Omaha daily bee., 1919-07-24

JRSDA1, JULY "a, 1913.
agreement between the democrats
and sufficient republicans to ratify
the treaty and secure US the ines
Unable benefit of a league Of
nations which, with growth will de-
velop into a new era in our inter-
tional relations.
Not Attitude of Majority.
"The attempt of such men as Sem
ator Borah, Senator Johnson, Sena-
tor Sherman and others to defeat
the treaty, and the deliberate exag-
geration of the Shantung feature Of
the treaty, do not, I think, indicate
the attitude of the majority of the
republican party in the senate and l
do not think that any attention
should be paid to the suggestion
that the treaty be amended in its
provisions with reference to the re-
arrangement of the map of the re-
gion of the war.
ITO repeat, I am strongly in favor
of ratifying the treaty as it is.
Where l in the senate, / would not
hesitate to vote for it, but the sit
uation may require concessions to Sc
cure ratification and | suggest what
| have already sent to you, copy
of which | enclose, as something
that will secure a useful league OF
nations, which may be improved and
which at the same time may satisfy
the genuine objections of the repub-
lican friends of the league in the
senate.
Coming now to specific interpre-
tat;ons, it seems to me that the first
achieves all that the craftsmen of
the withdrawal clause intended, and
as thus interpreted relieves that
clause from possible construction
by which the actual withdrawal on
two years notice might be greatly
hindered through the claims of the
other members of the league.
Colonies in League.
"The second Interpretation has to
do with the presence in the league,
as members, of self-governing do
minions or colonies of a home gov
eminent. also member. Certainly
in a small body like that of the coun-
Gil, it would be unfair to have
home government represented and
also one of its dominions or colo
MES, and | cannot think it was the
intention of the trainers of the cove
nant that this might happen. Yet
| am bound to say that such re-
suit is not excluded by the present
language of the covenant in Article
x, and Article w; nor does the Ian
guage of article XIV necessarily ex-
clude from the tribunal to recon-
mend a settlement of a dispute to a
home government where one of its
dominions or colonies is a party,
nor does it necessarily exclude a
dominion or colony from such tri-
bunal where the home government
may be party.
Both Exclusions Intended.
81 have no doubt that both of
these exclusions were intended by
the trainers of the covenant Nor
is there any express description of
the function to be performed by the
council or the assembly under Ar
ticle XIV, so as to require that it
should act judicially and according
to international law or equity and
justice. l have no doubt that it
was intended that the language of
the preamble should characterize the
function of the duties of the council
or assembly under Article XIV and
therefore that the language | have
in the second interpreta-
ton is merely giving expression to
that which ought to be inferred as
the intention of the trainers of the
covenant. I may say that it sup
plies that which Mr.. Roo, forcibly
represented as a defect of the cove
nant
THE third Interpretation is an
exact legal construction OF the eff
feet of Article X, and I do not see
how any of the signatory powers
can object to it. The conclusions
in respect to the function of con-
gress under this article is the neces-
sary result of the determination of
power under our constitution to
which none of the associated men,
bers of the league can object.
Statement of Law.
The fourth Interpretation is a
mere statement of international law
and the proper construction of the
seventh paragraph of Article XVI
which is only inserted to satisfy
criticism of that paragraph based on
the unfounded assumption that
some tribunal of the league will be
found which will declare i'll respect
to immigration or the tariff to be
something other than a question of
domestic policy. If, as all authori-
ties show, immigration and tariff
by treaties are purely
domestic questions, then it cannot
injure the league to say that which
is undoubtedly a maxim of inter
national law.
The fifth Interpretation defines
the Monroe doctrine. AS the ex-
preston Monroe doctrine" is used
in Article XXI, and as the United |