The sun., 1919-08-20

A
should proceed to appoint their commits
slons, and to act under this treaty,
would not that be a clear acquiescence
| In our construction?
The President-Oh, 1t might be, SEN
| ator, but we would not know for a good
many months whether they were going
| to act in that sense or not. There would
have to be either explicit acquiescence
or the elapsing of a long enough time
for us to know whether they were inn
plicity acquiescing or not.
Senator McCumber-I should suppose
that when the treaty was signed under
present world conditions all nations
would proceed to act Immediately. with
out waiting.
The President-In some matters, yes.
Senator Harding-Mr. President, as
Stunning that your construction of the
withdrawal clause Is the understanding
| of the formulating commission, why is
| the language making the proviso for the
fulfilment Of covenants put into the
| article?
The President-Merely as an argu-
| ment to the conscience of the nations.
In other words, It is a notice served on
them that their colleagues will expect
that at the time they withdraw they
will have fulfilled their obligations.
ly seems to make that implication, be-
cause It expressly says, provided it has
fulfilled its obligations"
The PreSident-Yes.
Senator Harding-If II were a matter
for the nation Itself to Judge, that is
rather a far fetched provision, is It not ?
The President-weil. you are illus
trating my recent remark, Senator, that
the phraseology is your difficulty, not
the idea. The idea is undoubtedly what
| l have expressed.
| Senator Pittman-Mr. President, Sem
ator McCumber has drawn out that 1t is
your impression that the allied and as
ISOLATED Powers have the same opinion
of the construction of these so-called
| indefinite articles that you have. Is that
construction also known and held by
Germany?
The President--I have not means of
knowing.
Senator Pittman-Germany, then, has
not expressed herself to the commission
with regard to these mooted questions
The Presidsnt-No, we have no ex-
preston from Germany about the league
except the expression of her very strong
| desire to be admitted to 1t.
| Senator Pittman-And Is 1t your
opinion that II the language of the
treaty were changed In the resolution OF
! ratification, the consent of Germany
would also be essential to a consensus
| of opinion between Germany and the
| United States?
The President-Oh, undoubtedly.
Distinction in Amendment.
| Senator Lodge--Mr. President, in that
connection I cid not mean to ask
another question. take 1t there Is no
| question whatever under international
law and practice, that an amendment to
the text of a treaty must be submitted
to every signatory and must receive
| either their assent or their dissent. !
| had supposed II had been the general
diplomatic practice with regard to reser-
vations, which apply only to the re-
| serving Power, and not to all the sig
natories, of course. that with regard to
| reservations 1t had been the general
practice that silence was regarded as &C
certance and acquiescence that there was
that distinction between textual amend
| ment which changed the treaty for every
| sgnatory and reservation which
| changed II only for the reserving Power.
In that I may be mistaken, however.
| The President-There is some differ
ence Of opinion among the authorities.
I am informed. I have not had time TO
look them up myself about that, but II
is clear to me that In a treaty which
involves so many signatories a series of
| reservations, which would ensue, UNI
doubleday would very much obscure our
confident opinion as to how the treaty
was going to work.
Senator Willlams-Mr. President, sup
pose, for example that we adopted a
reservation. as the Senator from Massa-
chusetts calls it. and that Germany did
nothing about 1t at all. and afterwarti
contended that so far as that was con-
| cerned II was new matter, to which she
was never party. could her position be
| justlfiably disputed?
| The President-No.
| Senator Borah-Mr President with
reference to Article X.-you will observe
| that am more interested in the league
than any ether feature of this dIscu ssion
lin listening to the reading OF your
statement l got the impression that your
view was that the first obligation of
Article Y. to wit: The members of the
| league undertake to respect and preserve
as against external aggression the terri
torial integrity and existing political in
dependence of all members of the
league" was simply a moral obligation.
| The President-Yes, sir, inasmuch as
there is no sanction in the treaty.
Senator Borah-But that would be a
legal obligation so far as the United
States was concerned II it should enter
| int it; would 1t not?
The Presdent--I would not interpret
that way. Senator, because there is in
volved the element OF Judgment as to
whether the territorial integrity or ex-
listing political independence is invaded
or impaired. In other words, 1t is an
attitude of comradeship and protection
among the members of the league which
| in its very nature is moral and not legal.
Senator Borah,-If. however, the ac-
tua! fact of invasion were beyond dis
pute, then the legal obligation. It seems
to me- am simply throwing this out
in order to get full expression Of views
the legal obligation would imme-