New-York tribune., 1919-07-24
The Morass Of Ambigu;ty

Senator McNary, of Oregon, who
strongly favors the league of peace idea
and accepts the covenant as furthering
it, furnishes the public with his under
standing of Article X.
The Senator denies that the article
lays an absolute obligation on this coun-
try to go to war SO ne deduces that
there is no impairment of the preroga-
tive Of Congress.
But after establishing that the article
does not and can not collide with our Con-
stitution Senator McNary admits that
it lays a moral obligation on this coun-
try to enter a conflict when others think
it should. This, it would seem, is
practical surrender concerning the mat
ter in dispute.
The first part of the Senator's argu-
ment knocks down a man of straw, for
there is no considerable body of opinion
that holds this country can be man.
damused into going to war. Mr.. Root
does not so contend, nor Senator Lodge
nor Senator Knox. SO when the Oregon
Senator parades an irrelevancy few will
be disposed to contradict him.
Those who criticisc Article x do not
say it creates an absolute obligation, but
merely that it permits others to create an
atmosphere of constraint; that is to say
that the obligation is morally binding.
This Senator McNary comedies. So
doing, he justifes those who demand, if
cNcb Ohli %o ~ ~.
it be defined-that it be clearly stated
that neither legally nor morally does this
country give up it's liberty of action
An international agreement, from it's
nature, is never legally binding. Its
sanction is in honor. This country may
legally refuse to meet the obligations of
the Panama protective treaty to which
Mr.. Taft SO often refers Alliances,
from their very nature, must be moral
rather than legal. No coercive power is
created by the covenant, which prevents
no nation from breaking pledges.
But faith keeping, although not legally
enforceable, is the practice of honorable
nations. Moral bonds have knit together
great coalitions---such unions as the one
which waged the recent war. Nations,
like men, recognize that behind the law
and its letter is the moral duty which
requires respect for agreements
What does Article X morally obligate
us to do? Senator McNary, though
acknowledging we arc obligated to some
thing, does not say. Is it because he
does not know? This is highly probable,
Tor otherwise he would define the obi
cation He does not know for the same
reason other men do not know-because
the language is ambiguous If it is
not clear what duties this country is
10 assume, common sense surely demands
removal of the doubt
The covenant, as all note who study
It's text, is document of loose drafts
manship and wavering meanings. One
section seems to mean one thing, and
another section something else, and a
third brings in further confusion.
Take not only Article X, but Article
XIV. Article XIV, with respect to con-
troversics not submitted to arbitration,
says that when a dispute is between
league members the parties shall not
participate in making the councils de-
cision. II on one side were four and on
the other side four, the remaining one
would make the decision.
Again, what is the effect OF decision
arrived at? That "the members Of tho
league will not go to war with any party
to the dispute which complies with the