New-York tribune., 1919-09-06
The Points of Agreement

lhc FONTS or Agreement
The action of the Senate committee
with respect to the covenant of the
league of nations shows how narrow is
the issue that divides the debaters The
committees decisions make irrelevant
many of the things said on both sides Of
the great controversy. The two ele-
ments have argued themselves close to
agreement.
1t is agreed that there is to be ratifi-
cation Not a member of the committee
is recorded as opposed to ratification.
The much-abused and carcatured Borah
voted for ratification; so did the terrible
johnson and the equally terrible Brande
gee. The ''pygnies" Of the Senate are
all ratifers and don't care who knows
it. There is no conspiracy to defeat the
treaty and lacerate the heart of the
world
Not only is there agreement as to
ratification. but agreement as to the wis
dom Of explanations which shall define
more clearly than is done by the vague
language of the covenant the obligations
this country assumes. Senator Hitch
cock has Indicated his willingness to
accept resolutions. if separately passed
by the Senate, which are to the same
effect as the committees reservations.
# it is proper to inform the world
as to THIS counnys understandings of
the covenant by solemn resolutions, why
is it improper to convey the same in
formation in another way?
The issue thus is reduced to how the
world should be told what it is agreed it
should be told. The President says it
should be by separate resolutions; the
Senate says it should be in the instru-
ment Of ratification. The President would
give notice by publication, as it were: the
Senate majority by a special delivery
letter. to be duly recoiptod for Wherein
is any great difference? If the interpre-
ting resolutions Of Senator Pittman are
honest, objection to the contents of the
reservations would seem foreclosed.
The prologue 10 the reservation raises
different question. 1t seems superflu-
Gus to ask the other powers expressly to
reservations. In the Algeciras rati6ca-
ton the reservations were left to be
tacitly accepted. In the South African
slave trade ratification the reservations
were merely assented to by the foreign
offices of other governments. The re-
quirement that other nations shall ex-
pressly take notice Of our reservations
thus seems surplusage and introduces an
unnecessary complication. The require
ment can be eXcised without weakening
or destroying the reservations.
The ratification the Senate proposes
would leave untouched the affirmative
and valuable parts Of the covenant. 1t
would merely make more clear what the
President has contended is already clear
namely, that this country assumes no
obligation at war with our Constitution
or destroying future liberty of national
action. Otherwise the covenant would
stand.
AS to the amendments reported bv
the committee, these, it is to be noted.
are not parts Of the ratifying resolution.
They probably do not command the SUD-
port of a majority of the Senate and
can be voted down without affecting
either the ratification or the reserva-
tions.
On what grounds will the President be
able to attack the four fundamental
reservations agreed on by the committee?
He has admitted that they are sound in
principle. He has said that the Ian
guage of the treaty may properly be in
terpreted so as to reserve to the United
States all the rights reserved explicitly
in the Senate's ratification resolution.
He approved the Pittman declaratory
resolutions, which tried to say the same
things, but in a way which would not
make it certain they would be generally
heard. What Ineligible objection can
the Presidents friends make to the four
primary reservations?