Evening public ledger. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1914-1942, 1919-08-19
Cannot Understand Doubts

Nothing. am led to believe, stands
in the way of the ratification of the
treaty except certain doubts with re-
gard to the meaning and implication
of certain articles of the covenant of
the league of nations; HSd I must
frankly say that am hpable to
understand why sush doubts 81 Aould be
entertained.
You will recall that whcnI had
the pleasure Of p conference with
your committee md with the rommit
. toe of the House of Reprcs sentatives
on soteign affairs. March f1ast, the
questions now most frequently asked
about thc league of nations were sH
canvassrd with vicw"to their inpfe
diatc t1arifcation. The covensft of
the League was then in its fuH draft
aud subject and rcvision,
It Was pointed out tbA no express
rccogdition was giveyto the Monroe
doctrine; that it. Mas not expressly
provided that thTlcague should have
no authority act or to express a
Judgment oFfmatters of domestic pol
lev; thatSfhe right to withdraw from
the lcakuc was not expressly recog-
nizcd. and that the constitutional
rifht of the Congress to determine
tdll questions of peace and war was
not sufficiently safeguarded.
On my return to Paris all these
matters were taken up again by the
commission on the league Of nations.
and every suggestion of the United
States was accepted.
View OF u. S. Accepted
The view Of the United States
vita regard to the questions | have
mcdtiohed had, in fact, already been
accepted by the commission and
8here was supposed to be nothing in
consistent with them in the draft of
lhe covenant first adopted-the draft
Shich was the subject of our dis
crssion in March-but no objection
vas made to saying explicitly in the
Fett what all had supposed to be i'm
rHrit in it.
Z, RT'here was absolutely no doubt as
H. TO the mPNnlnS VI hhN 'h' VI Wv
JSsultng provisions Of the covenant
in the minds of those who partici-
mated in drafting them, and l re-
Fpcctfully submit that there is moth
ing vague or doubtful in their
wording
The Monroe Doctrine is expressly
mentioned as an understanding
which is in no way to be impaired
or intprfcrcd with by anything con-
taincd in tho covenant and the eX-
nrcssiou regional understandings
like the Monroe Doctrine was used,
not because any one of the conterees
thought there was any comparable
agreement anywhere else in existence
or in contemplation. but only be
cause it was thought best to avoid
the appearance of dealing in such
document with the policy Of single
nation. Absolutely nothing is con-
CCalcd in the phrase.
Domestic Rights Protected
With regard to domestic ques
tions. Article XVI of the covenant
expressly provides that. if in case of
any dispute uTlSlhE D''"NNh 80
bcrs of the league the matter in
volved is claimed by one of the parties
land is found by the council to arise
ont of n matter which by interna
tional law is solely within the domes-
tic jurisdiction of that party, the
council shall so report. and shall
mike no recommendation as to its
settlement
The Unitsd States was by no means
the only government interested in the
explicit adoption Of this provision,
and there is no doubt in the mind of
any authoritative student of interna
tional law that such matters as i'm
migration. tariffs. and naturalization
are incontcstably domestic questions
with which no international body
could deal without express authority
to do so.
M enumeration of domestic Ques-
tions waS undertaken because to un-
dertake it. even by sample. would
have involved the danger OF seeming
to exclude those not mentioned.
States May Withdraw
The right of any sovereign state to
withdraw had been taken for granted,
but no objection was made TO max
ing il explicit. Indeed, so soon as
the views expressed at the White
House conference were laid before
the commission it was at once con-
coded that it was best not to leave
tho answer to so important question
to inference.
No proposal was made to set up
any tribunal to pass Judgment upon
tho uuestion whether withdrawing
nation had, in fact. fulfilled all its
international obligations and all its
obligations under the covenant. 1t
was recognized that that question
must be left to be resolved by the
| conscience of the nation proposing to
withdraw and must say that it did
not seem to me worth while to pro-
nose that the article be made more
explicit. because l knew that the
| United States would never itself pro
nose to withdraw from the league II
| it's conscience was not entirely clear
os to the fulfillment of all its inter-
national obligations. 1t has never
failed to fulfill them and never will.
Declares Article y Clear
Article Y is in no respect of
doubtful meaning when read in the
light of the covenant as a whole. The
council of the league can only lad
wise upon" the means by which the
obligations of that great article are
to be given effect to.