Middletown transcript., 1919-08-30

in the mind Of any authoritative stu
dent Of International law that such
matters as immigration, tariffs and
naturalization are incOntestably dOmes-
tic questions with which no interna-
tional body could deal.
THE right of any state to withdraw
had been taken for granted, but no OBJ
lection was made to making 1t explicit
Indeed, 50 soon as the views expressed
at the White House conference were laid
before the commission 1t was at once
conceded that it was best not to leave
the answer to SO important q question TO
inference No proposal was made to set
up any tribunal to pass judgment upon
the question whether a withdrawing ma
ton has in fact fulfilled all its interna-
tional obligations and all its obligations
under the covenant 1t was recognized
that that question must be left to be re-
solved by the conscience OF the nation
proposing to withdraw, and l must say
that it did not seem to me worth While
to propose that the article be made more
explicit because I knew that the United
States would never itself propose to with
draw from the league il its conscience
was not entirely clear as to the fulfill
ment of all its International obligations.
It has never failed to fulfill them and
never will.
Article 10 is in no respect Of doubtful
meaning when read in the light of the
covenant as a whole. The council OF the
league can only advise upon the means
by which the obligations Of that great
article are to be given effect to. Unless
the United States is a party to the policy
or action in question her own affirmative
vote in the council is necessary before
any advice can be given or a unanimous
vote Of the council is required. If she is
a party the trouble is hers anyhow, and
the unanimous vote Of the council is only
advice in any case. Each government is
free to reject it if it pleases Nothing
could have been made more clear to the
conference than the right OF our Congress
under our Constitution to exercise its
independent judgment in all matters OF
peace and war. No attempt was made
to question or limit that right. The
United States will, indeed, undertake
under Article 10 to respect and preserve
as against external aggression the terri
torial integrity and existing political In
dependence Of all members of the league,
and that engagement constitutes a very
grave and solemn moral obligation. But
it is a moral. not a legal, obligation and
leaves our Congress absolutely free to
put it, own Interpretation upon 1t In all
acses that call for action.
article 10 seems to me to constitute
the very backbone Of the whole covenant
Without 1t the league would be hardly
more than an influential debating So
ciety.
TT has several times been suggested.
in public debate and in private confer
ence, that interpretations of the sense
in which the United States accepts the
engagements of the covenant, should be
embodied in the instrument of ratifca-
ton. There can be no reasonable objec-
ton to show interpretations accompany
ing the act Of ratification provided they
do not form a part Of the formal ratif1ca-
ton itself. But If such interpretations
should constitute a part Of the formal
resolution Of ratification long delays
would be the inevitable consequence. in
asmuch as all the many governments
concerned would have to accept. in Of
feet, the language Of the senate - the
language ct the treaty before ratidca-
ton would be complete. The asseat Of
the German assembly at Weimar would
have to be obtained. among the rest. and
I must frankly say that could only with
the greatest reluctance approach that
assembly for permission to read the
treaty 40 We understand 1t and al those
Wig f2msd 0Ylta certainly YaaeEltaaa Il