New-York tribune., 1919-07-31
Whether Reservations Reserve

Whether Reservations Reserve
In an editorial article in The InGeper-
dent DIR. Talcott Williams, of the School
of Journalism, seeks to establish that
reservations to treaty do not reserve
that is to say, that the Senate cannot
"alter or decide the meaning of the in
strument by action at the time it rat
ities the agreement" The contention
is that any reservations to the treaty of
Versailles will be mere utilities.
The authorities DR.. Williams relies
on are the Diamond Rings" case,
wherein the Supreme Court decided that
the McEnery resolution, adopted after
the Spanish treaty was ratified, but not
part of the act of ratification, was
without legal significance, and that stha
meaning of treaty cannot be controlled
by subsequent explanations of some Of
those who voted for it,
Mr.. Wickersham first brought this
point forward in letter to The Trib
uac, but examination showed that the
decision did not apply to the issue now
before the country. The McEnery res
olution was not part of the act of
ratification. 1t is not now purpcsed
that the Senate shall unconditionallv
ratlfy and then, as an independent act,
interpret the language of the treaty.
Dr. Williams also cites the Stock
bridge Indian treaty. with respect to
which the Senate adopted a rroviso
which was not made part of the treaty.
which was not proclaimed by the Prcsi
dent. Passing over the Question that,
an agreement with an Indian tribe is not
treaty IN an international sense. it is
to be observed that the Supreme Court
when it disregarded the proviso said
there was no evidence that it had re-
celved the approval of the President.
NO such defect will attach to the Yer
sallles treaty. If there are reserva-
tons, the President, when he files the
instrument Of ratification at Paris. mrst
SEND the ratlfying resolution as passed.
The third case mentioned by DR.. Will
lams IS the controversy over the Alagon
grant. While the treaty for the ces-
sion OF Florida was pending the King of
SPAN made grant Of 100000 acres
OF land. The President refused n roc
oghlze the grant because made during
negotiations. The Senate agreed with
the President and refused to ratify: the
treaty was returned to Spain and the
hlng cancelled the grant 1t is dificu]t
to see how this case has even q remote
bearing on the present controversy.
That the President may pigeonhole
treaty when the form of ratification
does not please him is not open to chal
lenge, and that foreign nation NAV re-
1use to exchange ratifications if reser-
vatlons do not please it is also not omen
10 challenge. Indeed, any nation, with
or without reason, may reject the Yer
sailles treaty up to the moment of the
exchange of ratificatons The document
signed at Paris is in law not an agree
ment, but merely a draft of an agree
ment.
observations by the Senate do not
reserve says DR.. Williams. If there
are reservations they will not be by the
senate but by the totality of our gov
ernment. If formally or tactly accept
ed by other powers they are I: part Of
'he instrument. In any event, even if
unnateral, the interpretations they set
out are binding on our own agencies Of
government. So reservations do reserve.
Inc issue is simple in essence. A
'ieaey IS contract, and a contract i'm
p'aes the meeting of minds. When there
is draft of an agreement and one side
sets out how it understands it and the
other SIDE signs with interpretations a
part OF the instrument, there is agree
ment on the basis of the validity of the
interpretations So business goes for
ward every day in our courts.
The so-called reservations which were
made by New York, Rhode Island and
Virginia when their conventions an
proved the Federal Constitution seem in
no way to furnish precedent When we
became nation is matter Of academic
dispute, but it is clear that the former
colonies had been united under the Brit
ish Crown, that they were united under
the Continental Congress. that they were