Harrisburg telegraph. [volume] (Harrisburg, Pa.) 1879-1948, 1919-08-19

credits. because there can be no
confident or permanent revival OF
business.
But 1 will not weary you with
obvious examples. I will only ven
ture, to repeat that every element
of normal life amongst us depends
upon and awaits the ratification of
the Treaty of Peace; and also that
we cannot afford to lose a single
summers day by not doing all that
we can to mitigate the winters suf-
fering, which, unless we find means
to prevent it, may prove disastrous
to a large portion of the world and
may, at it's worst, bring upon Eu-
rope conditions even more terrible
than those wrought by the war it.
self.
Doubts Stand in Way
Nothing I am led to believe,
stands in the way of the ratification
of the Treaty except certain doubts
with regard to the meaning and
implication of certain articles of the
Covenant of the League of Nations,
and I must frankly say that l am
unable to understand why such
doubts should be entertained. You
will recall that when 1 had the
pleasure of a conference with your
of the House of Representatives or
Foreign Affairs at the White House
in March last, the questions now
mostly frequently asked about the
League of Nations were all call
Nassed. with a view to their imme-
diate claritication. The Covenant of
the league was then in it's first draft
and subject to revision. 1t wIs
pointed out that no express recoS-
milton was given to the Monroe Doc.
trine. that it was not expressly pro-
vided 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 70 de-
termine all questions of peace and
war was not sufficiently safeguard
ed. On my return to Paris all these
matters were taken up again by the
commission on the League of Ma
tons and every suggestion of thu
United States was accepted.
Wording Not Vague
The view of the United States
with regard to the questions I have
mentioned, had, in fact, already
been accepted by the commission
ana tnefe was supposed TO be moth
ing inconsistent with them in the
draft of the Covenant first adopted
the draft which was the subject
of our discussion in March-but 10
objection was made to saying eX-
plicitly in 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 in the
minds of those who participated III
drafting them, and I respectfully
submit that there is nothing vague
or doubtful in their wording.
Not to Interfere With Doctrine
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 con-
ferees thought there was any conf
parable agreement anywhere else in
existence or in contemplation, but
only because it was thought best 10
avoidSthe appearance of dealing in
such document with the policy OF
a single nation. Absolutely nothing
is concealed in the phrase.
With regard to domestic que:-