My brethren and sisters. I remember once to

My brethren and sisters. I remember once to have heard an anecdote concerning what we usually term a sectarian minister, who stated that he was very sorry to disappoint the congregation, for he had not had time to prepare a sermon, and therefore would have to rely upon the Spirit of the Lord, an anecdote that illustrates, in part at least, the distinction between the churches of the day and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In practically all Christian churches it is the practice that sermons should be prepared beforehand, whereas in our Church we are told that aside from general preparation we should give no thought, generally speaking, as to what we should say, and should rely upon the spirit of the occasion, the Spirit of the Lord. I very humbly desire that to my own meagre abilities ¶

there may be added the influence and the inspiration of that Spirit during the time alotted to me. ¶

The Saints, as we all believe, know the voice of the shepherd. You cannot fool the Latter-day Saints by talking glittering generalities. A man may speak with the oratorical gifts of a Webster, and if he have not the Spirit of the Lord, the Saints know it, they feel it, and are not fed or satisfied. ¶

I am very happy to be here this afternoon, not to occupy this position (because I approach the performance of the responsibilities thereof with a sense of trepidation amounting almost to fear), but I am happy that I am counted among the membership of the Church and worthy of occupying some sort of a position in that Church. ¶

I was just looking over that wonderful poem, the Seer, written by President John Taylor, that remarkable, splendid father of President Frank Y. Taylor who is here today. I find written there, concerning the Prophet Joseph, that ¶

He shared their joys, their sorrows too, He loved the Saints, he loved Nauvoo. ¶

I have been away from this people long enough to develop a strong love for the Saints of God; the good people who make up the congregations of the Church are the dearest people in all the world to you and to me. There is no experience that touches my heart more deeply than the sight of the face of a good old brother or sister whom I have known, and known to be faithful, for many years. I share their joys and their sorrows, too. I deeply love the Saints and their association, and am proud of being a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I was thinking during the noon hour how much reason we all have to be proud of the record of the Church. When you stop to think about it, you must conclude that this Church has been right throughout its whole history upon all of the. important moral questions that have affected our welfare. In the nature of things there is not within the United States a people more patriotic than the Latterday Saints. I know of no other sect that assumes the position that the constitution of the United States was written as it were by the very finger of God. Surely that belief is an inspiration to the highest patriotism. You remember reading in the history of the Church that this people were accused in Missouri of being opposed to slavery. In that slave-holding state such an attitude became one of the reasons of our persecution and drivings. You remember that the first message that flashed across the completed telegraph line from here to the Atlantic coast was a message of congratulation from Brig-ham Young to Abraham Lincoln, that the Union was preserved or was in the way of preservation. ¶

President Grant spoke this morning of the attitude of the Navajo Indians toward the "Mormons." They had confidence in the "Mormon" people because the "Mormon" people never had abused their confidence. Books have been written, one book that I remember in particular, called A Century of Dishonor, an indictment covering hundreds of pages against the American people for treatment of the American Indians. But no indictment has ever been framed, or could be formulated against the "Mormon" people for their attitude or treatment of the aborigines of this continent. We have always treated them fairly and squarely, as of course they should have been treated. ¶

We have stood square upon women's suffrage. We were among the very first — the second as I now recall it — of the states to give what should have been given years before, the right of equal suffrage to the women, now recognized not only in this country but throughout the world as a long delayed measure of justice. ¶

We have stood fairly and squarely upon the prohibition question throughout the Church. ¶

We occupy an enviable position so far as the great subject of education is concerned. The Latter-day Saints are not afraid of education; they do not fear that by the education of their children, at least by true education, they are going to educate them out of "Mormonism." The Church has always stood, from the days of Kirtland to the present time, for universities, for colleges, for development, for a high state of education; and our record, I say, in that respect is a very enviable one. ¶

We stand in what I think is a very commendable attitude with reference to labor, to laboring men, to what might be called the meek and the humble and the poor of the world. This Church has never been, and is not, any respecter of persons. Our congregations are made up in this city and everywhere of not merely those who are rich in the goods of this world, but those who are in moderate circumstances and those who are poor, all worshiping God at the same shrine — a brotherhood of men and women worshiping under the auspices of a Church that welcomes all men and treats all equally and fairly. The Church has not only a splendid record in that regard, but we have done much, very much, indeed, to help, to assist the poor and those who are not as fortunate as some of their brethren and sisters. And we look forward — and it is written down in our books here — to the time when there shall be community of interest among all the people of the Church. ¶

Indeed there are no more advanced conceptions of social justice anywhere extant in the world. And so I say and repeat that we have reason to be proud of the record of the Church to which we belong. ¶

