Omaha daily bee. (Omaha [Neb.]) 187?-1922, 1919-08-20

stands in the way of the ratification
of the treaty except certain doubts
with regard to the meaning and i'm.
plication of certain articles of the
covenant of the league of nations
and | must frankly say that l am
unable to understand why such
doubts should be entertained. You
will recall that when | had the pleas
ure of conference with your com
mittee and with the committee OF
the house of representatives on for
eign affairs at the White House in
March last the questions now most
frequently asked about the league of
nations we're all canvassed, with a
view to their immediate Qualification.
The covenant Of the league was
then in its draft subject to revision.
1t was pointed out that no express
recognition was given to the Monroe
doctrine, that it was not specifically
decided that the league should have
no authority to act or to express a
judgment on matters of domestic
policy, that the right to withdraw
from the league was not expressly
recognized. and that the constitu-
tional right of the congress to de-
tcrmine ali questions of peace and
war was not sufficiently safeguarded
On my return to Paris all these mat
tiers were taken up again by the
commission 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 | have
mentioned had, in fact. already been
accepted by the commission and
there was supposed to be nothing
inconsistent with them in the draft
of the covenant first adopte6-the
draft which was the subject of our
discussion in March--but no objec-
ton was made to saying explicitly i'll
the text what all had supposed to be
implicit in it. There was absolutely
no doubt as to the meaning of any
one of the resulting provisions of the
covenant i'll the minds of those who
participated N drafting them, and |
respectfully submit that there is
nothing vague or doubtful in their
wording.
Monroe Doctrine Protected.
The Monroe doctrine is expressly
mentioned as all understanding
which is in no way to be impaired
or interfered with by anything con-
tanned in the covenant and the ex-
preston regional understandings
like the Monroe doctrine" was used,
not because any one of the con-
ferees thought there was any COM
parable agreement anywhere else in
existence or in contemplation. but
only because it was thought best to
avoid the appearance of dealing in
such a document with the policy of
a single nation. Absolutely nothing
is concealed in the phrase.
With regard to domestic ques-
tons, Article XVI of the covenant
expressly provides that, if in case of
any dispute arising between MEM
bers of the league the matter in
volved is claimed by one of the par
ties "and is found by the council to
arise out of matter which by in
ternational law is solely within the
domestic jurisdiction of that party,
the council shall so report, and shall
make no recommendations as to its
settlement"
The United States was by no
means the only government inter
ested in the explicit adoption of this
provision and there is no doubt in
the mind of any authoritative stu
dent of international law that such
matters as immigration, tariffs, and
naturalization are incontestably do
mestic questions with which no in
ternatona! body could deal without
express authority to do SO. No
enumeration of domestic questions
was undertaken because to under
take it, even by sample, would have
involved the danger of seeming to
exclude those not mentioned.
States Can Withdraw.
The right of any sovereign state
to withdraw had been taken for
granted, but no objection was made
to making it explicit. Indeed, SO
soon as the views expressed at the
White House conference were laid
before the commission it was at
once conceded that it was best not
to leave the answer to so important
question to inference. No pro-
posal was made to set up any tri-
bunal to pass judgment upon the
question whether withdrawing ma
ton had in fact fulfilled all its in
ternational obligations and all its
obligations under the covenant"
1t was recognized that that ques--
ton must be left to be resolved by
the conscience of the nation pro-
posing to withdraw, and | must say
that it did not seem to me worth
while to propose that the article
be made more explicit because |
knew that the United States would
never itself propose to withdraw
from the league if its conscience
was not entirely clear as to the
fulfillment of all it's international
obligations. 1t 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 a party to the
pOlicy or action in uuecf;or ;+r