Connecticut western news. [volume] (Salisbury, Litchfield Co., Conn.) 1871-1970, 1919-09-04

NN VIII fecnll HAT Nncn Il mn AhN
pleasure of u 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 10 their immediate Qualification.
The covenant of the league was then
I'm It's first draft and subject TO rovi-
sion. 1t was pointed out that no ex-
press recognition was given to the
Monroe doctrine, that II was not ex-
press'y provided that the league
should have no authority 10 net or TO
express Judgment on matters Of do
nestle policy, that the right TO with
draw from the league was not ex-
i,"'Ssiy recognized, and that the con-
Situtonal rights of the Congress TO de-
tel1nine all questions of peace and war
was not sufficiently safeguarded. on
my return TO Paris oil these matters
were taken up again by the Commits
sion on the League of Nations and
every suggestion of the United States
was accepted. =
",rhe view of the United States
with regard to the question / have
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 our discussion In
March, but no objection was made to
anything explicitly In the text that all
had supposed to be implicated In IL.
1.-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 any
one of the conference thought there
was any comparable agreement any
where else In existence or In contem-
plation, but only because II was
thought best to avoid the appearance
of dealing In such document with the
policy Of single nation.
Article 10 OF the covenant expressly
"With regard to domestic questions
provides that IL 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 matter
which by international law rs solely
y'ithin the domestic jurisdiction Of that
party the council shall so report and
shall make no recomm endation as to
its settlements The United States
was by no means the only government
interested In the explicit adoption of
ibis provision, and there is no doubt
In the mind of any authoritative stu
dent of international law that such
matters as immigration, tariffs and
naturalization are incontestably domes-
nc questions with wh'ch no interna-
tional body could deal.
THE right OF any state TO withdraw
had been taken for granted, but no OBJ
lection was made to making IL explicit
Indeed, so soon as the views expressed
at the White House conference were LAID
before the commission II was at once
conceded that IL was best not 10 leave
the answer TO so important question to
Inference. No proposal was made to set
up any tribunal to pass Judgment upon
the question whether withdrawing ma
ton has In fact fulfilled all Its interna-
teal o:,lga Ions AMI all its obligations
under the covenant II was recognized
ha. t..s.t sLes..S:s must be left to be re-
.olved by the conscience OF the nation
proposing. to withdraw, and j must say
that IL dill not reem to me worth while
20 propose that the article be made moro
cznlirit Ne"""~a l knew that the, United
-sa.es =. ...... lever itself propose 10 with
draw from the league IL It's corscience
was not entirely clear as to the fulfill
mont OF all It's international obligations.
II has never failed TO fulfill them and
never viii.
Article 10 s In no respect OF doubtful
meaning when read I'm 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 tho policy
or action in question her own affirmative
vote in the council is necessary before
any advice can be given or a unanimous
vote of the council is required. III she is
a party the trouble is hers anyhow and
the unanimous vote Of the council is only
advice in any cane. Each government Is
free to reject It IL II pleases. Nothing
could have been made moro clear to the
conference than the right Of our Congress
under our Constitution to exercise It's
independent judgment In all matters OF
peace and war. No attempt was made
to question or limit that right. Tho
United States will, indeed undertake
under Article 10 to respect and preserve
as against external aggression tho terri
toral integrity and existing political in
dependence OF all members OF the league
and that engagement constitutes n very
grave and solemn moral obligation. But
IL is a moral, not a legal, obligation and
leaves our Congress absolutely free TO
put its own Interpretation upon IL In all
acses that call for action.
Article 10 seems to me TO constituts
the very backbone OF the whole covenant.
without IL the league would be hardly
more than an influential debating So
ciety.
1T has several times been suggested.
in public debate and in private confer
ence, that interpretations OF the sense
in which the United States accepts tho
engagements OF the covenant should be
embodied in the instrument of ratifca-
ton. There can be no reasonable objcc-
ton to show interpretations accompany