The American primer; a political text-book and voters guide, comprising twelve lessons in practical Americanism, and A first reader for first voters, giving valuable historic facts and modern instances, to be used in connection with the primer

Front matter

MS?

pH83

I Copy 1

Foreword

I have written this little PRIMER AND FIRST READER in simple words, in the hope of assisting the new voters and the -busy citizens who have not time to read long arguments in large words. I assume entire responsibility for the contents, and no Committee is asked to share it with me.

As the reelection of Lincoln, in 1864, was necessary to preserve the Union, so, today, the election of Harding is absolutely necessary to preserve sane American ideals, I have served in Congress during the last four years of Woodrow Wilson's term as President, and I know that no other President has ever so wilfully and wantonly disobeyed his oath of office, by violating the CONSTITUTION and breaking the Statutory Law of his country.

President Wilson declared war without the consent of Congress, by committing acts of war in Russia. From the grave of every American boy buried in Siberia and North Russia, comes the cry for impeachment ; while, from the Democratic candidate for President, come words of flattery and approval of policy.

As an illustration in double-dealing, let me ask you to read this small deadly parallel, and, since one of the statements must be a falsehood, you say which it is:

PLEASE NOTE THE DATES; BOTH BY WOODROW WILSON

"We, therefore, are disposed to "The instructions to General

help Kolchak with munitions, sup- Graves direct him not to interfere in

plies and food, to establish them- Russian affairs. * * *." selves as The Government of All the Russias."

General Pershing, on page fifty-five of his Report, tells which is true and which is false, saying that the troops were sent to fight "against the Bolshevist forces."

ONE MORE ILLUSTRATION, BY WAY OF DEADLY PARALLEL;

NOTE. THE DATES AND DECIDE WHICH STATEMENT IS TRUE

From Wilson's Speech The following from a Secret

Spokane, September 12, 1919. Agreement Signed on May 6, 1919,

" * * * only in the Assembly" at Paris.

does Great Britain have six votes. "The question having been raised

And at San Francisco, September as to * * * " whether the Do-

17, 1919. minions of the British Empire can

•' * * * in the Council, there have representatives in the Council,

is a perfect equality of votes. * * *" "we have no hesitation in expressing

our entire concurrence in this view. * * * * "

"(Signed") G. Clemenceau,

Woodrow Wilson.

D. Lloyd George."

When he made the speeches in September, had he forgotten the statement signed in May? Is there any rule in diplomacy, which excuses a President for deceiving the people?

Mr. Wilson again tried to deceive the people and excuse the Allies for stealing Shantung, by saying, at Saint Louis, that Shantung was promised to Japan in order to get her into the war. However, his attention was called to the fact that Japan had been in the war for nearly three years before this secret promise was made. He then admitted his misstatement, but continued to repeat it.

This same Woodrow Wilson has further violated his oath to uphold our CONSTITUTION, by accepting "presents" from foreign governments, and he violated the Act of Congress of January 31, 1881, by refusing' to turn those presents over to the Secretary of State, while awaiting the action of Congress.

His Party favorites have stolen themselves rich, and go unwhipped of Justice. He finds us "at peace," to protect the sugar profiteers, and, at the same time, "at war," in order to imprison men who strike. Bellowing about his Democracy, he has been the greatest autocrat in the world, and, to climax his English career, he proposes to turn this Government over to a Court dominated by his mother's country.

Often I am asked why this President has not been impeached. The answer is simple.

While on his western tour, he was making misstatements about the League of Nations, and he was killing my constituents in Siberia without authority, and I prepared Articles of Impeachment. Then he came to Washington a mental and physical wreck.

History impeaches him, and, in charity, let us hope that he may recover his mind and body and enjoy a long life under a sane, American, Republican President. But, as we value our country, let us also hope that the policies of Woodrow Wilson, now endorsed by James M. Cox, may take their leave of Washington, never to return.

THE AUTHOR.

