The Lexington intelligencer. [volume] (Lexington, Mo.) 1901-1949, 1919-08-22

vi VIC HAaAuH
4 nations; and | must frankly say
hat ] am unable to understand why
iuch doubts should be entertained.
fou viii recall that when | had the
pleasure Of a conference with your
committee and with the committee Of
he house Of representatives on foreign
affairs at the White House in March
last, the questions now most frequent
" asked abouS the league of nations
ali c~anyassed with a view to their
immediate Qualification. The covenant
Of the league was then in it's first
draft and subject to revision. II was
pointed out that no express recognition
was given to the Monroe Doctrine,
that II was not expressly provided 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
constitutional 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 | have men
toned had, in fact, already been &C
cepted 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 1t.
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 re.
gional understanding like the Monroe
Doctrine" was used not because any
one Of the conference thought there
was any comparable agreement any
where else in existence or in contem-
plation. but only ebcause it was
thought best to avoid the appearance
OF dealing in such q document with
the policy Of a single nation.
With regard to domestic questions,
Article Sixteen OF the covenant ex-
pressly provides that, il In cast Of any
dispute arising between members Of
the league the matter involved Is
'laimed by one OF the parties "and is
ound by the council to arise out OF
matter which by international law
S solely within the domestic iurisdic
ion Of that party. the council shall SC
eport and shall make no recommends
lions as to its settlements"
The United States was by no means
the only government interested in the
explicit adoption OF this provision, ant
here is no doubt in the mind OF any
authoritative student Of internationa
aw that such matters as immigration
tariffs, and naturalization are lncon
testably domestic questions will
which, no international body eoulC
deal.
The right OF any state to Withdraw
had been taken for granted but no OBJ
lection was made to making Il explicit
indeed. go soon as the views expressed
At the White House conference wer,
laid before the commission It was a
once conceded that it was best t
leave the answer to so important
question to inference. No propose
was made to set up any tribunal t
pass judgment upon the questio
whether a Withdrawing nation had /
fact fulfilled "alI its international oil
legations and all its obligation under III
'oyenant.' II was recognized that thf
question must be left 10 be resolved b
the conscience OF the nation proposin
TO withdraw; and must say that It dI
wv ~ lAN MOlAN me ~ INOlOf
that the articlc be made more explic
because | know that the United Stat,
would never itself propose to withdra
from The league II It's conscience wi
not entirely clear as TO the fulfllmel
OF all its international obligations.
has never failed to fulfill them and new
viii.
Article Ten is In no respect OF doub
ful meaning when read IN the light
, the covenant as q whole. The coun,
, u the league can oniy advise upoI
the means by which the obligations
) that great article are TO be given e
iect to. Unless the United States Is
party to the policy az action In Questio
= her own affirmative vote in the counl
[ Is necessary before any advice can
given for a unanimous vote Of the cou
i ell IS required. II she is a party. I
r trouble is hers anyhow, and the unaI
nous vote Of the council Is only advi
9 in any case.
e Each government Is free TO reject
4 II 1t pleases. Nothing could have be
q made more clear 10 the conference tn
: the right Of our congress under o
Constitution 10 exercise its independe
judgment IN all matters OF peace a
war No attempt was made TO questi
or nit that right. The United Stat
u viii indeed undertake under Article 7
v to respect and preserve as against G
: ternal aggression Of the territorial
. tegrity and existing political indepe
1 dence OF all members OF the league" a
that engagement constitutes a VI
y grave and solemn moral obligation, |
o Il ~ a moral not a legal obligation q
4, leaves our congress absolutely lree
n put It's own Interpretation upon ID In
cases that call for action.
Article Ten seems to me to constitl
u the very backbone OF the whole co
d uant Without Il The league would
hardly more than an influential deb
" ing society
Ie II has several times been sugges
N In public debate and Ia private conf
W ence that Interpretations OF the Sci
r IN which the United States accepts
"A engagements Of the covenant should
y embodied IN the instrument Of ratifi