final power of the Senate has been repeatedly demonstrated by the complete rejection of many treaties favored by the Executive. Undoubtedly in relatively unimportant negotiations, where the President can proceed with safety, he has negotiated without preliminary consultation with the Senate. But in all grave matters, especially where the issues of peace or war are concerned, every President, prior to the Treaty of Paris, consulted, formally or informally, with the Senate, and, as the latter has become a very large and cumbrous body, the method that has been followed generally in recent years is for the President to discuss matters of international policy with the Committee on Foreign Relations. As to many questions, especially in the initial stages, he m^y con- sult only with the members of that Committee who are of his own party; but in all grave crises, which rise above party politics, it was hitherto the unbroken custom for the President to confer with the members of the Committee on Foreign Relations, without re- spect to party. The most recent illustration of this was the Spanish-American War, when President McKinley, as the crisis developed, called into frequent consulta- tion the entire body of the Committee on Foreign Relations, and, when that war was ended, the Presi- dent sent, as Commissioners to Paris, members of both [77] THE PASSING OF THE NEW FREEDOM the political parties, including a distinguished Demo- cratic Senator, who was not on domestic questions in political sympathy with the Administration. In this way the Constitution has been so interpreted and applied that hitherto party politics stopped at the margin of the ocean, and America pursued, with ref- erence to foreign affairs, a reasonably united policy. It is obvious from what has preceded that President Wilson, in his negotiations at Paris, did not follow the wholesome and consistent precedents of his predeces- sors. He did not offend the letter of the Constitution, but he did not observe its spirit, which commanded him to "make," i.e., negotiate, his treaties with the "advice" of the Senate. He has the justification that he works best alone and when least interfered with by divided counsels. Conflicts of opinion confuse him, and he has little of the judicial faculty of weighing the pros and cons of a question, and then deciding upon which side the balance lies. When President Wilson returned to America with the first draft of the Covenant of the League, the dis- sent of the Senate though informally expressed was unmistakable. Thereupon the Paris Conference, in Mr. Wilson's absence, wisely decided to make a Treaty of Peace first with the Central Powers, and then consider, in a supplemental treaty, a League of Nations. On President Wilson's return to Paris he insisted that this action should be reversed, and the fatal blunder of the European Peace Commissioners was that they yielded to this demand, and, to please Mr. Wilson, forced the Covenant of the League back into the Peace Treaty. The obvious purpose was to compel, or at least induce, [78] THE OLD FREEDOM the Senate to accept it as a choice of evils. While it may not have been so intended, in effect this was a challenge and almost an affront to the Senate and to a majority of the American people, who had, in the preceding November, given emphatic expression to their unwillingness to make President Wilson the sole judge of the extent and manner of America's participa- tion in the proposed Treaty. It has been generally assumed that, if the Senate of the United States had ratified the Treaty with the so-called "Lodge reservations," the President had power and would have exercised the power to pigeon- hole the treaty, and thus ignore the judgment of the Senate as to the terms upon which the United States should enter the proposed League of Nations. Has the President such right? It cannot be gainsaid that, as a mere juridical ques- tion, the President has such right. From the general provisions of the Constitution, an unwritten provision has been evolved, which gives to the President, except as the Senate may act as a brake in the matter of appointment and treaty ratification, the full control over the foreign relations of the government. This power, which I believe the frame rs of the Constitution never intended, is derived from the power of the Presi- dent to receive foreign diplomatic representatives and to make treaties. If the Senate had ratified the Peace Treaty with reservations which were objectionable to the President, his legal right, under the present generally accepted interpretation of the Constitution, to nullify the Treaty by pigeon holing it cannot be denied. The power has [79] THE PASSING OF THE NEW FREEDOM been exercised without challenge by many of his prede- cessors. A more serious question is whether the President has any moral power thus to disregard the will of the representatives of the States which form the Union in a matter that was so plainly committed to their final judgment. There is a clear difference between legal or technical constitutional power, and that which Grote once called "constitutional morality." The President is under a moral obligation, by reason of the whole spirit of the Constitution, to do things which, if he fails to do, he could not be justly subjected to im- peachment. Such a moral duty, in my judgment, rests upon the President to accept the judgment of the Senators, when such judgment is reached by a two- thirds vote. The spirit of the Constitution imposes upon the President, as a moral duty, the responsibility of doing nothing which he has reason to believe the Senate will reject; but this is merely the negative or passive part of his duty. In my judgment, there is upon him an active and affirmative moral duty to defer to the wisdom of the Senate in the matter of our for- eign relations. The Founders of the Republic believed, and, as I think, wisely believed, that