Chicago, Illinois, September, 1920.

Part I The American Primer

LESSON I.

U. S.: WHO, WHAT, WHY AND HOW.

THE REPUBLIC. THE CONSTITUTION. THE FLAG.

YOUNG AMERICA: What is your name?

UNCLE SAM: They call me Uncle Sam. Who are you?

We are Young America, first voters, and, if you are Uncle Sam, we'd like to ask you a few questions.

Go ahead. Let us talk in small words about our great country, and we will try to understand what we talk about.

Is our country a kingdom?

No, it is not a kingdom.

Is it a pure democracy f

No, it is not a pure democracy.

Well, Uncle Sam, what is it?

It is a Republic.

What is a pure democracy?

It is a government where the majority rules in all things.

Does not the majority rule in all things in our Republic?

No, the majority cannot rule in all things in our Republic.

I thought it was our boast that the majority rules in the United States of America.

Those who so boast do not know about our CON-STI-TU-TION. Now, Young America, that is a long word. Read it over ; spell it ; and, when you understand it, you will know it is the greatest law which mankind ever devised, and it has done more for humanity than any other paper ever written by man.

But surely the majority governs in most things in our country?

Yes, in most things.

Tell me one thing in which the majority does not govern.

Well, the majority cannot compel the people to go to any particular church, or compel them to pay taxes to support any church. The majority cannot take your life or your liberty without giving you a trial bgfbre a jury. The majority cannot take your property without a hearing by ^ court and jury, and, when that majority does take your property it must be for public use, and you must be paid for it.

Did we ever, in this country, compel men to go to a particular church? Yes, and they would be fined if they failed to attend the church fixed by law. In some places, that might be done now, if it were not for the CON- STITUTION.

Say, Uncle Sam, that is a big word. We can see it has a big meaning, Tell us more about this CONSTITUTION. Can't Congress or the State Legislatures set it aside?

No, they cannot set it aside. Congress and the State Legislatures and the City Councils try to set aside this great law, but cannot do it.

Who decides whether a law shall stand, if it is passed by the United States Congress and is signed by the President, or if it is passed by a State Legislature and is signed by the Governor of that State?

The Supreme Court of the United States has set aside many laws passed by Congress and State Legislatures. For instance : the Law-making Powers frequently pass laws which deprive private citizens of their property without paying for it, and the Supreme Court has always set aside such laws.

Is not that a great power to give to a court?

Yes, it is a great power. Our forefathers who made the CONSTITUTION were wise men. They had been oppressed by a king, and they knew, from reading the history of the past, that the majority in a democracy would deprive the minority of -some of its natural rights. That was so much the case that a pure democracy would not last. And so our wise fathers said : "We cannot have a king, but must govern ourselves. However, before we turn over all power to the majority, we will make an agreeynent that if the majority tries to oppress the minority, by taking away any natural human right, then it shall be the duty of the Supreme Court to set aside that law which oppresses the minority."

What is a natural human right?

The right to life, liberty and to be happy are natural human rights.

But we take the lives of some for murder, and we put men in prison and won't let them be happy, don't we?

Yes. The man who murders another has deprived that other of his life; the man in prison has deprived some one else of his life, liberty or right to be happy. But under our CONSTITUTION, before anyone can be so punished, he must be tried as the CONSTITUTION provides.

Don't we in this country sometimes punish men without trial?

Yes. The mob does that. The mob is made up of the worst kind of criminals. They are half-witted and half insane. They not only kill people, but they try to kill our great law, THE CONSTITUTION. Some of these halfwits get excited about religion, some about politics and some about war, and, in their excitement, would kill everyone who does not agree with them. Sometimes the mob spirit gets into the law-makers, and, if it were not for our CONSTITUTION, they would oppress those who disagree with them. They have done so in scores of States, but our .Supreme Court has protected the people.

Suppose the Supreme Court makes a mistake?

