New-York tribune., 1919-03-27

gard her immigration laws, her tariff
laws and her laws relating to the reg
ulatlon of commerce, including hcr
coastwlse traffic, as matters of her ex-
elusive concern, then there should be
appropriate qualifications to the gen.
eral words of the covenant. both with
respect to the field of the leagues in
quirics and as to the submission OF
disputes. Unnecessary antiquities are
not the friends of peace. The sdgges-
ton that it is unwise to refer particu-
larly to such matters as immigration
and the tariff shows conclusively that
l. would be the height of unwisedom
not TO refer to them.
Danger to Monroe Doctrine
ut has been said. understand, thai
the covenant extends the Monroe Doc
trine to the world. This is a singularly
infelicitous and inaccurate description
Of the effect of the covenant upor
a doctrine which is nothing if not g
distinctively national policy. The re-
ported statement is based upon the
guarantee contained in Article X with
respect to territorial integrity and
political independence. The provision
of Article X is in itself, in my judg
mcnt, highly Objectionable. But in any
event such a guarantee cannot be re-
garded as an adequate substitute for
the Monroe Doctrine.
"The best statement of it, think
has been made by Senator Root in his
address on The Real Monroe Doctrine,
and l can make no better contribution
to the current discussion than to quote
his words:
"'The doctrine is not international
law, but it rests upon the right of self
protection and that right is recognized
by international law the right is a
necessary corollary of independent SOW
ereignty. 1t is we'll understood that
the exercise of the right of self pro
lection may and frequently does ex-
tend i'll its effect beyond the limits of
the territor!sl jurisdiction of the state
exercising it.
"'The danger to be apprehcnded
from the immediate proximity Of hos
tile forces was not the sole considera-
ton leading to the deciaraton The
need to separate the influences de-
termining the development and rela-
tlon of states in the New World from
the Influences operating in Europe
played an even greater part. E.
The problem of national protection in
the distant future is one not to be
solved by the first impressions of the
casual observer, but only by profound
study of the forces, which, in the long
life of nations, work out results. In
this case the results of such study
by the best men of the formative
period of the United States are sup
ported by the instincts of the Ameri-
can democracy holding steadily in one
direction for almost century The
problem has not changed essentially
Policy Not Safeguardcd
~ believe that these words, spoken
in 1914, should be needed now. I.
at is idle to say that the covenant
in its present form adequately safe
guards our traditional policy In this
vital matter there is no reason why we
should trust TO equivocal clauses or
vague assurances. If our policy is not
respected now is the time to know this
important fact. If it is respected let
it be safeguarded appropriately. There
is no use in contending that the pres
ent covenant is adequate when so
strong supporter as President Lowell
has this to say:
"'The United States would be just-
fed in asking, and in my opinion ought
TO ask, for a clause in the covenant
that no foreign power shall hcreaft +
acquire by conquest, purchase, or in
any other way, any possession on the
American continent or the islands ad
iacent thereto. Nor do | believe that
the European members of the league
would object to such a clause, because
they do not want another nation to
acquire military posts or naval sta
tlons i'll the neighborhood of their own
coasts, canals or coaling stations
Calls Amendment Necessary
Such an amendment is essential; I
regard it as vital to our just interests.
Again, in order to safeguard inter
csts that arc distinctivcly American,
agree with Mr.. Taft that there should
be further provision that the set
tlement of purely American questions
should be remitted primarily to the
American nations, with machinery like
that of the present league, and that
European nations should not intervene
unless requested to do so by the Amcri-
can nations"
Concerning the guarantee of terri
torlal integrity, in Article X, Mr..
Hughes said;
The high contracting parties shall
undertake to respect and preserve as
against external aggression the ter
ritorial integrity and existing political
Independence of all states members of
the league. In case of any such ag-
gression or in any case of any threat
or danger Of such aggression the Ex-
ccutive Council shall advise upon the
means by which the obligation shall be
fulfilled
This contcmplatcs an immediate un-
dertaklng, that is, the present assump-
tion of the. obligation as defined. The
guaranty relates to the territorial in
tegrity and political independence Of
every state that is member Of the
league; the agreement is to preserve
that integrity and independence as
against external aggression. If this
preservation, as may be expected re-