Iowa County democrat. [volume] (Mineral Point, Wis.) 1877-1938, 1919-08-28

your committee and With the commit
tee of the house of representatives on
foreign affairs at the White House in
March last, the questions now most
frequently asked about the League of
Nations were all canvassed, with view
to their immediate Qualification. The Co
venant Of the league was then in its first
draft and subject to revision. 1t was
pointed out that no express recognition
was given to the Monroe doctrine,
that it was not expressly provided that
! the league should have no authority to
act Or to express a judgment on mat
ters of domestic policy, that the right
to withdraw from the league was not
expressly recognized, and that the con-
stitutional rights of the congress to
determine all questions of peace and
war was not sufficiently safeguarded.
On my return to Paris all these mat
tiers were taken up again by the COM
mission On the League of Nations
and every suggestion of the United
States was accepted.
"The view of the United States with
regard to the questions I have men
toned had, in fact, already been &C
copied by the commission and there
was supposed to be nothing incOn-
siStent with them in the draft of the
covenant first adopted, the draft which
was the subject of our discussion in
March, but no objection was made to
anything explicitly in the text that all
had supposed to be implicit in it.
''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 the Mon
roe doctrine was used, not because
any one 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 document with
the policy of single nation.
with regard to domestic questions,
article XVI of the covenant eX-
pressly provides that, if in case any
dispute arising between members of
the league the matter involved is
claimed by one of the parties 'and is
found by the council to arise out of
matter which by international law Is
solely within the domestic jurisdiction
of that party, the council shall so re-
port and shall make no recommends
ton as to it's settlements The United
States was by no means the only gov
eminent interested in the explicit
adoption of this provision, and there is
no doubt in the mind of any authorita-
tive student Of international law that
such matters as immigration, tariffs
and naturalization are incontestably
domestic questions with which no in
ternational body could deal.
"The right of any state to withdraw
had been taken for granted, but no
objection was made to making it ex-
plicit. Indeed, so soon as the views
expressed at the White House confer
ence were laid before the commission
1t was at once conceded that it was
best not to leave the answer to so i'm
pOrtant question to inference. No
proposal was made to set up any tri-
bunal to pass judgement upon the
question whether withdrawing ma
ton had in fact fulfilled all it's inter
national obligations and all it's Obliga
tiOns under the covenant It was rec
OgniZed that that question must be
left to be resolved by the conscience
of the nation proposing to withdraw
and must say that it did not seem to me
worth while to propose that the article
be made more explicit because 7 knew
that the United States would never itself
propose to withdraw from the league If it's
conscience was not entirely clear as to the
fulfllment of all its international obIfga-
tons. It has never failed to fulfill them
and never will.
Article x is in no respect of doubtful
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 of that great
article are to be given effect to. Unless
the United States is party to the policy
or action in question, her own affirmative
vote in the council is necessary before
any advice can be given, for unanimous
vote of the council is required. If she is
party, the trouble is here anyhow, an6
the unanimous vote of the council is only
advice in any case. Each government is
free to reject it if it please. Nothing coul6
have been made more clear to the confer
ence than the right of our congress under
our constitution to exercise it's independ
ent judgment in all matters of peace AND
war. No attempt was made to question Oh
limit that right. The United States will
indeed, undertake under article x to re-
spect and preserve as against externa
aggression the territorial integrity anc
existing political independence of members
Of the league, and that engagement con-
stitutes very grave and solemn moral
obligation. But it is g moral, not legal
obligation and leaves our congress abso-
lutely free to put it's own Interpretation
upon it in all cases that call for action.
Article K seems to me to constitute the
very backbone of the whole covenant
Without it the league would De hardly
more than an influential debating society
1T has several times been suggested ir
public debate and in private conference
that internreta atoms of the sense in which