Then we must obey its order and decision. That is the price we pay for being a Republic. As these Judges are appointed for life, they need not fear the majority when called upon to protect the minority. They are selected for their wisdom and good character, and they do their best to find out what is just. Honest and able judges disagree as to what is just, and to avoid the use guns and knives, we agree that the Supreme Court's decision shall be faithfully obeyed by every good man in the Republic.

Do not some Americans claim the right to disobey the law or to change the law by force?

No; those who do that are not Americans nor do they believe in our Republic. They are called Anarchists, and they do not believe in any government.

They teach throwing of bombs, burning homes. We have some of them in our Republic now ; they march under a red flag.

But I see many flags and banners that are not of our Republic?

Yes; scores of patriotic, fraternal and social organisations have flags to identify their societies. They believe in and teach patriotism, and are a part of our country's flag. Every patriotic banner makes a part of our flag. Look at our map. See the land from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico; from the Atlantic Ocean on the east to the Pacific Ocean on the west. Now, remember, once and forever, that, in all the sky that covers our land, there is room for ONLY ONE FLAG.

Well, Uncle Sam, we shall always love that flag. But is it not sometimes made use of by bad men?

Yes, Young America. Some of those who shouted loudest for our flag during the late war, were the biggest thieves and used the American flag to hide what they had stolen. Much hypocrisy hides behind the screen of religion; many rogues we find wearing the cloak of reform; and much injustice and crime is committed under the guise of patriotism.

LESSON II.

TREATIES— UNCLE SAM'S TREATIES

THE PRESIDENT'S PEACE TREATY AND THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

THE SENATE RESERVATIONS AND THE TREATY

A CAMPAIGN ISSUE.

YOUNG AMERICA. What is a TREATY?

UNCLE SAM : A treaty is an agreement or contract between two or more countries.

How many kinds of treaties are there?

There are many kinds of treaties : some are about peace and war; some about boundary lines; some about fishing and killing seals; some about trading with other nations. 4

Who can make a treaty for you, Uncle Sam?

The President and two-thirds of the Senate.

Can the President and the Senate make a treaty or agreement with other nations allowing those nations to say when we shall begin to kill?

No, certainly not.

Who has the power to say when we shall go to war?

The CONGRESS : that is, the House of Representatives and the Senate, both elected by the people.

Cannot the President tell us to fight?

No, he can be told when to fight by the Congress.

Can the President and the Senate tell us when to fight?

No, it takes both the House and the Senate to tell us when to fight, and the President has nothing to say, if he obeys the CONSTITUTION which he is sworn to do.

Well, what is a LEAGUE OF NATIONS?

You know what a baseball league is?

We surely do. The National League plays ball among its members, and the American League, among its members. Nations do not make leagues to play ball, do they?

No, they sometimes make leagues, agreeing to play war on the same side.

Have we a league or agreement to fight for any other nation?

No, but we came within fourteen votes of making, such an agreement.

When was that?

After our war with Germany was over, the President went to Paris to try to make a TREATY OF PEACE. He had an idea that, in making peace with Germany he could also make a "league" with other nations, of which league he would be the head. Then he could have his way in the world. He wanted, and still wants, to keep me at war until he can have his way and be the first man to call together the League of Nations.

Did the President go all alone? Did he take nobody with him?

Yes and no. He took thirteen hundred bodies with him, and the minds in those bodies also "went along" with his mind, except two or three minds that could not "go along" with his and brought their bodies back, and two or three others that let their bodies stay with the President, until he found out that their minds did not "go along" with his, and sent them home.

Did he consult no one?

Oh yes, he consulted great men from other countries.

Why did he not take some American Senators, as they have to consent to

the treaty?

Because he thought Republican Senators' minds could not change every time his did, and he thought Democratic Senators could not furnish any intelligent help. He knows them all very well, and some people think he is a very good judge of men, while others think not.

Is that the way other Presidents have negotiated treaties?

No, this President is the first one who ever appointed himself and refused to trust anyone but himself.

