Belmont High School - Blueprint Yearbook (Belmont, MA)

Page 33 text:

1923 THE CHAMELEON 1923 The League of Nations was nothing more or less than a scheme for a brotherhood of world powers wherein disputes and altercations were settled arbitrarily by a world tribunal, which should include a representa- tive of every European power. I grant that it was an inconsistent policy to present such an ambitious achievement at a Conference gathered for a different purpose; but who can gainsay the fact that it would be difficult to discover a more auspicious occasion for its promulgation, than that immediately following the most disastrous war the civilized world has ever witnessed? President Wilson in his speech said, “We still read Jefferson’s immortal warning against entangling alliances, but we recognize and accept the duty of a new day in which we are permitted to hope for a more general under- standing and maintenance of common rights.” In the same speech he added, “Let me say that the United States is prepared to assume her full share of responsibility for the maintenance of the common Covenants upon which peace must henceforth rest.” Upon the presentation of the Peace Treaty with its addenda the League of Nations to America, it was subjected to a great deal of opposition, criti- cism and revision. The American people felt disfavorably toward the pol- icy of isolation which they had so unceremoniously dispensed with in 1917. The Peace Treaty and Covenant of the League of Nations were rejected unanimously by the United States Senate whose President had been in- strumental in its formulation. The American people depreciated the prophetic appeal of the League in order to make it the subject of contro- versy between two dominant political parties. It required vision and fore- sight to grasp the possible beneficial effects of the Covenant on the world, but the public construed it simply as a subject for a political contest. The country of today cannot adopt the same narrow methods in its for- eign policy as it did in the days of Washington and Jefferson. Space, if it has not been annihilated, has at least been contracted, to such a point that the prosperity of every nation, including, of course America, depends upon a relative degree of stability of world conditions. America cannot remain solid and unmoved economically on the shaky foundation of world deflation. The League of Nations is in existence today, and is functioning in a decidedly useful manner, albeit, much of its authority and influence have been depreciated through the withdrawal of America in the solving of world problems. A power so far-reaching in its influence as the United States can no longer afford — in its own interest and those of Europe — to be reluctant to participate in the affairs of the world. Laurence Wray. league of Natiaus — u{l)c Snnm of OPur J oltcg of 3laolattou (A Second Member Considers the League of Nations Impractical and Sup- ports Isolation) The history of Europe has been one continual record of excessive tur- moil. Shameless auctions of peoples were frequently resorted to in order to satisfy the greedy lust of Imperialistic might. Alliance and counter- alliance, treaties, secret and otherwise were but pawns in the European policy of “balance of power” — a policy which kept at white heat the mutual jealousies, hatreds, fears, and other petty animosities which fed the conflagration of European wars. It is with little wonder, then, that the statesmen of America should [31 ]

Page 32 text:

1923 THE CHAMELEON 1923 easier, but it actually makes them less difficult by the background which it provides ; it is a firm foundation for the intellectual life of any man or woman. Indeed, it not only leads to a better understanding of life but it prepares one for a happier and more serviceable existence among men. Richard Loud. iSaoiug ©tie’s Photngraph eaken Having one’s photograph taken — what an ominous sound! Instinct- ively we couple it with having teeth pulled and similar ordeals. Are not the incidents attendant upon the last time you went still fresh in your mind with all the poignant freshness of a something that has seared the soul? The setting — a studio lined with faces : funny faces, serious faces, faces of all types and nationalities united by a common purpose and looking curiously alike. Alike, not in feature and in shape, but in the grim and determined expression peculiar to them all. The same light at the same angle has illuminated all those faces. Done in black and white or in the warmer sepia, with all wrinkles and traces of individuality removed, they gaze down upon one, faces all, with two eyes, a nose, and a mouth, but with expression? No. The same tree stands sturdily behind them all, lending moral support, or perhaps it is only for artistic effect. Who can delve into the wherefores of a photographer’s doings? The young coquette in all the glory of her vanity and youth, hangs be- side her grandame, whose placid face is not one whit more guilty of wrinkles, frowns or blemishes than the granddaughter of twenty. Is not that cruel and unkind? Somehow the grandmother has lost all that we love in her by the ruthlessness of the artist’s “touching up.” But even as I sit and philosophize, time in her flight has overtaken me and I too must go even as others have gone from that same waiting-room. The chair awaits me, the light is lit and set, and ah! joy to my soul, the tree is there. Now that I see that, I can summon courage to advance. I sit, the photographer takes my chin in one hand and the back of my care- fully coiffured head in the other. Cautiously he tilts my head forward, then gingerly upward and to the right while I long to tell him that my neck is not brittle and that it really will not come off in his hand. Presently as I sit there, eyes at an angle of sixty degrees, face at an angle of thirty degrees, he disappears behind a big black cloth ; he murmurs “ah !” snap ! The deed is done. “Wonderful expression,” he murmurs, ushering me out. Ere long I, too, shall join the throng on the wall in the waiting-room, I, with my two eyes, a nose, and mouth will look just like the others. What a pity the thought never struck me before. Why did I not order a dozen of any one of the samples I liked best? It would have saved me so much trouble. Priscilla Henshaw. I0hg America i?linulh JJarticipatc in IBnrlii Affairn (One Member Supports a World Policy for the United States) In the year 1919 a Great Peace Conference met at Versailles, to effect an amicable decision concerning the indemnities to be imposed upon the vanquished power, against whom we had but recently been in arms. This Conference gave birth to one of the most skilfully prepared conciliatory documents that has ever been composed. President Wilson used all his influence to have the work presented to the Allies in conjunction with the Peace Treaty. It made allowance for Germany’s participation at a later date when she would have cleared herself in the eyes of the world. [30]

