The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1916-1920, 1919-08-05
HUGHES SEES PERIL
IN VAGUE ARTICLEX
Tells Borah in Letter 1t Does
Not Limit Obligations of
fH United States.
RESERVATION IS VITAL
Otherwise Whole Paragraph
Should Be Eliminated, Says
Former Justice.

Article XXI. OF the covenant OF the
League OF Nations carries with It moth
ing that will prove Injurious to Amer
lean interests, but Article x. either
should be eliminated or 90 amended or
Interpreted that the world shall know
that the United States makes no prom
Use and assumes no obligation to engage
In any military undsrtaking unless
authorised by Congress.
This is the gist OF a letter written by
Charles e. Hughes TO Senator Borah
Saturday and made public yesterday.
Mr.. Hughes wrote from his house at
Bolton. Landing. Lake George, and is
the second opinion Mr.. Hughes has
written concerning the covenant. The
letter reads:
MY dear Senator Borah:
i am glad to receive your letter of
Julg 20 which has been forwarded to
me here. In my letter to Senator Hale
/ did not think II necessary to suggest
an additional reservation with respect
to- Article XII. OF the covenant of the
League Of Nations for the following
reasons:
First: Tho proposed reservations
with regard to domestic questions and
tho matters OF national policy embraced
In the Monroe Doctrine apply to all the
operations of the league and thus
qualify Article XXI. as well as the other
articles OF the covenant by withdrawing
these matters from the consideration OF
the league or OF any of It's agencies.
How Article XXI. Limits Action.
Second: Article xI. declares that any
war or threat of war is a matter OF
concern 10 the whole league But II II
be matter of concern. still the league
Is to act only as provided In the coven-
ant. 1t Is further provided in Article
XII that the league shall take any
action that may be deemed wise and e.
fectual TO safeguard the peace of ma
tons What may. be deemed to be
wise and efectuar must, of course, be
determined at the time and in the light
OF the situation as disclosed. In short.
there 10 no present undertaking beyond
an agreement to confer in order to deter
mine what Is wise and effectual,' the
course of action being dependent upon
the result Of the conference.
The article contemplates a meeting
OF the Council or of the Assembly of the
! league. and in either case. as the matter
Is not one permitting a decision by a
less number. there can be no decision
| without the unanimous agreement on
the part OF the members of the league
represented at the meeting. AS the
United States Ia q member of the Coun-
ell, nothing can be determined to be
| wise and effectuar without the concur
renee Of the representative Of the United
States. unless the United States sees al
; not to be represented at the meeting.
"a 90 of ~,
province Of the league falls under Aru-
cles XII. to XVII of the covenant, which
I need not review. $50.
Il md In Article XI. no guaranty OF
| territorial integrity or of the political
independence of any State, or any as
| sumption of any obligation to make war
| or to declare or maintain an economic
boycott or blockade. or to take any other
| action whatever. unless the United
States, availing itself of its privilege as
member OF the Council, concurs in q
decision that such a course Is both wise
and effectual. The United States. as II
seems to me. will be entirely free &c
reach Its conclusions according to tn,
| merits of the case, and I see no injury
tn our interests in this provision.
Article y. as I view It presents 9
different question. The vice of Articl,
X. is that, unless different view i!
clearly set forth as part of the instru
ment Of ratification, II would seem t
import the assumption of present guar
anty with respect to the territorial in
tegrity Of all members of the league.
Article X. Not Limited.
The provision In Article X. that tn,
Council shall advise upon the means b,
which this obligation shall be fulfilled
might be taken to mean that the con
ference of the Council was to be only a
to the method of performing a definit
existing obligation. OF course, II tn
United States were bound by an existin,
guaranty It could not In good faith max
tho guaranty worthless by refusing T.
consent to any means OF enforcement
Freedom to repudiate an obligation
moi the freedom we desire. Nor does l
answer to call the obligation merely
moral one because of a lack of enforce
ability. We should hope that we shout
regard a moral obligation as binding a
any other.
MY objection to Article X Is that
unlike Article XII, II Is not properly lin
tied to an agreement to confer and I
decide In the future upon the course O
action which would then seem to be Il
accordance with the dictates of justic
and our views as to what as natio
we should undertake, but (unless W
now otherwise declare) might be take
to bind US to an, immediate and con
tinuing guaranty|as TO the terrltorls
integrity OF all members Of the leagu
and thus expose us to the charge O
bad faith, or of having defaulted in GU
promise, II Congress refused to recog
nze the obligation and to provide tn
means OF fulfillment.
Hence. I think that Article X shout
be eliminated, or. II retained because II
advocates insist that 1t imports no sue
obligation, the ratification should b
accompanied by a clear reservation an
iuterpretative statement that the Unite
States makes no promise and assume
no obligation whatever to engage in an
m ilitary undertaking unless 1t is author
lied by Congress. and that Congress
entirely free to exercise its exclusiv
authority in determining for the Unite
States whether in any future exigenc
there>is any obligation on the part c