The Madison daily leader. [volume] (Madison, S.D.) 1890-current, 1919-08-22

my return to Paris all these matters
were taken up again by the commits
sion on the League of Nations and
every suggestion of tie United States
was accepted.
No Interference With Monroe
Doctrine.
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
regional understanding like 1.-THE Mon
roe Doctrine" was used, not because
anyone of the conference thought
there was any comparable agreement
anywhere else in existence or in con-
temptation, but only because it was
thought best to avoid the appearance
of dealing in such a document with
the policy of a single nation.
Domestic Questions Exempt.
With regard to domestic questions
Article XVI of the covenant expressly
provides that, If in case of any dispute
arising between members Of the
league the matter involved is claimed
by n of the parties land is found
by the council to arise out of a mat
ter which by international law is sole.
ly within the domestic Jurisdiction of
that party, the council support and
shall make no recommendation as to
its settlements" The United States
was by no means the only government
interested in the explicit adoption of
this proposition, and there is no doubt
in the mind of any authoritative stu
dent of International law that such
matters as immigration, tariffs, and
naturalization are incontestably do
nestle questions with which no inter
national body could deal without ex.
press authority to do so.
Right to Withdraw.
The right of any state to withdraw
had been taken for granted but no
objection was made to making it ex-
plicit. So soon as the views ex-
pressed at the White House confer
9nce were laid before the commission,
It was at once conceded that it was
best not to leave the answer to so
important a question to interference,
no proposal was made to set up any
tribunal to pass judgment upon the
question whether a withdrawing ma
ton had in fact fulfilled "all it's inter
national obligations and all it's obli-
cations under the covenant" 1t was
recognized that the question must be
left to be resolved by the concern of
the nation proposing to withdraw; and
l must say that it did not seem to me
worth while TO propose that the ar
ticle be made more explicit because
knew that the United States would
I never itself propose to withdraw from
7 the league if its conscience was not
I entirely clear as to the fulfillment OF
I Ats international obligation, it has
never failed to fulffl them and never
Q will.
. No Doubt About Article Ten.
: Article X is in no respect of doubt
> full meaning when read in the light Of
> the covenant as a whole. The council
of the league can only advise upon
; the means by which the obligations
y of that great article are to be giver
u effect to unless the United States II
i A party to the policy or action in ques
ton, her WI afiliative vote in thu
council is necessary before any advic,
e can be given for a unanimous vote O
y the council is required. If she is
q party, the trouble is hers anyhow, ant
r the unanimous vote of the council i
only advice in any case. Each gov
Y, eminent is free to reject 1t il /
ID pleases. Nothing could have bee
" made more clear to the conference
IS than the right of our Congress unde
T. our constitution to exercise it's inde
pendent judgment in all matters Q
10 peace and war. No attempt was mad
* to question or limit that right. Tn
United States will undertake unde
Article X to respect and preserve a
IA against external aggression the terri
n torial integrity and existing politics
wv independence of all members of tn
10 league" and that engagement const
"A tutes a very grave and solemn NOR;
obligation. Blu it is a moral, not
"A legal obligation, and leaves our Coz
20 gress absolutely free to put its ow
81 Interpretation upon 1t in all cases tn;
call for action.
Article X seems to me to const
tute the very backbone of the who
"a covenant. Without it the leagl
would be hardly more thar an infue.
90 tial debating society.
80 interpretations Acceptable.
- 1t has several times been suggeste
10 In public debate and in private COME
ar ence, that interpretations of the sen.
~. In which the United States accep
ms the engagements of the covena
us should be embodied in the instrumel
nd Of ratification. There can be no re
no sonable objection to such interpret
an lions, which should not, however, co
stitute a part of the formal resolutit
of ratification, long delays would
IDS the inevitable consequence, inasmu,
he as all the many governments concer
to ed would have to accept, in effect Il
err language of the senate as the la
he guage of the treaty before rattle
KY ton would be complete. The asse
nd of the German assembly at Vein
---..l1