The Goldfield news and weekly tribune. [volume] (Goldfield, Nev.) 1911-1947, 1919-07-12
ROOTS THREE POINTS

rbo Vic man os American craftsmanship, the one man
who most of all was fitted TO have helped In the hahihe
of a world treaty. Elihu Root, has issued what may De called
three points with respect to the covenant OF the league OF
nations that are worthy, we believe, OF all acceptance. mere =
is no American who can reject one OF 'hose points au s.:.S 1
good American who is not more or less Dased oh .e idi'h
that underlies the points issued D! MI ~"
The first point is the elimination of article ten, SO far as
lit may bind the U. S. A. to help guarantee the territorial
integrity of the nations of the world So "a Do nc ore
affected by the league of nations. Article ten, IL ma! De
recalled. more or less definitely binds the nations associated
in The league to guarantee each others TERRITORIAL integrity
and even political independence If this means anything
we will have to put force back of it. A guarantee Involves
that. But some say it does not mean that, and they are the
6 biologists for the league and for all It's vague coh'oiuiohs.
If it does not mean that we have to guarantee and II IL docs
rot mean that we have to use force to make good NOSE guar
antees, then let it be so stated. Or better still, as Mr.. Root mas
proposed, let us by stipulation free ourselves from ina op,-
cation. WHY should we bind ourselves in any way to help
maintain the countries and empires of Europe and ASIA as
they now exist? Is it not true that over there they have not
vet settled those questions and that they are still fighting
about them all over Europe. including the participation u
even such a nation as Italy? Why should we enact a solemn
binding of ourselves to participate in those struggles III "hlcn
we have only a remote human interest? Is there any good
reason for not taking the step that Mr.. Root has suggested?
The second point made by Mr.. Root is the absolute and
unqualified right of the United States to withdraw from the
league. without prejudice, on two years notice. lhey VIII
say in answer that that is already provided Tor. les, IL Is
mentioned, but like many other things in the covenant 1t IS
somewhat vague and no one is sure as to It's meaning. 1t
one of those passages that would have to be debated. why
not place it beyond debate? Why bind ourselves to things
that have to be debated and that will need Interpretation.
and the Interpreters will not be our own statesmen vi ut
future, but European and Asiatc diplomats with ends OF
their own to serve. Even the house maids have the rShl
TO nit on two weeks notice. why shall a free and sovereign
nation situated as the United States is, reserve less o lseli!
There is no good American who can object to that point.
The third Root point is a clear and unmistakable reser-
walton of the Monroe doctrine, or protection OF the Monroe
doctrine is what, we believe, he calls it, involving, or carry
ing with it the sovereignty of the United States over purely
American questions. They will say that that IS already I'M
piled. But why imply it? Why imply anything? Why not
state it? And why not state is SO definitely thai there never
~ no any Observation-Disclosures about it? Lord Robert Cecil.
who is the British authority on the league, and who with Jan
Christian SHUTS is one of the authors of the basic covenant =
admitted recently that this doctrine might need to be inter-
preted in the future and he added that happily there will ~
the league to do the Interpreting. Happily" for whom?
For America? But what sort of a doctrine would be left us
after it had been interpreted by Great Britain and Japan
and may be, Germany
The covenant of the league of nations, as it came from
Smuts and Cecil, made no mention of the Monroe doctrine.
When America objected to that exclusion. it was inserted III
the revised version as a regional understanding" and it
stands clothed in that phraseology at the present time. "A
regional understanding" is that a proper American relegaion
has already Outlasted a century and that none has ever vio-
lated? Is that great American pOlicy-fOr that is what 1t
is-something merely regional? Something so provincial as
that? Are the European diplomats i'm usIng such language
not kidding us, automatically And then understanding
IMPLIES that we are not the determining factor in the matter.
An understanding" requires at least two, or more, and it
becomes a matter of debate and Interpretation. as Lord
Cecil admitted in his interview. Is that the proper RELOCATION
of the Monroe doctrine?
But they say, tina. in spite of what is said. or implied, the
doctrine really remains as it has been. If that is so. then
again. why not say so? What is the wrong in saving what
is implied and saying it so that there can be no misunder-
standings about the Understandings" Or are covenants
going to be what many have been in the past. vague and
concealed? Has not the time come for making them plain
end Specific so that there can be no MISUNDERSTANDING?