Five Mile Beach weekly journal., 1919-08-22

say that 1 am unable to understand
why such doubts should be entertained
You will recall that when l had the
pleasure of a conference with your
committee and with the committee OF
the House Of Representatives on For
eign Affairs at the White House In
March last, the questions now most
frequently asked about the league of
nations were all ~canvassed, with a
view to their immediate c~larification
The covenant Of the league was then
in its first draft and subject to revi-
sion. 1t was pointed out that no ex-
press recognition was given to the
Monroe doctrine, that it was not ex-
pressly provided that the league
should have no authority to act or to
express a judgment on matters OF 40
nestle policy, that the right to with
draw from the league was not ex"
pressly recognized, and that the con.
stitutlonal rights of the Congress to de-
termine 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.
"The view of the United States
with regard to the question l nave
mentioned had, in fact, already been
accepted by the commission and there
was supposed to be nothing ~inconslst-
ent with them in the draft OF the
covenant first adopted, the draft which
was the subject of u discussion In
March, but no objection was made to
anything explicitly in the text that all
had supposed to be implicated In II.
"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 covenant, and the expression re-
gional understanding like the Monroe
doctrine was used not because my
one of the conference thought there
was any comparable agreement my
where else in existence or in contem-
plation, but only because 1t was
thought best to avoid the appearance
of dealing in such a document with the
policy of a single nation.
Article 16 of the covenant expressly
"With regard to domestic questions,
provides that If in case of any dis
pute arising between members OF the
league the matter involved is claimed
by one of the parties and is found by
the council to arise out of a matter
which by international law Is solely
within the domestic jurisdiction of that
party the council shall so report II
shall make no recommendation as to
its settlements The United States
was by no means the only government
interested in the explicit adoption or
this provision, and there is no doubt
in the mind of any authoritative stu
dent of international law that such
matters as immigration, tariffs n
naturalization are incontestably dOmes-
tic questions with which no interna-
tional body could deal.
The right Of any state to withdraw
had >en. taken for granted, but no OBJ
lection was made to making 1t explicit.
Indeed. so soon as the views expressed
at the White House conference were laid
before the commission it was at once
conceded that it was best not to leave
the answer to so important a question to
inference. No proposal was made to set
up any tribunal to pass judgment upon
the question whether a withdrawing ma
ton has in fact fulfilled all it's interna-
tional obligations and all its obligations
under the covenant 1t was recognized
that that question must be left to be re-
solved by the conscience OF the nation
proposing to withdraw, and 1 must say
that it did not seem to me worth while
to propose that the article be made more
explicit because 1 knew that the United
States would never itself propose to with
draw from the league IL its conscience
was not entirely clear as to the fulfill
ment of all it's international obligations.
1t has never failed to fulfill them and
never will.
article 10 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 a party to the policy
or action In question her own affirmative
vote in the council is necessary before
any advice can be given or p unanimous
vote of the council is required. If she Is
a party the trouble is hers anyhow, and
the unanimous vote of the council is only
advice in any case. Each government is
free to reject 1t If it pleases. Nothing
could nave been made more clear to the
conference than the right of our Congress
under our Constitution to exercise its
independent 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 10 to respect and preserve
as against external aggression the terri
torial integrity and existing political in
dependence of all members Of the league
and that engagement constitutes a very
grave and solemn moral obligation. But
it is a moral, not a legal, obligation and
leaves our Congress absolutely free to
put it's own Interpretation upon it in all
acses that call for action.
article 10 seems to me to constitute
the very backbone of the whole covenant.
Without 1t the league would be hardly
more than an influential debating So
ciety.
ut has several times been suggested,
In public debate and in private confer
enoe, that interpretations Of the sense
In which the limited States accepts the