Saint Mary's beacon. [volume] (Leonard Town, Md.) 1867-1983, 1919-08-28

say that I am unable TO understand
why such doubts should be entertained.
ion will recall that when I had the
pleasure Of conference with your
committee and with the committee cf
the House OF Representatives on For.
eign Aaairs at the white House In
March last. the questions now most
frequently asked about the league Of
haticns were all canvassed, with a
view 90 their immediate clarification.
Tie covenant OF tha league was then
In its first draft and subject 20 revi.
sion. IL was pointed out that no ex.
press recognition was given 20 the
Monroe doctrine. that it was not en-.
prcss'y provided that the league
should have no authority to act or to
express a Judgment on matters Of do
nestle policy. that the right to with.
draw from the league was not ex.
pressiy recognized. and that the con.
siitntional rights OF the Congress 10 de.
tetinine all questions Of peace and war
was not sufficiently safeguarded. on
my return TO Paris all these matters
were taken up again by the Commits
sion ON the League Of Nations and
every suggestion OF the United States
was accepted.
'+fhe view OF the United States
with regard TO the question I have
mentioned had. In fact, already been
accepted By tho commission and there
was supposed TO be nothing ineonslst-
ent 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 ali
had supposed TO be duplicated In Il.
''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 cOvenast. 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 I'm existence or In coatetn-
pletion, but only because it was
thought best TO avoid the appearance
OF dealing In such a document with the
policy OF q single nation.
Article 10 OF the covenant expressly
with regard to domestic questions,
provides that n In case OF any dis
putc arising between members OF the
League the matter Involved In claimed
by one of the parties and Is found by
the council to arise out OF O matter
which by international law In solely
within the domestic Jurisdiction Of that
party the council shall 30 report and
shall make no recommendation ss 10
Its settlements The United States
was by no means the only government
interested In the explicit adoption Of
this provision, and there In no doubt
In the mind Of any authoritative stu
dent of international law that such
matters as immigration, tariffs and
naturalization are incontestabiy domes-
tic questions with which no interna-
tional body could deal.
The right OF any state % withdraw
had been taken for granted. but no eb-
jectien was made Go making II explicit.
Indeed. 30 soon m the views expressed
at the white House conference were laid
before the copmission ~ was at once
conceded that u was best not 20 leave
the answer 60 20 important q question to
inference. No proposal was made 20 set
up any tribunal TO pass judgment upon
the question whether q Withdrawing ma
ton has In fact fulfilled all its intsraa-
tionai obligations and al its obligations
under the covenant IL was recognized
that that question must be left to be- re-
solved by the conscience OF the nation
proposing To withdraw, ana must say
that II did not seem 20 me worth while
20 propose that the article be made more
explicit because ! knew that the United
States would never itself propose 20 with
draw from tha league II its conscience
was not entirssy clear az 20 the fulfill
ment Of all its international obligations.
II has never failed to fuIfll them and
never VIII.
Article 10 10 In no respect Of doubtful
meaning when read in the light Of the
covenant an n whole. TIE council Of the
league can only advise upon the means
by which the obligations Of that great
article are 10 be given effect to. Unless
the United States is q party 70 the policy
or action In question her own Affirmative
vote IN the council is necessary before
any advioe can be given or q unanimous
vote Of the council In required. II ehs 10
n party the trouble II hers anyhow, and
advice In any case. Each government is
FREQ 20 reject Il n II pIeases. Nothing
could have been made more clear 10 the
conference than the right Of our Congress
under our Constitution 90 exercise lie
independent judgment in all matters Of
peace and war. No attempt was made
10 question or limit that right. The
United States viii. indeed. undsrtaks
under Article 10 20 respect and preserve
as against external aggression the terri
torlal integrity and existing political In
dependence Of all members Of the league
and that eagsEement constitutes q very
grave and solemn moral obligation. But
u In a moral. not q legal, obligation and
leaves our Congress abaolutsgy free 20
put It's own Interpretation upon 70 I'm al
acKes that call for action.
ARTICLE 10 seems 20 me 20 constitute
the very backbone Of the whole covsnant
Without Il the league would be hardly
more than an influential debating So
clety.
III has several times been suggested.
In public debate and IN private confer
ence. that Interpretations Of the sense
In which the United States aoespfa the
engagements Of the covenant should be
embodied In the instrument Of ratisea-
ton. There can be no reasonable objee-
ton TO show Interpretations seeompany-
Ing the sot Of ratification provided they
do not form q part Of the formal ratifca-
ton itself. But n such intsrprstasions
should constitute q part Of the formal
resolution Of ratification long dsiays
wosld be the inevitable consequences, IN
asmuca a. all the many governmenfs
concerned would have 20 accept, In eff
feet. the language % the senate as the
language Of the treaty before resfssz-
ton would be compists. The assent Of
the German assembly at wsimar would
have 20 be obtained. among ths rest. and
must frankly say that could only with
the greatest rsluctanos approach that
assembly for permission 20 read the
treaty az we understand 70 ana as those
who framed quite certainly understand ID
II the United States were % qualify the
document In any way. Moreover. I am
confident from what know Of the snany
conferences ana debates which accom-.
panied the formulation Of the treaty thas
otgr example would Immediately be .foI-
-owed In many quarters. In some In
stances with very ssrtous reservations. ana
that the msaninG and operative force Of
The treaty would presently DO cioudea
from enc end Of It's clauses % the other. ''
Plano Truth