Did the Senate ratify, or accept the treaty which included the League of

Nations?

No.

PleSse tell me why. _

Well, you see President Wilson had never worked in cases like this, and he had to trade with smart men who have been trained to get the best bargain. One of the men with whom he traded was an Englishman, and Mr. Wilson, himself an Englishman and having written his belief that the English Constitution is better than our own, upon suddenly meeting kings and queens who flattered him and gave him and his wife beautiful and costly presents, accepted by him in violation of his oath, had his head turned, and struck out all the American things for which he had stood when he drew his original draft of a league of nations.

Did he have a draft of a league of nations when he went to Paris?

Yes. If you will read the evidence before the Senate Committee, of Mr. Bullitt who went to Paris with Mr. Wilson's party, you will see how the President had provided for equal representation for us and for self-determination and for all of his fourteen points, and then how he gradually abandoned every point.

Did the President approve the League of Nations?

Not after the Senate had put into it certain Reservations. He controlled enough votes in the Senate to defeat the whole Treaty.

What are these Reservations?

They are statements written into the Treaty by the Senate, which say, "We approve the Treaty with this understanding." Fourteen Reservations were adopted, and here is a TABLE showing that they were all passed by a large majority of the Senators.

TABT.I. SHOWIXG VOTK ON RESERVATIONS

vation. for. against. for. against, reser-

vation.

1 Right of United States to decide

when to withdraw 10 20 35 .. 25

2 No war for United States with-

out act of Congress 14 26 42 .. 30

3 No mandate without consent of

4 Right of United States to settle

domestic questions 14 25 42 .. 31

5 Retaining the Monroe doctrine. 17 22 41 .. 36

6 "Withholds assent of United

States to Japan's claim to

7 Appointments by President on

League Council, Assembl3 , etc., to be ratified by United States Senate 17 14 38 .. 41

8 United States commerce with

Germany not to be submitted

to league G 22 35 .. 19

9 Requires appropriation by Con-

gress for expenditures 8 25 38 . . 21

10 In war. United States reserves

right to increase armaments. 9 26 40 . . 23

11 Right of United States to per-

mit commercial relations Avlth covenant-breaking State 5 28 39 .. 16

12 Rights of Americans in certain 'v

property 8 2> 37 18

13 Reserves right of Congress to

accept labor provisions 6 27 3S . . 17

14 Demands equal representation

of United States with other

nations on League IC 27 41 .. 37

Did any Republican Senator vote against these fourteen Reservations?

No.

Did any Democratic Senator vote for them?

Yes, some Democrats voted for every one of them. As many as twenty-nine Democrats voted for one of the Reservations.

It is hard to understand. We all want peace, now and in the future. How could the President defeat the Peace Treaty?

He said to the Senate : "I will not make a peace for the present war with Germany unless you allow me to make a covenant or agreement which, I think will keep us out of war with the whole world forever." The Senate answered : "Very well, Mr. President, but, if you make a treaty and a league at the same time, you must see to it that the United States has an even show with every other nation, in the Court of Arbitration." The President then said: "It takes two-thirds of your body to ratify the Treaty and, if you put in your Reservations, I, controlling more than one-third, will defeat the Treaty. The Senate did amend the Treaty, by the Reservations, and the President then ordered his Senators to vote against it. A majority of fourteen voted for the Traety with the League

Covenant and the Reservations in it, but it was defeated by President Wilson who that he wishes to make it a CAMPAIGN ISSUE.

Did the Senate Reservations or amendments destroy the Treaty?

No, they only protected America, our country.

LESSON III.

THE RESERVATIONS EXPLAINED

I, RIGHT TO WITHDRAW. II, FOREIGN WARS. Ill, "MANDATES".

YOUNG AMERICA : Will you please explain these Reservations in simple language, Uncle Sam, so that new voters can understand them?

