The Chickasha daily express. (Chickasha, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1899-current, 1919-08-23

sion. 1t was pointed out that no ex.
press recognition was given to the
Monroe doctrine. That It was not ex-
pressly provided that the league
shold have no authority to act or to
express judgment on matters Of do.
\ mestic policy, that the right to with
draw from the league was not express
ly recognized, and that the constitu-
tional rights of the congress to deter.
mine all questions Of peace and war
was not sufficiently safeguarded. On
my return to Paris all these matters
were taken up again by the commits
sion on the league Of nations and ev-
cry suggestion Of the United States
was accepted.
The view of the United States with
regard to the questions have mention.
ed. had, in fact, already been accept
ed by the commission and there was
supposed to be nothing inconsistent
with them in the draft of the cove
nant first adopted. The draft which
was the subject of our discussion in
March, but no objection was made to
anything explicitly in the text that
all had supposed to be implicit in it.
The Monroe doctrine is expressly
mentioned as an understanding which
Is in no way to be impaired, or inter-
fered with by anything contained in
the covenant and the expression IRE.
gional understanding like the Monroe
doctrine" was used not because any.
one of the conference thought there
was any comparable agreement any
where else in existence or in contem
plation, but only bcause it was
thought best to avoid the appearance
OF dealing in such a document with
the policy of single nation.
With regard to domestic questions,
Article Sixteen of the covenant ey-
pressly provides that, if in case Of any
dispute arising between members Of
the league the matter involved Is
claimed by one of the parties "and is
found by the council to arise out of
matter which by international law is
solely within the domestic jurisdiction
of that party, the council shall so re-
port and shall make no reUommenda-
tions as to its settlement"
The United States was by no means
the only government interested in the
explicit adoption of this provision,
and there is no doubt in the mind of
any authoritative student of interna-
tional law that such matters as immi-
grafton, tariffs, and naturalization are
incontestably domestic questions with
which no international body could
deal
The right of any state to withdraw
had been taken for granted but no OBJ
lection was made to making it expIi-
cit Indeed, so soon as tho vitaRj ex-
pressed at the White House confer
ence were laid before the commission
it was at once conceded that it was
best to leave the answer to so Import
ant a question to inference No pro-
posal was made to set up any tribunal
to pass judgment upon the question
whether a Withdrawing nation had in
fact fulfilled "all its international OBJ
legations and all its obligations under
the covenant" it was recognized that |
that question must be left to be re-
solved by the conscience of the nation
proposing to withdraw; and must say |
that 1t did not seem to me worth |
while to propose that the article be |
made more explicit because / know |
that the United States would never
itself propose to withdraw from the |
league If its conscience was not en- I
tirely clear as to the fulfillment of all !
its international obligations. 1t has |
never failed to fulfill them and never
will.
Article ten is in norespect of doubt |
full meaning when read in the light OF
the covenant as a whole The coun-
Gil of the league can only "advise up
on" the means by which the obliga-
tions of that great article are to be |
given effect to. Unless the United |
States is a party to the policy or ac-
tion in question, her own affirmative
vote in the council is necessary be.
fore any advice can be given for a
unanimous vote of the council is re-
quired. If she is a party, the trouble
is hers anyhow
Article ten seems to me to consti-
tute the very backbone of the whole |
covenant. Without it the league
would be hardly more than an infiu-
ential debating society
1t has several times been suggested
in public debate and in private con-
ference that interpretations of the
sense in it which the United States ac-
cepts the engagements of the cove
nants should be embodied in the in
strument of ratification. There can
be no reasonable objection to show
interpretations accompanying the act
of ratification provided they do not
form part of the formal ratification
itself. But If such interpretations
should constitute part of the formal
resolution of ratification long delays
would be the inevitable consequence
inasmuch as all the many govern
ments concerned would have to accept
in effect, the language of the senate
as the language of the treaty before
ratification would be complete. The
assent of the German Assembly at
Weimar would have TO be obtained
anaonp fhe rest and I rnusf FRANKLY