And now, if I may be pardoned for saying something upon a subject which has received a great deal of attention at this conference, I think we may congratulate ourselves (and I speak with due deference for the opinions of others), that we stand true; if I understand the sentiments of the brethren who preside over this Church and of the whole people of the Church, we stand true upon that great moral question designated as the League of Nations. Possibly enough has been said upon that subject. I have thought, however, that perhaps by ¶

reason of the peculiar experiences that have been mine during the last two or three years, it might not be held to be improper for me to add a little to what has been said upon that subject. I desire first to say that nothing within recent years has astonished me quite so much as that opinions on this subject have been divided along lines of political cleavage. What is there in the controversy respecting the league of nations that calls for political division? It is beyond my comprehension. Down through the decades of our history the Democratic party has stood for a strict construction of the constitution ; it has stood, generally speaking, for states rights; and, in a way, for a large measure of free trade. While on the other hand the Republican party has stood for writing the word "Nation" as it is sometimes expressed with a big N. It has stood for broad construction of the constitution and the protection of American industries. These have been the lines of demarkation between the parties. But what is there in this league of nations that appeals to the historical differences that have separated these two great parties ? Nothing, so far as I have been able to discover. ¶

My justification for speaking a few words upon this subject this afternoon comes not only from the fact that it is the key note of this conference, I may say, sounded by those who are my superiors in ecclesiastical authority, but from the fact also that my own conceptions and attitude in respect of that subject were taken long before I dreamed that this would or could be a matter of political controversy between the great parties. Now we find ourselves confronted with the fact that in the United States Senate there are a few Democrats who are against the league, while the great bulk of them are for it. On the other hand, there are a few Republican Senators who stand for the league, with the great bulk of them against. I must confess that this condition leads me to the conclusion, which seems to me to be inevitable, that so far as the senate of the United States is concerned, the question in some way has become political, which it should not be, and which it is not in very truth and reason. I think we ought to approach our conclusions on this subject free from political affiliations, free from any political prejudices. ¶

It seems to me, as was stated this morning in the Tabernacle, that it would be a matter of chagrin to the Latter-day Saints to stand opposed to that which, as I conceive it, will bring about or contribute very largely to the bringing about of a reign of peace on the earth. We are the followers of him whose mission was announced as Peace on earth and good will to men. That is the spirit of Christianity. I take it that there can be no question of the rejection of the treaty of peace of which the proposed constitution of the League of Nations forms a part. That certainly is not going to be done. The senate of the 'United States will not reject this peace pact outright. The consequences of such action are terrible to contemplate. Think what has been provided, within this treaty of peace. Think of the nations that have been erected along racial lines. Think of the right that has been extended to the nations of the world to determine, themselves, their own forms of government. There is Poland, what would become of Poland if this treaty were not approved? There is Jugo-Slavia — what would become of the Jugo-Slavs? What would become of Palestine, and what would become of the Armenians ? What would become of Alsace-Lorraine, and what of that part of Denmark which Germany stole some forty or fifty years ago? ¶

If this peace pact is not approved, then it must go back to Germany. Can it be believed that Germany will approve now what she felt constrained to approve at the end of the war? Germany would demand more than she demanded at the first. The world will surely be in an indescribable condition of disorder. The German people and some who sympathize with them believe that the terms of peace were unduly harsh and hard. I do not believe it, and you do not believe it. Germany has not property enough, has not resources enough, nor the possibility of earning money enough, to compensate, nor indeed is there any possibility after suffering enough in any respect, to equal the wrongs that she has done in this great war. The terms that have been imposed upon her as a matter of fact are the very minimum of what could in justice have been imposed upon her. But if this thing is not to be approved, what will become of a world which has been framed anew under the American idea of the right of people to determine their own form of government? It is inconceivable that the treaty of peace should be rejected. Will it be amended so that it will have to go back for reconsideration? To amend it would bring about the same result as to reject it — the document would have to be considered again — and can there be any doubt as to what would be the result of that ? I can not believe that the Senate of the United States will make a single amendment. I certainly believe that the Senate of the United States should not approve an amendment to the treaty. Will they make any interpretations or reservations equivalent to an amendment? If they do, then the treaty must go back to the Peace Congress for reconsideration, for of course such interpretation, or reservation will have the effect of amendment and to that extent therefore will be ,a rejection of the treaty. It seems clear and incontestable that the great bulk of the people of the United States demand that the treaty shall be approved in the form and substance in which it is written, rather than to undo that which has been done and revert to the sorry conditions that existed before that treaty was made. ¶

What were those conditions? Why, there was no authority to curb the ambitions of any nation that had the desire to build up a great army, and construct great plants wherein guns and armor be made, nor to prevent a robber nation, when the time came, when the hour struck, attacking a weak neighbor, and stealing by main force a portion of its territory, as has been done many a time and oft by the great nation whose ambitions we have been fighting. Do we want that done? Do we not rather want a restraint placed upon all the nations of the earth? Look what is now happening. We are told ¶

in the press dispatches this morning that war between Italy and the Jugo-Slavic nation is probable. That would not be possible, nor probable, if this league of peace were now in force — there would be the combined influence of the world to prevent that sort of thing. It is said that there are some 15 or 20 other wars now waging, waging because the league is not in force. ¶

