(The Post-Dispatch herewith presents, with President Wilson's full approval, the following interview which Louis Seibold, a staff correspondent of the Post-Dispatch and New York World, had with him at the White House this week.)
WASHINGTON, June 18.—The President, much interested in the extraordinary results of the Republican Convention at Chicago, asked a great many questions concerning the organization, the dominant figures and the controlling influences that dictated the platform and engineered the nomination of Mr. Harding. He seemed to take an almost boyish delight in the sketchy description that I was able to give him. Regarding the nominees, the President declined to make any comment beyond expressing the belief that the gentlemen selected for President and Vice President at Chicago "admirably harmonized with the platform."
"I suppose I should feel flattered," he said, with a twinkle in his eyes, "over being made the issue of the presidential campaign by the Republican party. But even the effort of the platform makers at Chicago to confer the distinction of being not only a burning but a living issue by camouflaging and obscuring the real issues will not deceive the people.
"The processes by which the Chicago platform was accomplished seemed to me to have been essentially and scientifically Prussian in inspiration and method. Instead of quoting Washington and Lincoln, the Republican platform should have quoted Bismarck and Bernhardi, because the Republican attitude regarding the supreme issue that cannot be abandoned or disregarded strongly suggests the arbitrary influences that dictated the doctrines of those two eminent persons.
"Every change directed against me and my administration is obviously designed to becloud and negative the paramount issues confronting the people of America, to befog their sense of responsibility and make violation of the obligations they have assumed to be of small consequence. I sincerely believe that the attempt of the Republican party to win the sanction of the American people for its attempted evasion of these obligations will be decisively rebuked. With one thing I am fully satisfied: this is that the Republican party in its platform has joined me in the suggestion I made in my letter to the guests at the Jackson day dinner in Washington in January last. In that letter I expressed the hope that a sincere attempt would be made to determine the attitude of the American people on the League of Nations by the resort to the genuinely democratic process of the referendum.
No Forecast of Sentiment.
"Of course, I have no way of anticipating the probable trend of sentiment that will be expressed in the Democratic National convention at San Francisco or forecasting the ultimate conclusions of that body. But I have every confidence that the delegates who will sit in that convention will repeat the challenge I issued to the Republican party and express their readiness to permit the people to decide between the vague and ambiguous declaration by the Republicans, and a positive and definite expression of opinion by the Democratic party. Whatever else the Democratic party may do, I hope that its convention at San Francisco will say just what it means on every issue, and that it will not resort either to ambiguity or evasions in doing so.
"I should prefer at this time not to discuss partisan politics or to venture any prediction as to the probable attitude that the Democratic convention will take on any subject. I sincerely believe, however, that the vast majority of gentlemen who will sit in the San Francisco convention will appreciate the necessity and permanent value of keeping the word that America has given to the rest of the world.
"This thing (the League of Nations) lies too deep to permit of any political sculduggery, any attempt to evade moral and humanitarian responsibilities much too solemn to treat so lightly or ignore.
"The thinly veiled rejection of the principle of the League of Nations by the Chicago convention will not fool any one. The attitude of Senator Lodge and that of Senator Johnson differ only in degree. Both are really opposed to it in any form. One of these gentlemen is disingenuous and evasive and the other candidly hostile.
"In common with other recognized spokesmen for the Republican party they accord me too much credit for the conception of the League of Nations project. While I am glad to assume the responsibility for the part I have played in promoting it, the honor of discovering its merits and appreciating its values cannot justly be given to me.
McKinley Advocated League.