New-York tribune., 1919-03-27

supply tne force or arms or be regard
cd as defaulting in our engagement
1T has been said that this guaranty
should be given for the protection Of
the new states to be erected in Europe.
But there appears to be no reason, in
any event, why guaranty of this sort
should be given to all the states in the
world, which may become members of
the league.
81 regard the guaranty as a trouble
breeder and not a peace maker. I be-
iieve 1t to be unnecessary and unwise;
there is little ground for supposing
that 1T Will prevent var; on the con-
trary 1t is likely tt prove illusory and
to create disappointment and sense Of
Of injury and injustice on the part OF
those who are led to place confidence
in it,
ct is the substance of the thing
TO which the nation holds, and that is
and always has been that the safety
of the United States demands that
American territory shall remain Ameri
can."
Makes World Immutable
line guarantee makes no allowance
Tor changes which may be advisable.
1t ascribes prescience and soundness
OF Judgment to the present peace CON
ference in erecting states and defining
boundaries which nobody in the history
of the world has ever possessed. Even
as to the new states, it attempts to
make permanent existing conditions, or
conditions as arranged at this confer
cnce. in world of dynamic forces to
which no one can set bounds. 1t gives
no fair opportunity for adjustments. 1t
is in the teeth of experience.
The limitation of the words as
against external aggression is a frail
M Il, l,
merits of particular cases may be. Nor
does Article XII afford security. Why
not leave the future to conference and
decision in the light of events?
THE guaranty would be unwise
even if it could accomplish it's appar-
cnt purpose. But | also think that it
will prove to be illusory.
Will Not Affect Nations
"Ccrtanly, each Power will be the
judge Of what in good faith it should
do. In the case of the United States
the guarantee will not be made good
except BY the action of Congress, and
1t Will be for Congress to decide
whether we are bound and what we
should undertake. The course Of re
cent debates has sufficiently indicated
"hat the attitude of Congress is likely
70 DC, II the resort to war pursuant to
the country. Congress not improbably
VIII consider that it has not been put
under any proper obligation to assume
the unWclcome task In such case
the guarantee would merely serve the
purpose of permitting the charge that
we had defaultcd in our obligation.
"On the other hand, if in our con-
ception of duty, clarified by our ex-
perlencc in the great war; we should
conclude that we should go to war to
preserve the territorial integrity of
another State, or in defence of liberty
and civilization, we should respond
with hcartiness to that call of duty in
the absence of Article X
IL am not unmndful of the impor-
tance of making response to the i'm
Fortunate demand of stricken and suf-
ferng peoples that an organized en-
deavor should be made to prevent the
recurrence of strife. But time passes
rapidly, and it is not the part Of wis
dom to create expectations on the part
of the peoples of the world which the
covenant cannot satisfy.
II think that it is a fal1acy to sup
pose that helpful cooperation in the
future will be assured by the attempted
compulsion of an infexible rule.
Rather will such cooperation depend
upon the fostering of firm friendships
springing from an appreciation of
community of ideals, interests and pur-
poses, and such friendships are more
likely to be promoted by freedom of
conference than by the effort to create
hard and fast engagements.
ITO avoid confusion Of thought. it
is absolutely necessary to bear in mind
an established distinction. Treaties
may be considered in two aspects, %
with respect TO the municipal law of
the United States, that is, as a part
of the supreme law of the land, and
ca as contracts with foreign nations.
There is nothing in our history to
give assurance that Congress would
recognize the authority of the treaty
power to bind Congress to declare war
in cause that it did not approve.
existence of the duty, and as to the
power to create the duty, would rest
with Congress. Whether or not Con
gress would feel itself bound to re
spond, or would take the position that,
IN so vital matter as resort to war,
it could not be pledged in advance
without its consent, is a question which
must be left to the event. The dis
cussions which have repeatedly taken
place in the House of Representativcs
show that the question involved is a
moot one.
"Thc point is that Congress would
be the judge of its obligation, and
would determine TO its own satisfaction
the question whether the treaty power
could impose and had imposed upon
Congress the duty to act under the
provision of the covenant, although
Congress believed that such action
would be contrary to the interests of
tho country.
Foreign nations. however, might be
expected to take the view that they
were not concerned with our internal
arrangements and that it was the OBJ
legation of the United States to see