The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1916-1920, 1919-07-24
Agreement Basis Sought.

Agreement Basis Sought.
After consideration of the arguments
made on the subject l have formulated
these interpretations and reservation,
with the hope that they will suggest a
basis of agreement betmeen tho Demo-
Gratis and sufficient Republicans to rat
ify the treaty and secure to US the ines
Unable benefit OF a League OF Nations.
which will be the foundation for growth
and development into new era in our
international relations.
The attempt of such men as Senator
Borah. Senator II ram Johnson, Senator
sherman and others to defeat the treaty,
and the deliberate eXaggeration OF the
Shantung feature of the treaty. do not,
| think. Indicate the attitude OF the
ma jorlty OF the Republican party In the
Senate. and I do not think that any at
tention should be paid to the suggestion
that the treaty be amended in its pro-
Wis ons with reference to the rearrange-
ment OF the map of the region of the
war.
ITO repeat, ! am strongly in favor of
ratfying the treaty as IL is. Were I in
the Senate ] would not hesitate to vote
for ii, but the situation may require con-
cession to secure ratification, and | sug-
gest what ] have already sent to YOU
a copy of which | enclose, as something
that will secure u useful league of ma
tons, which may be improved and which
at the same time may satisfy the genu-
| inc objections of the Republican friends
of the League in the Senate.
Coming now to specific interpreta-
lions II seems to me that the first
| achieves all that the craftsmen of the
withdrawal clause intended, and as thus
interpreted relieves that clause from a
| possible construction by which the ac-
tual withdrawal on two years notice
| might be greatly hndered through the
| claims Of the other members of the
| league.
1.-THE second Interpretation has to do
with the presence in the league as mem
| bers of self-governing dominions of
| colonies OF n home government, also .
member Certainly In a small body like
| that OF the council II would be unfair
| 10 have a home government represented
| and also one of its domnions or colonies,
and | cannot think II was the Intention
| of the trainers of the covenant that this
might happen. Yet l am bound to say
| that such a result IL not excluded by
| the present language of the covenant In
| Article X. and Article ", nor does the
language of Article XIV necessarily ex-
| clude from the tribunal to recommend a
| settlement OF a dispute a home govern
| ment where one of its dominions or col
onies is a party. nor does 1t necessarily
exclude dominion or colony from such
| tribunal where the home government
| may be party
Reason for Exclusions.
| Il have no doubt that both of these
exclusions were intended by the franz
ers OF the covenant Nor Is there any
| express description of the function to be
| ~ he
bly, under Article XIV, so as TO require
that 1t should act judlcially and accord
| ing to international law or equity and
| justice. ! have no doubt that IL was
intended that the language OF the pre-
| amble should characterize the function
Of the duties of the council or assembly
under Article XIV, and therefore that
the language l have introduced in the
second Interpretation is merely giving
expression to that which ought TO be in
forIed as the intention Of the trainers OF
the covenana. l may say that it sup
plies that which Mr., Root foreibly rep
resented as defect Of the covenant.
THE third Interpretation is an exact
| legal construction OF the effect on Article
y, and I do not see how any OF the
signatory Powers can object to IL. The
conclusions In respect to the function OF
Congress under this article Ia the neees.
under the Constitution, to which none oil
the associate members of the league car
object.
1.-THE fourth Interpretation is a mere
statement of International law and tht
proper construction of the seventh para
| graph OF Article XIV, which is only In
serted TO satisfy criticism of that para
graph, based on the unfounded assump
ton that some tribunal OF the league
| will be found which will declare issues
in respect to immigration or the taFih
to be something other than a question
of domestic policy H. as all authori
ties show, immigration and tariff. un
affected By treaties are purely domestic
Questions. then It cannot injure thu
league to say that which is undeubt
eddy a maxim OF international law, ant
remove the concern OF those who sus
peet other nations OF being In oonstaR
and unprincipled conspiracy against tn
interests of the United States. We ma,
deplore this attitude of mind, but wharf
II costs nothing in the effectiveness o.
the league we may well insert a pre-
vision to remove the fears 1t prompts.