The sun., 1919-09-23
INTERPRETING THE COVE.
NANT OF THE LEAGUE.
A Military Opinion on President VII
sons Version Of Article XIV.

In the speech Of the President at
Indianapolis he made the following
explanation of the engagements the
States which undertake TO become
members of the League of Nations
enter into when they subscribe the
covenant;
That in no circumstance will they
go to war without first having either
submitted the question to arbitration
in which case they agree to abide by
the result-or. having submitted the
question to discussion by the Council OF
the League OF Nations, in which case
they will allow six months for the dis
cussion. they engage not to go to war
until three months after the council has
announced its opinion upon the subject
under dispute. So that the heart of the
covenant OF the league Is that the ma.
lions solemnly covenant not to go TO
war for nine months after contro-
Versy becomes acute.
There is very strong reason for be-
lieving that this is not the heart Of
the covenant as 1t Is not a correct
statement of the engagement which
the covenant involves in regard to an
acute question which is submitted to
Der nations are asked to agree in
Article XIV. to much more than that
they will allow six months for dis
cussion and then that they will not
go to war until three months after
the council has announced it's opinion,
as Is evident from the following lam
guage of the article:
II report by the council is unani-
mously agreed to by the members there
of, other than the representatives Of
one more of the parties to the dis
pute. the members of the league agree
that they will not go to war with any
party to the dispute which complies
with the recommendations OF the re-
port.
In a very important respect this
language is the most significant in the
covenant, for by it a member nation
makes definite surrender to the league
of its independence in a matter which
1t would otherwise deem sufficiently i'm
portant to fight about. For example:
If the much discussed question of
Shantung were now being decided by
the council of the League of Nations
instead Of by the equally imposing
Der of the league, would be bound by
her engagement not to go to war
against Japan for the enforcement of
her rights. And, bearing in mind this
example, it does not require an i'm
possible stretch of the imagination to
conceive that the United States might
at some time be placed IN a similar sit
uation with regard to some Philip
pine question, for instance, which
might be unwillingly treated by the
league as the conference is now I'M
willingly treating the Shantung ques-
ton, in order TO put over some matter
thought to be of more Importance.
The apparent disinclination of the
President to face this point seems
somewhat singular. 1t was raised at
his recent conference with the Senate
Committee on Foreign Relations when,
in response to a question by Senator
Brandegee, he informed the committee
that the opinion of the council to
which a dispute should be submitted
would be only advisory. At several
points in both his Columbus and
Indianapolis speeches he laid stress on
the ignorance of the treaty which was
exhibited by its opponents, saying, "as
1 said this forenoon in Columbus, ap-
parently nobody has taken the pains
to see what is in the covenant of the
League of Nations" and also "if they
have really read this treaty and this
covenant they only amaze me by their
inability to understand what is plainly
expressed" When the President him
self continues to make such an i'm
portant mistake as is shown by his
misinterpretation of the plain language
of Article XIV. he subjects the whole
covenant to suspicion. He has twenty
seven more speeches to make on his
tour and it is to be hoped that he will
take the occasion of at least one OF
them to correct the error which he
has placed before the people, since the
country should not give its adherence
to the covenant through misappre-
hension of the degree of surrender OF
sovereignty which 1t calls for.
On the other hand. If Article XIV
were to be amended so as really to ex-
press what the President so insistently
says that it means. one of the strong
est objections which some OF its OPP
ponents make to the covenant would
be removed.