The Leon reporter. (Leon, Iowa) 1887-1930, 1919-08-28

MIL tu last, lIlC luCollo1io ~" iii''1
frequently asked about the League Of
Nations were all canvassed, with view
to their immediate Qualification. The CO.
venant Of the league was then in Its first
draft and subject to revision. 1t was
pointed out that no express recognition
was given to the Monroe doctrine,
that it was not expressly provided that
the leasue should have no authority to
act or to express judgment on mat
tiers Of domestic policy, that the right
to withdraw from the league was not
expressly recognized, and that the con-
stitutional rights of the congress to
determine all questions of peace and
war was not sufficiently safeguarded.
On my return to Paris all these mat
tiers were taken UP again by the COM
mission on the League Of Nations
and every suggestion of the United
States was accepted.
'The view Of the United States with
regard to the questions have men
toned had, in fact, already been ac-
copied by the commission and there
sistent with them in the draft Of the
covenant 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.
1.-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
regional understanding like the Mon
roe doctrine was used, not because
any one of the conference thought
there was any comparable agreement
anywhere else in existence or in con-
temptation, but only because it was
thought best to avoid the appearance
of dealing in such document with
the policy Of single nation.
with regard to domestic questions,
article XVI of the covenant ex-
pressy provides that, if In case 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 ls
solely within the domestic jurisdiction
Of that party. the council shall so re-
port and shall make no recommenda-
ton as to its settlements The United
States was by no means the only gov
eminent interested in the explicit
adoption of this provision, and there is
no doubt in the mind Of any authOrita-
tive student of international law that
such matters as immigration, tariffs
and naturalization are incOntestably
domestic questions with which 10 in
ternational body could deal.
'"The right of any state to withdraw
had been taken for granted, but no
objection was made to making it eX-
plicit, Indeed, SO soon as the views
expressed at the White House confer
ence were laid before the commission
it was at once conceded that it was
best not to leave the answer to so i'm
portant question to inference. No
proposal WAS made TO set up any tri-
bunal 70 pass Judgement upon the
question whether q Withdrawing ma
tion bad in fact fulfilled all its inter
national obligations and all its obligG-
tons under the covenant II was rec
ogniHad that that question must b.
left TO be resolved by the conscience
Of the nation proposing to withdraw {;
and l must say that it did not seem to ms
worth while to propose that the article
be made more explicit because I knew
that the United States would never itself
propose to withdraw from the league If its
conscience was not entirely clear as to the
futillment Of all It's international obliga-
tons It has never failed 70 fuIHll them
and never will
Article x is in no respect Of dDtihtru,
meaning when read in the Light % the
covenant as Il whole The council Of The
league can only advise upon the means
by which the obligations OF that great
article are to be given effect to. Unless
the United States is a party to the p0tas
or ectiOn IL question, her own Affirmative
vote in the council Is necessary before
any advice can be given for 4 unanimous
vote OF the council is required. II she Is
a party the trouble is here anyhow, am
the unanimous vote of the council is o1i>
advice il any case Each government Is
free TO reject Il il it please. Nothing Ccuiu
have been made more clear TO the confer
ence than the right of our congress und@r
our constitution to exercise its indcp@ld.
emit Judgment in all matters Of peace an-
war No attempt was made to question %
limit that right. The United States Will
indeed, undertake under article X to 70"
spect and preserve as against eNcerne
aggression the territorial integrity an!
existing political independence Of member
of the league and that engagement con
stitutes q very grave and soten4o mora
obligation But it is a moral NOT = legaA
obligation and leaves our congress s4bSo'
iutely free TO put its own Interpretation
upon it in all cases that cali for action,
Article X seems 10 me to cQnstitu-5 IN
very backbone Of the whole covenant
without it the league would he hardly
more than an influential debating society.
1T has several times been suggested u
public debate and In private conference,
that interpretations of the sense In which
the United States accepts the engagements
of the covenant should be embodied IN tAe
instrument OF ratification There can be
no reasonable objection to show irterpre'
tations accompanying the act OF radacas
fior r,rfyyi5e4 thew do not form q part CT