Albuquerque morning journal. [volume] (Albuquerque, N.M.) 1903-1926, 1919-07-29
DEMOCRACY NOT ABLE
TO PROMISE WAR AS
MONARCH MAY DO
Continued From page one.)


security and good faith are primary
considerations Those, either here or
abroad. who would oppose such rea-
sonable interpretations or reservations
on our part would take a heavy re-
sponsbility,
THE question IS then what, specffi-
cally should the reservations be;
Proposed Reservations.
I'D With respect to the right OF
Withdrawal (Article y. 1t IS reason
able to provide that a member with
drawing from the League should not
be released from a debt or liability
previously incurred. But ii should not
be possible that, through a claim of
the non performance of an obligation,
a member desiring to withdraw should
be kept in the league. perhaps indef-
initely. | understand that different in
terpretations have been put upon the
clause in question, and | think that
there should be a clarifying statement
as part of the ratification,
"(2) The clause relating to domes-
tic matters, such as immigration or
tariff laws, is ambiguous (Article
XIV. as it provides for a finding by
the council whether the question is
one solely within the domestic juris-
diction. There should be a clear
statement of our understanding that
such matters, where no international
engagement has been made with re-
spect thereto, are not submitted for
the consideration or action OF the
league or any of its agencies,
The Monroe Doctrine.
"(3) 1t is urged by the advocates
of the covenant that Article XXI rec
doctrine. But the descriptive phrase
employed in the article is inaccurate,
and the meaning of the article IS far
from clear. There should be an in
terpretative statment which will re-
move all doubt that the traditional
policy of the United States as to pure
| " American questions Is still main
tanned l fully endorse Mr.. Roots
proposed statement of reservation and
understanding upon this point. but in
the view that an alternative form or
statement may be helpful, | submit
one below. ""t'
"(4) agree with Mr. Root that it
would he desirable to eliminate Article
X, with its guaranty to preserve
against external aggression the terri
torial integrity" of all members of the
league. My views as to this article
were stated in the enclosed address
| before The Union League club
| (March 20, 1919 and ] need not re-
peat them at length. / still think that
| a peace-maker.
| Cannot Promise War.
! "If we are entering upon a new
world order of democracies. the in
evitable consequences should be rec
I ognized Democracies cannot prom
Use war after the manner of mon
archs. 1t is idle to attempt to COM
NIT free people to the making of war
! in an unknown contingency when
such war may be found to be clear
| ly opposed to the dictates of justice.
The limitation with respect to lex
ternal aggression is important, hut
does not meet TIE difficulty. AS the
most earnest supporters of the ar
ticle admit, it may he invoked against
a power which has performed all its
obligations under the other provisions
of the covenant and be the victor I'm a
war legal under Articles XII. XIII
and XIV"
while the importance of Article X
! is strongly emphasized by its support
ers. it is said at the same time that the
| fulfillment of the engagement would
| ne only according 10 the pan duNIse'
| by council of the league, and as this
must be a plan upon which the mem
bers of the council unanimously agree
we could veto any proposal calling foi
an intervention in what we deemed
to be an unsuitable case. Again, it Is
/ freely recognized that war can only b,
declared by congress.
j Article Y Notifications.
! "Article X is objectionable because
1t is an illusory engagement, Whetho!