The Challis messenger. (Challis, Idaho) 1912-current, 1919-08-27

am unable to understand why such
doubts should be entertained You will
recall that when had the pleasure Of
a conference with your committee and
with the committee of the house Of
representatives on foreign affairs at
the White House In March last, the
Questions now most frequently asked
about the league of nations were all
cnnvassed, with view to their i'm
mediate Qualification. The covenant
LOT the league was then in its first
draft and subject to revision. 1t was
pointed out that no express recognI-
ton was given to the Monroe doctrine
that 1t was not expressly provided that
the league should have no authority to
act Or to express Il Judgment ON mat
ters Of domestic policy, that the right
i TO withdraw from tho league was not
lexpressly recognized, and that the con-
stitutional rights of the congress to de-
termine ali questions Of peace and
WAR was not sufficiently safcguardcd.
On my return to Paris all these mat
ters were take up again by the com
omission on the league of nations and
every suggestion of the United States
was accepted.
''The view of the United States with
regards to the questions | have men,
toned had In fact, already been accept
ed by the commission and there was
supposed to be nothing inconsistent
with them in the draft Of the cove
nant first adopted. the draft which was
the subject of our discussion in March
but no objection was made to anything
explicitly in the text that all had sup
posed to be implicit In it.
| "The Monroe doctrine is expressly
mentioned as an understanding which
Is in no way to be impaired or inter-
fered with by anything contained in
the covenant and the expression ire
gional understanding like the Monroe
doctrine" was used, not because any
one of the conference thought there
was any comparable agreement any
where else in existence or In contenl-
platlon, but only because 1t was
thought best to avoid the appearance
of dealing in such document with
the policy of single nation.
with regard to domestic questions,
Article X, Al Of the covenant express
~ provides that, if in case of any
dispute arising between members Of
the league the matter involved is
claimed BY one of the parties and is
fnup1 Inv tho co,,uc;1 RI orico o,,t 90
a matter which by international law is
solely within the domestic Jurisdiction
of that party, the council shall so re-
port and shall make no recommenda-
ton as to its settlements. The United
States was by no means the only gov
eminent Interested in the explicit
| adoption of this provision, and there is
no doubt in the mind of any author
itative student of international law
that such matters as immigration, tar
ifs, and naturalization are incontest-
ably domestic questions with which no
international body could deal.
THE right of any state to withdraw
had been taken for granted, but no
objection was made to making it ex-
plicit. Indeed, so soon as the views
expressed at the White House confer
ence were laid before the commission
it was at once conceded that it was
best not to leave the answer to so
important Il question to Inference. No
proposal was made to set up any trib-
unal to pass judgment upon the ques-
ton whether Withdrawing nation has
In fact fulfilled all it's International
obligations and all It's obligations I'M
der the covenant. 1t was recognized
that that question must be left to be
resolved by the conscience of the ma
tion proposing to withdraw. and l
must say that it did not seem to me
worth while to propose that the article
he made more explicit because I know
that the United States would never it.
self propose to withdraw from the
league If its conscience was not en-
tirely clear as to the fulfillment of all
Its international obligations. II has
never failed to fulfill them and never
will.
Article Is In no respect Of doubtful
meaning when read in the light of the cove
nant as q whole. The council Of tho league
can only 'advise upon" the means by which
the obligations Of that great article are 10
be given effect to. Unless the United States
Is party to the policy or action in question.
her own affirmative vote in the council is
necessary before any advice can be given, for
o unanimous vote of the council Is required
II she Is q party. the trouble is hers anyho;g,
and the unanimous vote OF the council Is only
aRh ant ia
free to reject 1t II Il pleases. Nothing could
have been more clear to the conference than
the right Of our congress under our consti-
tuition to exercise its independent judgment
in all matters Of peace and war. No attempt
was made to question or limit that right. The
limited States will indeed undertake under
Artiels x to respect and preserve as against
external aggression the territorial integrity
OF all members OF the league" and that en-
sagement constitutes . very grave and SOL
INN moral obligation. But il is moral,
not legal obligation. and leaves our con-
gress absolutely free to put its own interpre-
talon upon it In all cases that call for
action.
Article X seems to me 70 constitute the
very backbone Of the whole covenant. With
out II the league would be hardly more than
an Influential debating society.
1T has several times been suggested in
public debate and In private conference, that
Interpretations Of the sense In which the