Page 34 text:

1923 THE CHAMELEON 1923 be apprehensive for the future of the young Republic if by chance it should allow itself to become associated with the intriguing powers oi Europe. These men had been schooled in the harmful diplomacy of the Old World. They knew its deadly dangers. And, having given their best efforts, un- selfishly, to the formation of the United States of America, they ardently desired that the individuality of that nation be preserved. Thus it is that we have the paternal advice of Washington, and again, that of Jefferson, warning their country against “entangling alliances” of Europe. That the United States heeded their words is shown by the adop- tion of the Monroe Doctrine as a distinct American policy. The Monroe Doctrine aims to preserve the sovereignty of the demo- cratic states of North and South America. It demands that the European nations keep away from the two Americas, while it gives an assurance of the American desire for a policy of “Isolation.” Under this policy America has grown to be a prosperous nation of great power, both politically and financially. In the practically one hundred and fifty years of her existence, the United States had had no foreign wars of great duration; the few she has had were amicably settled for all concerned. In no case were “entangling alliances” with European nations resorted to, with one exception — that of the World War if that can be called “en- tangling.” With two exceptions, the United States has kept strictly to the Monroe Doctrine. Those two exceptions are as follows: the taking over of the Philippine Islands which, of course, are in the Eastern Hemisphere; the other case is that of the World War. Time has shown the sagacity of the first exception; the Philippines will prove a strong barrier against Japanese Imperialism. That the second exception was fully justified, we all agree. Now the question is: Because of these two emergency cases, and because of increased American interests in Europe, ought we to make our stand consistent, renounce the IMonroe Doctrine which is essentially the policy of “Isolation?” I do not believe so. My reasons are as follows: first, in view of the prosperous and comparatively untroubled state of existence already en- joyed by the United States in its adherence to the policy of Isolation, I be- lieve it best to let wel lenough alone; second, I do not believe in the present League of Nations, the proposed institution by which the United States should enter World affairs; third, Europe is still the same distrustful, intriguing continent as in the time of Washington. I think we will all agree on my first reason, for none can dispute the marvelous, and, for the most part, peaceful growth of the United States. The evidence is indisputable. We also recognize the wisdom of allowing a smoothly running policy to continue on its successful course and not to disturb the mechanism or refuse the oil of our support, in order to try another policy which is of an inferior, and, if the record of European af- fairs of the last century or two count for much, thoroughly discredited (luality. The second reason is more open to debate. I find that even among the great statesmen of the day there is a decided difference of opinion on the subject. Nevertheless, I shall give my reasons for opposition to the League as I see it. First, of course, I do not believe that the United States should give up its policy of Isolation or the Monroe Doctrine which she must do on becoming a member of the League. Further. I believe this reason to be subordinated to a more imi)ortant one, — that is, the i)resent L ‘ague of Nations cannot accomjilish its purpose, nor can it benefit the United States. [32]