Albuquerque morning journal. [volume] (Albuquerque, N.M.) 1903-1926, 1919-07-24

erence to the Encouragement of the
map of the region of the war.
"To repeat l am strongly in favor
of ratifying the treaty as it is We're
in the senate, l would not hesitate
10 vote for ii, but the situation may
require concession TO secure ratifi-
cation, and l suggest what | have
already sent you, a copy of which |
enclose. as something that will Sc
cure a useful league of nations
which may be improved and which
at the same time may satisfy the
genuine objections of the republican
friends of the league in the senate.
Specific Changes Needed.
Coming now to specific interpre-
tations, it 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 actual withdrawal on
two years notice might be greatly
hindered through the claims of other
members of the league
, The second Interpretation has to
do with the presence in the league,
as members, of salf-governing do
minions or colonies of home gov
eminent, also member. Certainly
in a small body like that of the
council, it would be unfair to have
home government represented and
also one of its dominions or colonies,
and ! cannot think 1t was the inten
tion of the trainers of the covenant
that this might happen. Yet / am
bound TO say athat such result is
not excluded by the present language
pf t1t n nj fplp Y
.ticle "; nor does the language of
Article XIV necessarily exclude from
the tribunal to recommend settle
ment of a dispute, n home govern
ment where one of its dominions or
colonies is party, nor does 1t neces-
sarily exclude a dominion or colony
from such tribunal where the home
government may be party; yet,
Would Give Interpretation.
81 have no doubt that both of
these exclusions were intended by
the trainers of the covenant. Nor is
there any express description of the
function to be performed by the
council of the assembly under Ar
ticle XIV so as to require that it
should act judicially and according
to International law or equity and
justice. I have no doubt that it was
preamble should characterize the
function of the duties of the council
or assembly under Article XIV, and
therefore, that the language | have
introduced in the Second interpreta
ton is merely giving expression to
that which ought to be inferred as
the intention of the trainers of the
covenant. | may say that it sup
plies that which Mr.. Root forcibly
represented as Il defect of the COW
enant.
THE third Interpretation is an ex-
act legal construction of the effect
of Article X. and | do not see how
any of the signatory powers can OBJ
ject to it. The conclusions in respect
to the function of congress under
this article is the necessary result of
the distribution of power under our
constitution, to which none of the
associate members of the league can
object.
.. Would Clarity 1t.
Fourth Interpretation is a mere
statement of international law and
the proper construction of the seventh
paragraph of Article XIV. which is
only inserted to satisfy criticism of
that paragraph based on the un-
founded assumption that some tri-
bunal of the league will be found
which will declare issues in respect
to immigration or the tariff to to be
something other than q question of
domestic policy. If, as all authorities
show, immigration and tariff. unaf-
fected by treaties, are purely domestic
questions, then it cannot injure the
league to say that which is undoubt-
eddy a maxim of international law.
The fifth Interpretation defines the
Monroe doctrine. AS the expression
Monroe doctrine is used in Article
XXI, and as the United States is the
author of the doctrine and has main
tanned it for ninety-siX years. it is
fairly with in the limit of an interpre-
tation for it to state what the doctrine
has been made to be in the history of
its development to the present day.
AS the time has come for its world
recognition the time has also come for
its definition, and / believe the Ian
guage used correctly states what we
have a right to claim it to be and all
that we have the right to claim 1t
to be.
"These interpretations, It seems to
me, reasonably answer all the rea
sonable or sincere criticisms made
against the league except as they are
met by the single reservation as to
Article X. Mr.. Root, in his letter to
you, proposed the operation of Ar
ticle X be limited to five years when
the settlements of the war should be
re-examined with the view of the
further operation of the article after
a reinstatement. Influenced by some
direct information that l have as to
the attitude of France IN respect to
Article X, / am confident the period
of five years is not long enough for
this sterilization and does not offer
the security which France eagerly
seeks think, therefore. that the
cautionary influence of the league
would be greatly strengthened by