Evening star., 1919-08-19

Monroe doctrine, that it was not
expressly provided that the league
should have no authority to act or
to express a judgment on matters
of domestic policy, that the right
to withdraw from the league was
not expressly recognized, and that
the constitutional right of the Con-
gress to determine all questions of
peace and war was not sufficiently
Safeguarded. On my return to
Paris all these matters were taken
up again by the commission on the
league of nations and every sug-
gestion of the United States was
accepted. -
The view of the United States
with regard to the questions I have
mentioned had. in fact, already
been accepted by the commission.
and there was supposed to be moth
ing inconsistent 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 saying ex-
plicftily in the text what all had
supposed to be implicit in 1t. There
was absolutely no doubt as to the
meaning Of any one of the result
Ing provisions OF the covenant In
the minds of those who participat-
ed In drafting them, and respect
fully submit that there is nothing
vague or doubtful in their word
ing.
Monroe Doctrine Unaltered.
The Monroe doctrine is expressly
mentioned as an understanding
which is in no way to be impaired
or interfered with BY anything
contained In the covenant, and the
: exnFeseipp ssyegionAls uAderntandy
ingD like the Monroe doctrine" was
used, not because any one OF the
conferees thought there was any
comparable agreement anywhere
sIos tion, but o s. e Mss
thought best to avoid the appear
ance of. dealing in such, q docu-
ment with the policy OF q single
nation. Absolutely nothing IL con-
cealed In the phrase.
With regard to domestic Ques.
tions, Article XVI Of the covenant
expressly provides that, II in case
of any dispute arising between
members Of the league the matter
involved is claimed by one OF tho
parties "and IL found by the coun-
ell to arise out Of a matter which
by international law Is solely with
in the domestic jurisdiction of that
party, the council shall so report.
and shall make no recommendation
as to its settlement" The United
States was by no means the only
government interested in the ex-
plicit adoption Of this provision.
and there is no doubt in the mind
of any authoritative student Of in
ternational law that such matters
as immigration, tariffs and natu-.
ralization are incontestably domes-
tic questions with which no inter-
national body could deal without
express authority to do so. No
enumeration Of domestic questions
was undertaken because to under
take 1t, even by sample. would have
involved the danger Of seeming to
exclude those not mentioned.
Right Taken for Granted.
The right Of any sovereign state
to withdraw had been taken for
granted, but no objection was made
to making it explicit. Indeed, 80
soon as the views expressed at the
White House conference were laid
before the commission 1t was at
once conceded that it was best not
to leave the answer to SO impor-
tant q question to inference. No
proposal was made to set up any
tribunal to pass judgment upon the
question whether q withdrawing
nation had in fact fulfilled "all its
international obligations and all its
obligations under the covenant"
, 1t was recognised that that Ques-
tion must be, left to be resolved by
the conscience Of the nation pro-
posing to withdraw; and I must
say that 1t did not seem to me
n
article be made more explicit be-
cause / knew that the. United
States would never itself propose
to withdraw from the league II Its
conscience was not entirely clear
as to the fulfllment of all its inter-
national obligations. 1t has never
failed to fulfill them and never
will.
Article x is in no respect Of
doubtful meaning when read in the
light of the covenant as a whole.
The council of the league can only
advise upon" the means by which
the obligations of that great arti-
Gle are to be given effect to. I'm
less the United States IL a party
to the policy or action in question,
her own Affirmative vote in the
council is necessary before any ad-
vice can be given, for unanimous
NOlC VI SuS SVAASAA 40 C4uII C0s -
she is q party. the trouble is hers
anyhow. And the unanimous vote
of the council Is only advice in any
case. Each government is free to
reject 1t II 1t pleases.
No Attempt to Limit Right.
Nothing could have been made
more clear to the conference than
the right of our Congress under
our Constitution to exercise it's in
dependent judgment in all matters
of peace and war. No attempt was
made to question or limit that
right. The United States will. in
deed, undertake under Article X
respect and preserve as against
external aggression the territorial
integrity and existing political in
dependence of all members of the
league" and that engagement. con-
stitutes a very grave and solemn
moral obligation. But 1t Is 9 moral,
not legal obligation. and leaves
our Congress absolutely free to
put its own Interpretation upon 1t
in all cases that call for action. 1t
is binding in conscience only. not
in law.
Article x seems to me to con-
stttute the very backbone OF the
whole covenant. Without It the
Continued en- second Page.)