Arizona republican., 1919-04-29
The New Covenant


 The new covenant of the League Of Nations the complete text of which, with explanations of the amendments as published yesterday morning. is vast improvement upon the original not only in that all the reasonable objections the latter have been met but in that vagueness of has been modified. perhaps as far as possible. Certainly great deal of coudng verbosity has been eliminated, and there has been much orderly arrangement of the subjects.
 Much necessarily left to the council of the league, but the rights of members now appear to be thor oughly safeguarded possible The whole dispute is narrowed down to this now, 'Ts any league worth whe?o And it is about that that further discussion must revolve.
 Senator Borah far has. been the only opponent of the league to renew objection. He rests that upon Article N which he finds still leaves us bound 10 take part any expedition to guarantee the terri toria integrity of countries. We do not think we are so bound. The league only undertakes to serve the territorial integrity of members against external aggression" Its members not bound to reduce internal dissensions in Russia the en tme and the constitution certainly not com pei the maintenance by the United States of stand ing army in Europe, as the senator declares
 The council only undertakes to advise upon the means by which this obligation may be fulfilled. That may be, and first would be- intimaton to tho offending nation that it invoking the displeasure of the league. Probably in most cases that would be sufficient. not there would follow as is provided elsewhere against recaleitrants, the application of economic pressure. There are not many countries which could long withstand that There might be at times the actual use of force, but think such in- stances would be very rare.
 But such a thing as the League of Nations cannot be effective unless the nations forming it assume certain obligations with the expectation of dischargng them when called upon to do so. If the League of Nations is calculated to peace, should willing to make sacrifice for it. almost any sacrifice short of any part of nationality. Without these obligations and this readiness make sacrifices of course there could be no League of Nations
 There appears to be nothing in the new consttu- ton that could in any circumstances put our soy- ereignty in peril The Monroe doctrine is specifically though almost grudgingy, guaranteed. There is a sufficient distinction between arbitrable and non-ar- bitrable disputes and there is a double guaranty against oppression by adverse majority of the league. If find that it's operation is inimcal to nationalism may withdraw on giving two years notice, if have fulfilled obligations to the league. If an amendment to the constitution adopted by majority, is unfavorabe to us we need not accept it. We automatically cease to be a member.
 Nor be sent to police distant parts of the world. We may do please about that under Article 22 though, doubt, would feel at least moral obligation to accept mandatories when could do so more conveniently than any other power.
 Now as to the matter of armament Though this constitution recommends the reduction of armarnents to the lowest point consistent with safety as necessary to the maintenance of peace, it probably means only that great armament is provocative of war It undertakes, though, only to advise regarding arma- ments Each nation may decide for itself what it's armament shall be.
 The natural result in time We think, would be a voluntary reduction armaments so that the nations instead of competing to see which could create the heaviest would be led to experiments in reducing. But reduction would almost certainly be gone about gingerly. The who have prepared the constitu- ton do not share the illusion League Nations is a specific against Each nation will keep an eye it's neighbor and when it is assured that its intentions peaceful, it's own suspicious will be quieted.
 There is nothing in the constitution either in the letter the spirit that would be affronted by req sonable preparedness for war. Indeed war is a DOS sbiity that contemplated throughout the document It seeks only to increase the remoteness of the pos sbiIity
 It offers argument against readiness and does not reduce the reasons why this nation should not adopt the policy of universal military training and service There is nothing. believe a the consti- tuition of the League of Nations as it now stands, to which American cannot subscribe
 The covenant it appears wiii of course be changed from time to time. It can be at best only basis. but believe it is a, sound unobjee- tonable basis.