Rock Island Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1893-1920, 1919-08-19
submit that there is nothing vague
or doubtful in their wording.

submit that there is nothing vague
or doubtful in their wording.
Nothing Concealed.
THE Monroe doctrine is express
ly mentioned as an understanding
which is in no way to be impaired
or interfered with by anything con-
tanned in the covenant and the eX-
preston regional understanding
like the Monroe doctrine" was
used, not because any one of the
conferees thought there was any
comparable agreement anywhere
else in existence or in contempla-
ton, but only because it was
thought best to avoid the appear
ance of dealing in such a document
with the policy of a single nation.
Absolutely nothing is concealed in
the phrase.
Domestic Affairs Left Alone.
with regard to domestic ques-
tons, article XVI of the covenant
expressly provides that, if in case
OF any dispute arising between
members of the league, the matter
involved is claimed by one of the
parties land is found by the coun-
ell to arise out of a matter which
by international law is solely with
in the domestic jurisdiction of that
party, the council shall so report,
ana snail make no recommended
tons as to its settlement.
The United States was by no
means the only government in the
explicit adoption of this provision,
and there is no doubt in the minds
of any authoritative student of in
| ternational law that such matters
as immigration, tariff, naturaliza-
| ton or incontestably domestic
questions with which no interna-
tional body could deal without ex-
press authority to do so. No enum-
GRAFTON of domestic questions was
| undertaken because to undertake
it, even by sample, would have in
volved the danger of seeming to ex-
clude those not mentioned
No Objection To Fixing Time.
The right of any soYeign state
to withdraw has 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
once conceded that it was best not
to leave the answer to so important
a question to inference. No pro-
posal was made to set up any trib-
unal to pass judgment upon the
question whether a withdrawing
nation had in fact fulfilled "alI its
international obligations and all its
obligations under the covenant. 1t
was recognized that that question
must be left to be resolved by the
conscience, of the nation proposing
to withdraw; and l must say that
1t did not seem to me worth while
to propose that the article be made
more effectively explicit because I
knew that the United States would
never itself propose to withdraw
from the league if its conscience
Syas not entirely clear as to the full
fillment of all its international OBJ
legations. II has never failed TO
fulfill them and never will.
No Doubt About Article 10.
Article 10 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 arti-
Gle are to be given effect to. IN
less the United States is a party to
the policy or action in question,
her own affirmative vote in the
council is necessary before any ad-
vice can be given, for unanimous
vote of the council is required. If
she is a party, the trouble is hers
anyhow And the unanimous vote
of the council is only advice in any
case. Each government is free to
reject it if it pleases. Nothing
could have been made more clear
to the conference than the right of
our congress under our constitu-
ton to exercise its independent
Judgment in all matters of peace
and war No attempt was made
to question or to limit that right.
Moral Obligation.
1.-THE United States will indeed
undertake under article 10 to re
spect and preserve as against ex-
teFnal aggression the territorial
integrity and existing political in
dependence of all members of the
league and that engagement con
stitutes a very grave and solemn
problem. But it is a moral. not
legal, obligation, and leaves our
congress absolutely free to put its
own Interpretation upon it in all |
cases that call for action. 1t is |
binding in conscience only, not in
law.
Article 10 seems to me to con-
stitute the very backbone of the /
whole covenant Without it the |
league would be hardly more than |
an influential debating society.
Interpretations Acceptable.
1T has several times been sug- |
gested, in public debate and in pri- !
yate conference, that interpreta-
lions of the sense in which the |
United States accepts the engage
ments of the covenant should be /
embodied in the instrument of rati-
fication. There can be no reason
able objection to such interpreta-
lions accompanying the act of rati-
fication provided they do not form
a part of the informal ratification
itself. Most of the interpretations
which have been suggested to me
what seems to me the plain
of the instrument itself.
But if such interpretations should
constitute a part of the formal res
olution of ratification, long delays
I