The sun., 1919-08-13

- - nv 80 VI ~ oefo
impression that W. are perfectly safe
upon immigration and tariffs, for ex-
ample, because questions which inter-
national law holds to be solely within
domestic jurisdiction are not to have
! any recommendation from the council,
but the dangers are there just the same
like the c~unnlngly colored insect on the
tree or the young bird ~crouching notion
less upon the sand. h words and the
coloring are alike intended to deceive.
How Arbitration would Work.
ARTICLE TX. y -rhe council may,
In any case under this article, refer the
dispute to the assembly
w have our dispute as to immigra-
ton with Japan or with one of the Bal
a States. let us say. The council has
the power to refer the dispute to the
assembly. Moreover the dispute shall
be so referred at the request of either
party to the dispute, provided that such
request be made within fourteen days
after the submission OF the dispute TO
the council. So that japan or the Bal
a States, for example, with which we
may easily ave the dispute. ask that 1t
be referred to the assembly and the Inn
migration question between the United
States and Jugo-Slavia or japan, as the
case may be. goes to the assembly.
The United States and japan or
Jugo-Slavia are excluded from voting
and the provision of Article XII, re-
lating to the action and powers of the
council. apply to the action and powers
OF the ASSEMBLY, provided that q report
be mad by the assembly If %concurred
In by the representatives of those mem
bers of the league represented on the
council and of a majority of the other
members of the league. exclusive In each
case of the representatives of the parties
to the dispute, shall have the same force
as a report by the counc concurred in
by all the members thereof other than
the representatives of one or more OF the
parties to the dispute
This course of procedure having been
pursued. we find the question OF immi-
grafton etwee the United States n
Japan Is before the assembly for de-
cision. The representatives of the oun
ell, except the delegates of the United
States and of japan or Jugoslavta, must
all vote unanimously upon 1t, as 1 under
stand 1t, but a majority of the entire
assembly, where the council will have
only seven votes. will decide. Can any
one say beforehand hat the decision
of that assembly will be. In which the
United States and Jugoslavia or Japan
will have no vote?
The question in one case may affect
immigration from every country in Eu-
rope, although the dispute exists only
for one, and in the other the whole mat
ter OF Asiatic immigration is involved.
Is It too fanciful to think that 1t might
be decided against US? For my purpose
It matters not whether 1t is decided for
or against US. An immigration dispute
or a dispute over tariff duties. met by
the procedure set forth in Article XIV.
comes before the assembly of delegates
for a decision by what Is practically a
majority vote of the entire assembly.
That Is something to which 1 do not find
myself able to give my assent.
80 far as immigration Is concerned.
and also 50 far as tariff duties, although
less important, are concerned. i deny the
Jurisdiction. There should be no posi-.
bilty of other nations deciding who shall
come into the United States. or under
what conditions they shall enter. The
right to say who h a come into a
try is one of the very highest attributes
Of sovereignty. II a nation cannot say
without appeal who shall come within
It's gates and become a part of Its citi-
zenship 1t has ceased to be q Sovereign
nation. 1t has become a tributary and
a subject nation, and II makes no differ
ence whether II Is subject TO a league or
to a ~conquerer.
"If other nations are willing to sub
ject themselves to such a domination, the
United States. to which many immi-
grants have come and many more will
come, ought never to submit to 1t for a
moment
Expounding the N Doctrine.
Article XXI. says:
Nothing in this covenant shall be
deemed to affect the validity of interna-
tional engagements such as treaties OF
arbitration or regional understandings
like the Monroe Doctrine for securing
the maintenance of peace
This provision did not appear In the
FIRST draft of the covenant, and when
the President explained the second draft
OF the covenant to the Peace Conference
he said;
"'Article Fl is new
"And that was all he said. No one
can question the truth of the remark,
but I trust / shall not be considered dis
respectful II I say that 1t was not an
Illuminating statement. The article was
new, but the fact Of its novelty, which
the President declared, was known to
every one who had taken the trouble to
read the two documents. We were not
left. however, without a fitting explana-
tion. The British delegation took 1t upon
themselves to explain Article 81 at same
length, and this is they said:
"'Article 81 makes II clear hat the
covenant is not intended to abrogate or
weaken any other agreements, 80 long as
!, they are consistent with its own terms,
into which members OF the league may
have entered or may hereafter anter for
the assurance of peace. Such agree
, ments would include special treaties for
compulsory arbitration and military con-
yentions that are genuinely defensive.
1.-THE Monroe Doctrine and similar
understandings are put in the same
category. They a shown themselves
|, in history TO be not instruments of ma
tlonal ambition. but guarantees of peace.
The origin Of the Monroe Doctrine is well
known. II was proclaimed in 1929 to
prevent America from becoming n thea
| tire for intrigues of European absolutism
: At first a principle of American foreien
1 policy, It has become an internationa
: understanding, and It is not illegitimate
for the people of the United States to say
|, that the covenant should recognize that
fact. go
"In its essence 1t is consistent with
I the spirit of the covenant, and, indeed
the principles of the league. as expressed
. in Article X. represent the extension tc
: the whole world of the principles OF the
q doctrine, while, should any dispute as Ia
: the meaning of the latter ever arise be-
' tween the American and European
[ Powers, the league is there to settle It..
"The explanation of Great Britain re-
E ceived the assent OF France.
/, Would NuIlify American Principle,
= TT has seemed to me that the British