Gentlemen talk about our yielding up some of the sovereignty of the United States. I do not think that the objection is sound or well taken. But if so, then let us yield up so much of our sovereignty as may be necessary to the realization of a world peace. I yield up some of my sovereignty to the city government, to the police, under ordinances and laws that prevent me from treading on the toes of my neighbor, from taking his property, or intruding in his home. To that extent I yield up my sovereignty. The law says that I may not infringe upon the rights of my neighbor. There is a league, there is a treaty between you and me, and between all the citizens of every law abiding country, under which each of us gives up some of his God-given sovereignty in order to preserve the weak from being overpowered by the strong. It is so in the government of the United States — the states are protected against foreign invasions. Nobody can violate the sovereignty of this state or any state in the union but what the United States will come to its aid, so, in our municipal and state relations we are shielded by a sort of Article ten from outside interference. Why should not that principle be extended to the nations, so that when some big nation sees fit to rob one of the little nations of its territory of its liberties, there should be a world policeman who shall say, Thus far shalt thou go and no further? Shall we return to that unhappy, irrational, and unChristian condition where there was no restraint upon any nation, where force prevailed and might made right? ¶

Gentlemen say that the Shantung business is wrong. Suppose it is. Germany created it, France and England found it necessary to recognize it, and we and the world have inherited it. I believe the wrong has been largely righted, because the subject has been brought within the consideration and determination of the' Council of the League of Nations. ¶

Did you ever stop to think what was done when the constitution of the United States was formed? Why, slavery, which was bitterly opposed by the people of the Northern states when the constitution was formed, was perpetuated in the government of the United States, and for 20 years the people were permitted to bring slaves from Africa into this country. It was a compromise, it was a moral compromise. The North gave up what they believed to be a very great moral principle in order to secure the constitution of the United States and its blessings. The Constitution was a league of free and independent colonies and is filled with compromise from one end to another, including the right for the smallest of states to have an equal vote with the largest in the United States Senate. ¶

People say that we ought to be true to Washington in his declaration that we should not make any entangling alliances. There are a great many things that Washington and the patriot forefathers did not foresee, or provide against, wise as they undoubtedly were. There have been eighteen amendments to the constitution of the United States since it was first adopted. These provide for religious freedom, trial by jury, etc., etc., and now providing for women's suffrage. Somebody stated humorously in the state senate the other day that it was Washington's idea and the idea of the fathers that only men should vote, and asked, why then extend the vote to women, or why extend it to negroes ? Washington's idea was that senators should be elected by the legislatures, then why now permit the people to elect senators by direct vote? There was no thought of prohibition in Washington's day, yet it is now written down in the constitution of the United States. The fact is that as time goes on new necessities arise, which should and must be met by the law and by the constitution. ¶

I believe there are a good many men who think that we would be giving up something of our Americanism if we approved of this league, who are perfectly honest and sincere in their opposition. But at the same time I must confess that I believe that the great bulk of those who oppose it are doing so for political reasons and considerations. I am not authorized to speak on the subject for the men who served in the United States army: I do not know what their sentiments may be, on the whole. I know only 'this that so far as I have talked with men who wore the uniform in the late great war, they stand solidly for the league of nations. I do not of course pretend to have talked with all or very many of them. I made a little speech of welcome to the returning soldiers down here in one of the southern towns a few weeks ago, and when I got through a returned soldier got up to respond. I did not know what he was going to say, but he made a very impassioned appeal for the League, and considerably amused the audience by stating: "If you people do not approve this League, and we have another big war, why you fellows be consistent and go to the war and let us stay at home." ¶

These are, very hurriedly and incompletely, some of my sentiments, and I give them to you for what they are worth. It seems to me that this is the greatest crisis of decades. It seems to me that here is the opportunity, the first great chance, for the Christian people of the world to write Christianity into the supreme government of all the nations, and that to reject this opportunity and go back to the old order of things, where lawless force and unrestrained aggression held sway, to go back to that condition of things, would be a crime. May the Lord have mercy on the souls of those who oppose it, not honestly but through political considerations. ¶

I cannot see why we should not try this thing out. If the event should demonstrate that the league needs amendment, like the constitution of the United States, let us amend it. If it needs amendment twice, let us twice amend it. If it needs amendment eighteen times, ¶

as did the constitution of the United States in order to make a more perfect and desirable government, let us amend it eighteen times, but don't reject it now. In conclusion, if you will permit something which sounds like profanity, but which is uttered reverently and with a profound sense of what I conceive to be our duty, for God's sake let us stand behind this league of nations. Amen. ¶