Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1919-07-31
Thursday, July 81, 1913.
The Only Sane Course.


strong leaning toward Republican,
ism that promises political returns,
INDUCES in a courtly sheer at the at
utude Of the Kennebec Journal on
the Covenant Of the League Of Ma
tons. He suggests to the editor that
he (said editorial writer) have a care
in political reference that your
friend Woodrow" be not offended.
He appeared to wish to show in a
friendly way that he Is offended and
yet his words prove beyond question
that if he had studied our position
without prejudice he would. before
this. have had a better grasp Of the
inevitable-that the Covenant must
be approved. and that the bitter con-
troversy has been a waste of time
and Senatorial breath. For he has
not yet realized that our attitude
from the beginning has been open
advocacy Of the very thing that is
now rapidly crystallizing: Ratifea.
ton accompanied by "interpreta.
tions" that will not require immediate
action by other nations, but leaving
the perfeetins processes to the or.
eanization of the League itself un.
der the requirements set forth by the
United States Senate.
Our plea has been for time saving
action, without partisanship. so that
business interests and civic affairs
may get back to normal at the
earliest possible moment We be-
lie-ed the solution simple enough if
all were intent upon such solution,
and now it is becoming daily more
evident that opponents of THE
League Cor of ANY League) must
accept the simple processes that were
plainly feasible at the outset.
Our suggestions six weeks ago
were no different in effect than those
that must be accepted finally after
coming from Taft and Hughes
ratification without amendment" but
safeguarding American rights and
traditions by proper reservations"
or Interpretations" If you please.
Opponents Of the League have
fought for amendments" because
that course meant the death of the
League-and for opportunity to pro-
mote personal political advertising
throughout the country. How the
political bees have swarmed and
buzxed!
But the end Is in sight and that
which was entirely obvious from the
first must prevail.
One Of the clearest and best
definitions Of the difference between
amendments" that would require
further months of action by the
Peace Congress. and "interpreta-
tons" that would safeguard America
under operation Of League Of Nations
provisions. is given by Editor Rob-
.ert Lincoln O'Brien in the Boston
Herald Of Tuesday. He writes. in
part. with reference to the letter of
former Justice Hughes: ,
"As the supreme court of the
United States has said. a treaty is a
contract and differs from an ordi-
nary contract only in the respect that
IT Is made between countries and not
between private individuals. Like
any contract between corporate
bodies as distinct from individuals.
1t must in the first instance be ne
gotiated by agents. and the draft in
which the conclusions Of these AGENTS
10 embodied only becomes effective
and binding when il 10 ratified by
the proper authority, in the case Of
the United States, by the Senate.
When treaty thus negotiated by
the representatives of the United
States is laid before the Senate, it's
terms may meet with favor, and
then, OF course, there Is no trouble.
It Is ratified and the contract takes
cHect But some one or more terms
may be objectionable. and the SEN
ate may desire to make a change.
1t Is obvious that as a Contract is a
mutual agreement. no change in the
terms can be made SO as to bind the
other party to it without that party's
consent. The Senate may ratjfv The
treaty on condition the objseti ion able
term 10 changed, and in that event
the treaty must 90 back for the con.
sent Of the other parties to Il. Or
the Senate may ratify the treaty
with reservation. and 1t IL with
the meaning and effect Of reserva-
ton that all the trouble with a ratifi-
caiou Of the peace treaty lies. The
objection to a term Of the treaty
may be either because It IL not clear
~ expressed. and hence from its am
bigutty the nature Of the objection
Is apparent or because the obliga-
ton itself Is In whole or in part un.
acceptable. In the first instance. the
Senate may state by its reservation
what It understands to be the mean.
Ing the term. The reservation
does not change the term, but merely
clears Up - meaning, and this kind
Of I reservation We may call, to coin
. phrase, IN interpreting rsssrva.
tion. Tho ether signatoriss Of the
treaty are not called upon to take
any aetien unless they disagree with
the Interpretation.
"But the trouble may lie deeper
than the ambiguity Of the term. It's
language and its meaning may be