The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1916-1920, 1919-08-20
diatcly arise II the fact Of actual IN
vasion were undlsputed?


Rule OF Legal Obligation.
The President-The legal obligation to
apply the automatic punishments OF the
covenant undoubtedly, but not the legal
obligation to go to arms and actually TO
make war--not the legal obligation.
There might be a very strong moral
obligation.
Senator McCumber--Just 20 that
may understand definitely what your
view Is on that subject, Mr.. President,
do understand you to mean that while
we have two different remedies, and pos
sibly others. we would simply be the sole
Judge Of the remedy we would apply,
but the obligation would still rest upon
US to apply some remedy to bring about
the result?
The President-Yes. cannot quite
accept the full wording that you used
sir. We would have complete freedom
OF choice as to the application of force.
Senator McCumber-Would we not
have the same freedom Of choice as to
whether we would have the application
of a boycott? Are they not both under
the same language, so that we would
DO bound by them In the same way7
The President-Only in regard to GER
tain articles. The breach OF certain
articles of the covenant does bring on
what have designated as an automatic
boycott, and in that we would have no
| choice.
Senator Knox-Mr. President, allow
me to ask this question: Suppose that
It is perfectly obvious and accepted that
there is an external aggression against
some power, and suppose 1t IL perfectly
obvious and accepted that 1t cannot be
repealed except by force of arms, would
we be under any legal obligation to
participate?
The President-No. sir, but we would
be under an absolutely compelling moral
obligation.
Senator Kpox-But no legal obliga-
ton?
The President-Not as contem-
plate It.
Senator Williams-Mr. President, each
nation, IL 1 understand 1t, is of course
left to Judge the applicability OF the
principles stated to the facts in the case,
whether there is or is not external ag-
erosion?
| The President-Yes.
Senator Willlams-And II any country
should conclude that there were not
external aggression, but that France OF
some other country had started the
trouble indirectly. we would have the
same right, II understand It. that Italy
had to declare that her alliance with
Germany and Austria was purely de-
fensive. and that she did not see any
thing defensive in II; so when you come
to judgment of the facts. outside OF the
international law involved. each nation
must determine. II understand, whether
or not there has been external aggres-
sion?
The PRESIDENT think you are right
sir. Senator addressing Senator Knox
you were about to ask something?
Senator KNOX only wanted to tel
you that / asked that question because
I was a little confused by the Language
of your message transmitting the pro
posed Franco-American treaty to the
Senate, in which you said, in substance
and, l think, practically in these terms
that this is only binding us to do i'm
mediately what we otherwise would have
been bound to do under the League OF
Nations.
The PRESIDENT did not use the WORD
bound" but morally bound let me
say that you are repeating what
said to the other representatives. ! said
"Of course, 1t is understood we would
have to be convinced that It was ar
unprovoked movement of aggression
and they at once acqulesced in that
| hCSulIoSI iNSAN'Si'e
there are a number OF Senators who
sincerely believe that under the con
struction of Article ", taken in connec'
ton with other clauses and other arti
Giles in the treaty, the council can sug
gest what we should do--of course.
while they admit the council can only
advise and suggest. that 1t Is neverthe
less our moral duty to Immediately obey
the council. without exercising our owr
judgment as TO whether we shall go tc
war or otherwise. Now the public, thu
American people, a great proportion o.
them. have that same conviction, which
is contrary TO your view. Do you no
think, therefore, that 1t would be wei
to have reservation inserted in oui
resolution that shall so construe tina
section as to make II clear not only e
the American people. but to the world
that Congress may use its own judgment
as to what it will do. and that its fail
ure to follow the judgment OF the council
will not be considered breach of thu
agreement?