Arizona republican., 1919-07-24

! be retained in the crucial decaoe through which the world is to pass.
 The attitude of hostility toward the president has aroused criticism and opposition which might have been avoided had he taken with him such man as Mir Root and two representa- ! tiyes of the foreign relations commit tee in the senate. The criticisms thus 1 aroused have stirred the conscience oi 1 a number of republican senators and have endangered the ratification of the league by two-thirds of the sen ate.
 Mir. Wilson's influence with his | democratic supporters in the senate | will secure perhaps 45 votes. Nineteen ! republican votes are needed, and the ! question is how they can be secured. | l don't think they can be secured ex- ! cept by relieving their consciences l through reassuring interpretations ! without further negotiations and con ference and delay by the other nations 1 who dictated the peace. After consid- | cration of the arguments made on the | subject l have formula ted these in- | terpretations and reservations, with the hope that they will suggest a basis of agreement between the democrats and sufficient republicans to ratify the treaty and secure us the inestimable benefit of a league of nations which will be the foundation for growth and development into new era in our in ternatiOnal relations.
 The attempt of such men as Senator Borah, Senator Johnson. Senator Sher- man and others to defeat the treaty and the deliberate exaggeration of the Shantung feature of the treaty do not, l l think. indicate the attitude of the majority of the republican party in the senate, and l do not think that any 1 attention should be paid to the sugges- ton that the treaty be amended in it's provisions with reference to the rear rangement of the map of the region of the war
 Concessions May Be Necessary
 ITO repeat, 1 am strongly in favor l of rdtifying the treaty as it is. If l were in the senate l would not hesitate to vote for it but the situation may re- quire concession to secure ratification, and l suggest what l have already sent to you, copy of which l enclose, as something that will secure a useful | league of nations, which may be i'm proved and which at the same time may satisfy the genuine objections of the republican opponents of the league . in the senate.
 Coming now to specific interpreta- llO0S, II seems 10 De that the IHSI achieves all that the draftsmen of the withdrawal clause intended. and as thus interpreted relieves that clause from possible construction by which the actual withdrawal on two years notice might be greatly hindered through the claims of the other mem- bers of the league
 'The second interpretation has to do with the presence in the league, as members, of self governing dominions or colonies of a home government, also member. Certainly in a small body like that of the council it would be unfair to have home government rep resented and also one of it's dominions or colonies, and I cannot think it was the intention of the framers of the covenant that this might happen. Yet I am bound to say that such a result is not excluded by the present lag of covenant in article X, and article ", nor does the language of article XV necessarily exclude from the tribunal to recommend a settlement of a dispute a home government where one of its dominions or colonies is party nor does it necessarily exclude a dominion or colony from such tribunal where the home government may be party; yet
 Purposely Excluded
 T have no doubt that both of these exclusions were intended by the fran CTS of the covenant. Nor is there any express description of the function tc be performed by the council of the as. semby under article XV so as to requir. that it should act judicially and accord ing to international law or equity anC justice. l have no doubt that it wa intended that the language of the pre- amble should characterize the function of the duties of the council or assembl, under Article XIV and therefore tha the language l have introduced in tn second interpretation is merely givin expression to that which ought to b inferred as the intention of the framer Of the covenant I may say that it sup plies that which Mir. Root fornibly rep resented as a defect of the covenant.
 The third interpretation is an ex act legal construction of the effect c Article X, and do not see how any c the Slgnatory powers can object to i The conclusions in respect to the func tion of congress under this article ] the necessary result of the distributio of power under our constitution, { winch none of the associate member of the league can object.
 The fourth interpretation is a mer statement of international law and tn proper construction of the sevent paragraph of Article XV which is onl inserted to satisfy criticism of tn; paragraph based on the unfounded as sumption that some tribunal of tl league will be found which will declar issues in respect to immigration or tt tariff to be something other than question of democratic policy. If as a authorities show immigration and ia, lft unaffected by treaties are pureI democratic questions then it cam, lnJure the league to say that which undoubtedly maxim of information law.
 Define Monroe Doctrine
 'The fifth interpretation defines fl Monroe Doctrine. As the expressic Monroe Doctrine is used in Artic XVI and as the United States is il author of the doctrine and has mail tained it for 96 years it is fairly with the limit of interpretation to state tn the doctrine has been made to be the history of it's development to u present day. As the time has come f, Its world recognition, the time has all come for its definition, and believe u language used correctly states what V nave right to claim it to be and Z that We have the right to claim it to l
 These interpretations. it seems me, reasonably answer all the reaso, able or sincere criticisms made again the league except as they are met the single reservation as to Article MT. Root, in his letter to you, propos the operation of Article be limit to five years when the settlements the war should be re-examined. wi ThO N~N[rrv