The daily Gate City and constitution-Democrat. (Keokuk, Iowa) 1916-1922, 1919-08-19
SENATORS CALL
ON PRESIDENT
CONTINUED from page /.

in the way of the ratification of the
N treaty except certain doubts with re
gard to the meaning and implication
OF certain articles of the covenant oil
tie league of nations; and must
frankly say that ! am unable to under
stand why such doubts should De Ell
tertained. You will recall that When
/ had the pleasure OF conference
with your committee and with the
cornmirtee OF the house OF representa-
fives on affairs at the white house N
March last the questions frequently
asked about league OF nations were all
canyassed with view TO their i'm
mediate Qualification. The covenant
Of the league was then in its first draft
and subject to revision. II was point
ed out that no express recognition
vas given TO the Monroe doctrine,
that il was not expressly provided thaS
the league should have no authority
10 act or express judgment on mat
tiers of domestic policy, that the risis
ia withdraw from the league was Hos
expressly recognized, and THAI the
constitutional right of congress 20 de-
terrnine all questions OF peace and
war was not sufficiently safeguardeo-
Or nv return 10 Paris all these mat
/, rers were taken up again by the com
mission on the league OF nations ano
every suggestion OF the United states
was accepted
..The view of the United States
with regard TO the questions ! nave
mentioned had, in fact already been
accepted by the commission ana there
was supposed 70 be nothing inconslsl-
| tnt with them in the draft OF me cove
nant ars- adopted-she draft when
was the subject OF our discussion IN
March-but no objection was MADE 70
saying explicitly in the text Wnat sh
had supposed 10 be explicit IN II.
There was absolutely no doubt as to
the meaning of any one OF the result
ing provisions OF the covenant in the
,ninds of those who participated N
drafting them, and respectfully sub
nit that there is nothing vague OF
doubtful in their wording
..The Monroe doctrine is expressly
mentioned as an understanding which
il In no way to be impaired or inter
fered with by anything contained IN
the covenant and the expression re
gfonal understandings like the Monroe
doctrine was used, not because any
one OF the conferees thought there
was any comparable agreement any
where else in existence or in contem-
plation. but only because IL was
though, best OF avoid the appearance
OF dealing in such a document with
the policy of single nation. ADso-
lutefy nothing is concealed IN the
phrase.
with regard to domestic questions,
Article XVI Of the covenant expressly
povides 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 coun-
cil 70 arise out of matter which by
international law is solely within the
domestic jurisdiction OF that party, the
council shall so report, and shall MAKE
nc reconm endations 10 its settlement.
nThe United States was by no
means the only government interested
In the explicit adoption OF this pro
vision and there is no doubt IN the
niind Of any authoritative student o.
international law that such matters
as immigration, tariffs and naturaliza-
ton are incontestibly domestic cues
lions with which no international
body would deal without expressed
authority 70 do so. No enumeration
of domestic questions was undertaken
because 70 undertake II. even oy
sample, would have involved the
danger OF seeming 10 exclude those
not mentioned.
"The right of any sovereign state to
Withdraw has been taken for granted,
hut no objection was made 10 making
il explicit Indeed, SO soon az the
views expressed at the white house
were laid before the commission II
was at once conceded that it was best
rot to leave the answer 10 so i'm
ortant a question to inference. No
roposal was made to set up any tn
unal TO pass Judgment upon the cues
on whether a withdrawing nation
nd in fact fulfilled "all IT'S INFER
ational obligations and ali its obliga
3ns under the covenant. 1t was
scognized that the question must be
] 1T 10 be resolved by the conscience
II the nation proposing 20 withdraw;
and ! must say it did not seem 10 me
worth while TO propose that the arti.
Gle be made more explicit, because l
knew that tie United States would
never itself propose 10 withdraw from
the league If its conscience was not
entirely clear as 10 the fulfillment Of
all its international obligations. II
never will.
article x is in no respect of doubt.
full meaning when read in the light Of
the covenant as whole The coun.
Gil of the league can only advise upon
the means by which the obligation of
that great article are to be given eff,
feet to- Unless the United States is
party to the policy or action in ques.
tion, her own affirmative vote in the
council is necessary before any ad.
vice can be given for unanimous
vote of the council is required. If she
is a party the trouble is hers anyhow
And the unanimous vote of the coun
Gil is only advice in any case. Each
government is free to reject 1t if 1t
pleases. Nothing could have been
made more clear to the conference
than the right of our congress under
our constitution to exercise its indie
pendence in all matters of peace and
war. No attempt was made to ques.
ton or limit that right. The United