Eagle River review. [volume] (Eagle River, Wis.) 1890-1927, 1919-09-12

.vn nau ~Irr Tu1nIlgu 1T IT'S inter
national obligations and all it's obliga-
tons under the covenant 1t was rec
left to be resolved by the conscience
of the nation proposing to withdraw
and must say that it did not seem to me
worth while to propose that the article
be made more explicit because knew
that the United States would never itself
propose to withdraw from the league If its
conscience was not entirely clear as to the
fulfillment of all its international obliga-
tons. 1t has never failed to fulfill them
and never will.
article x 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
article are to be given effect to. Unless
the United States is party to the policy
or action in question, her own affirmative
vote in the council is necessary before
any advice can be given, for a unanimous
vote of the council is required. If she is
party, the trouble is here anyhow, and
the unanimous vote of the council is only
advice in any case. Each government is
free to reject it if it please. Nothing could
have been made more clear to the confer
ence than the right of our congress under
our constitution to exercise~its independ-
ent Judgment in all matters of peace and
war; No attempt was made to question or
| limit that right The United States will,
indeed, undertake under article K to re-
spect and preserve as against external
| aggression the territorial integrity and
existing poll acal independence of members
of the league and that engagement con-
stitutes a very grave and solemn moral
obligation. But it is a moral. not a legal,
obligation and leaves our congress abso-
| lutely free to put it's own Interpretation
upon it in all cases that call for action.
tNArticIe x seems to me to constitute the
! very backbone of the whole covenant.
Without it the league would be hardly
more than an influential debating society.
st has several times been suggested in
public debate and in private conference.
that interpretations of the sense in which
the United States accepts the engagements
of the covenant should be embodied in the
instrument of ratification. There can be
no reasonable objection to show interpCe-
| tations accompanying the act of ratifea-
ton provided they do not form part of
| the formal ratification itself But If such
| interpretations should constitute part of
| the formal resolution, long delays would
| be the inevitable consequence. inaSmuch
as all the many governments concerned
would have to accept, in effect, the lam
| guage of the senate as the language of
(, the treaty before ratification would be
| complete The assent OF the German as
| sembly at Weimar would have to be OBJ
| tanned, among the rest, and must frank
| ly say that could only with the greatest
reluctance approach that assembly fer
permission to ratify the treaty as we IN
| derstand it and as those who framed 1t
xl1r. -
| ed States were to qualify the document in
any way, moreover, am confident from
| what know of the many conferences and
debates which accompanied the formula
ton of the treaty that our example would
Immediately be followed in many quarters,
| in some instances with very serious reser-
vations. and that the meaning and opera
tive force of the treaty would presently
be clouded from one end of its clauses to
the other"