the representatives of the sovereign States assembled in high council would have a wiser, or at least a safer, judgment than the President as to what treaties America should accept. Sound Constitutional morality requires that, when two- thirds of the Senate differ with the President as to the form of a treaty, he should defer to their views, and certainly this view has sanction in the basic theory of democracy that it is more likely that one official is [so] THE OLD FREEDOM wrong when he differs from two-thirds of the Senate than that so large a number of Senators are wrong in their view. I admit that this view is old-fashioned and reaction- ary; but, if America is to be involved in the affairs of the world, it will become increasingly important that we should so far go back to the Constitution of the Fathers as to accept that construction of the Constitu- tion. The question of constitutional morality turns, not upon that which the President has the strict, legal power to do, but also upon the question as to what he ought to do to carry out the fundamental purpose of the Constitution. It is this division of responsibility between the Executive and the Senate that makes it so difficult, if not impossible, for the United States to take any active part in the Executive Council of the League of Nations. Had the United States decided thus to participate, it could not have been an effective member of the Execu- tive Council without a substantial modification of those provisions of the Constitution which relate to the treaty-making power. As long as the United States was detached from the European polity, its cumbrous method of making treaties with other nations was workable; but if it enters into the European polity the greatest in dignity, at least, if not in effect upon the interests of the country is its right to a ruling voice in the ratification of treaties with foreign powers. The President really has no voice at all in the con- clusions of the Senate with reference to his diplomatic transactions, or with reference to any of the matters upon which he consults it. He is made to approach that body as a servant conferring with his master, and of course deferring to that master. His only power of compelling compliance on the part of the Senate lies in his initiative in negotiation, which affords him a chance to get the country into such scrapes, so pledged in the view of the world to certain courses of action f that the Senate hesitates to bring about the appearance of dishonor which would follow its refusal to ratify the rash promises or to support the indiscreet threats, of the Department of State." 1 To defeat my enemies in the Senate, I propose to get my country into such a "scrape" as it never was before, by making it a necessity to accept the League of Nations, which it might otherwise reject, or sacri- fice the great name which it now enjoys as the world pacificator. It is essential to my plans that I create a situation which will make it impossible for the Sen- ate to exercise an independent judgment and this 1 Wilson's Constitutional Government in the United States. [126], "IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN" must be done if I am to participate in the coming conference. CLEMENCEAU [Quietly]. Why again "must," Mr. President? Since Napoleon, the word "must" has not been applied to the representatives of the great Euro- pean powers. WILSON [Angrily]. I meet your challenge. I hold the sword and purse of America, and, for all practical purposes in this conference, I do not represent America / am America. The events of the last five years should teach you this. I kept my country out of the war as long as it pleased me. I led it into the war when again it pleased me. I still control its credit and gran- aries, and if Europe wants money and food and I think it is in sore need of both it must respect my wishes. CLEMENCEAU. You amaze us in your arbitrary demands. Who won this war? And who has the best right to impose the terms of peace? WILSON. Without the army and the navy of the United States, of which I am the Commander-in-Chief, what would be your situation now? CLEMENCEAU. For every dollar that your country spent, France spent five; for every life that it gave to the great cause, France gave at least eleven. Let me ask you, Mr. President, between 1914 and 1918, who were defending the frontiers of civilization when you were working overtime on your typewriter? WILSON [Ignoring CLEMENCEAU] . I still insist that, whatever be the result, the Covenant must be a part of the treaty with Germany. I must return to America with my Covenant ratified by the conference. "I speak THE PASSING OF THE NEW FREEDOM for the peoples of the world. When I speak of the nations of the world, I do not speak of the governments of the world. I speak of the peoples who constitute the nations of the world. They are in the saddle and they are going to see to it that if their present governments do not do their will, some other governments shall. And the secret is out and the present governments know it." [CLEMENCEAU closes his eyes, crosses his hands, cov- ered with suede gloves, on his lap, and, sitting back in his chair, apparently sinks into a dreamy reverie. A prolonged silence ensues, during which ORLANDO and LLOYD GEORGE look anxiously first at the President, who is standing erect, leaning with a clenched fist upon the table, and then upon CLEMENCEAU, with a face as impassive as parchment, as he, with half-closed eye- lids, dreamily looks upon the clock, as though it were a symbol of the future. Finally, CLEMENCEAU breaks the painful silence.] CLEMENCEAU. Well, we will not. WILSON. [Greatly astonished, his voice shaken with emotion]. Will not? CLEMENCEAU. [Quietly but firmly]. Will not. WILSON. Your attitude, gentlemen, is an affront. You ask the scope of my credentials, although I am ihere in my own right and in my own proper person. It