UNCLE SAM : I will try to make them plain to you. The first Reservation (see Senate Document 193, signed by Lodge, Republican Leader, and Hitchcock, Democratic Leader) says, that, unless three out of the four other principal countries with which we fought accept this Treaty with these Reservations, we will not be bound by it. No one but a child would be willing to be bound by a contract by which the other party is not also bound.

We are first voters, but we can understand why a Senator would want to know that the other nations agree to the contract. What is the next point?

Reservation I says that the United States shall decide when to go out of this League. The United States has always kept her agreements. Sometimes we have been cheated by other countries. If you catch a man cheating, you ought to have the right to quit trading with him, but, in this case, Mr. Wilson says, "No, you must trade on until the men cheating you are willing to excuse you."

What is the next amendment?

It promises that our country shall not be put into war, by any other country. When our fathers made this CONSTITUTION that we have talked about, they did not intend that any one man should be able to get us into war. That was why they provided that the Congress ALONE should have the power to declare zvar. The President and all officers of the Government take an oath to support that great CONSTITUTION. W'hen Mr. Wilson and the foreigners who met with him in Paris put Article X into the League Covenant, saying that the Court established by the League and called the Assembly and the Council could "advise" us how we were to protect the other nations, any boy could see that, in order to protect them from even "threats" or "danger", -we might be "advised" to send our boys to be killed in England, Japan or any other place in the world. That would be war, and so the Senate said : "You must understand that we cannot go to war by your orders, and can give up our lives and our money only when Congress says so."

Did President Wilson object to that?

Yes, he was very strong in his objection.

Why? Did not the Reservation state the truth?

Yes.

Then why did he object?

He said it was not necessary. He uses a big word ; we'll have to spell it. He says, in his open letter of March 8, 1920, that, telling the world and the nations with which we are trading the truth about our CONSTITUTION, is su-per-er-0-ga-iion. (Congressional Record, page 2835.) And that word means according to The Standard Dictionary, "The performance of a meritorious act, in excess of the demands of duty, hence superfluous."

Well, was it necessary?

I think so, because we have had trouble in the past, finding out exactly what our treaties meant, by not explaining fully in the treaty.

Why was that, and when has it happened?

Well, you find in United States history that, since the organization of this Government, there has been conflict of opinion among the best writers as to whether Congress is bound by a treaty to make all appropriations and pass all laws necessary to carry out a treaty.

Washington said that it was perfectly clear to his understanding that the assent of the House of Representatives was not necessary for the validity of a treaty. That is, of course, true; but there has been a contention constantly by American writers that Congress was acting within its legal and moral scope if it refused to pass the laws required by a treaty if, in the opinion of Congress, the treaty-making power had exceeded its constitutional rights or if, in the opinion of Congress, such so-called necessary laws were against the interest of the people of the United States.

Congress has always in the past made the necessary laws, and made the necessary appropriations to carry out all of its treaties; but there has always been a serious contention — one side saying that there is a treaty agreement and that Congress is bound to pass these laws. Under the strict rule of international law, Congress has complied.

This Government passed the necessary laws, in 1796, to carry out the Treaty with Great Britain of 1794; in 1816, we passed the necessary laws to carry out a Commercial Treaty or Convention with Great Britain. We did the same, in 1842 and 1843, with respect to a treaty of Washington; and, after the Mexican War, we provided the necessary laws to carry out the Treaty of Peace with Mexico. In every case, the claim has been made that, under international law, we are bound to do this, and, when an American objected by saying that Congress alone has the power to appropriate money, the answer given by Great Britain and Mexico was : "True your CONSTITUTION requires that Congress shall make appropriations, but the same CONSTITUTION authorizes the President and the Senate to make treaties and conventions," and that has been a complete answer for the foreign State; men will say that they made treaties in good faith without the knowledge as to the constitutional limitations of the President and the Senate.. Now, for the first time in the history of the United States, our Allies ask us to ratify a Treaty of Peace which will authorize a foreign court to order us into war; and, if we approve, the same old argument will be used. Thus, if Great Britain or Japan go into war, and the supreme council advises us how many men, how much money and how many ships they want, they will say at once, "Congress you are morally bound and under international law you are legally bound to furnish your troops, furnish your men and ships, to defend Great Britain or Japan"; and we will have no legal or moral answer to their claim unless we give specific notice to our Allies that, under our CONSTITUTION, Congress alone can declare war, and that, if any power on earth calls us to war, the American people reserve the right, through their representatives, to decide whether they shall go to war, and, if so, on which side.

The same suggestion applies to the reservation which notifies the high contracting parties that the Congress of the United States reserves to itself the right to pass upon appropriations; but it is not of such moral or vital interest for the people to control appropriations as it is for them to retain control of the lives and the honor of their citizens.

That's a long answer, but it is the most dangerous idea ever advanced, to say that we will kill and be killed by order of foreigners.

To illustrate: suppose Japan should war with China, and Great Britain and Italy should say with Japan, "Uncle Sam, we 'advise' you to send your boys and your ships to fight for Japan." The same question would arise. Real Americans would say, "This is war, and we can't go to war until our Congress declares war." Then Congress would be beseiged by those who favored our going to war to help England and Italy keep their treaty with Japan, saying : "Your President and the Senate agreed to it. You are bound legally and morally to keep the contracts called treaties. You did it in 1796, in 1842 and 1843, and also after the Mexican War." But with this Reservation in the Treaty, we would say: "Yes, we did then, because there was nothing to notify you that all appropriations must be made by Congress ; however, in this Treaty that President Wilson and the Senate made, we gave you notice that we could not and would not kill and be killed until Congress, knowing all the facts, declared war ; and so, Mr. Foreigner, the argument you used in the past fails because of the wisdom of the Republican Senators in the Reservation to Article X.

Say, Uncle Sam, we ought to thank God we had a Republican Senate. What is the next most important Reservation?

It is along the same line. Reservation III provides that we take no "mandate" over another nation, which again would mean taking blood and money from the United States, unless it is ordered by Congress. Only four Senators voted against that amendment. They were all Democrats. Twenty-nine Democrats and thirty-nine Republicans voted for it. President Wilson just lately asked for a "mandate" without telling how many American lives it would cost or how much more money he would tax us, and a Republican Congress sat down hard on his request by refusing it.

That's fine. We vote in November for the first time, and we are willing to fight whenever our country says it is right, but we do not want to kill or be killed by order of anyone but you. Uncle Sam.

LESSON IV.

THE EXPLANATIONS CONTINUED

RESERVATION IV, DOMESTIC QUESTIONS. V, MONROE DOC- TRINE. VI, SHANTUNG. VII, RATIFICATION OF APPOINT- MENTS. VIII, COMMERCE. 'IX, EXPENDITURES. X, INCREAS- ING ARMAMENTS. XI, XII, XIII; PROTECTION OF COMMER- CIAL RELATIONS, PROPERTY RIGHTS, AND LABOR. XIV, EQUAL REPRESENTATION.

YOUNG AMERICA : In considering Reservation IV, we cannot see that

anyone else but you, Uncle Sam, could settle our domestic questions. What

American wants to submit them to other nations?

UNCLE SAM : Under the League Covenant, there would be great danger, for the matter would be taken entirely out of our hands, if the other nations wished, and, once having signed, we would be powerless to protest. That is why we must state clearly the idea of Reservation IV. You would not want to see my home questions decided by a foreign, and perhaps unfriendly, country, would you? Would you submit our tariff laws, for instance, to our business rivals or our immigration laws to any other country?

No, of course not. Uncle Sam; and now we remember reading that Colonel Roosevelt, in commenting on the League of Nations, warned against letting any international court decide what matters of this nature should be submitted to it, saying that the nation itself must decide what matters relating to its domestic affairs could rightly come within the jurisdiction of such a court.