Harrisburg telegraph. [volume] (Harrisburg, Pa.) 1879-1948, 1919-08-19

tions. Article 16 of the Covenant
| expressly provides that, if in case Of
any dispute arising between mem
bers of the league, the matter III
volved is claimed by one of the
parties and is found by the Council
to arise out of a matter which by
international law is solely within
the domestic jurisdiction of that
party, the Council shall so report t
and shall make no recommendation
! as to its settlement The United
States was by no means the only
! government interested in the en-
plicit adoption of this provision AMI
! there is no doubt in the mind of
any authoritative student of inter
national law that such matters as
| immigration, tariffs and naturaliza-
ton are incontestably domestic
! questions with which no interna-
| tional body could deal without eX-
/ press authority to do so. No enum-
GRAFTON of domestic questions was
| undertaken because to undertake ii,
even by sample, would have in
! volved the danger of seeming to eX-
clude those not mentioned.
Article Is Explicit
THE right of any sovereign state
to withdraw had been taken for
granted but no objection was made
to making it explicit. Indeed, so
soon as the views expressed at the
! White House conference were laid
( before the commission it was at once
conceded that it was best not to
leave the answer to so important a
/ question to inference. No proposal
was made to set up any tribunal to
pass judgment upon the question
whether a Withdrawing nation had
in fact fulfilled all its international
obligations and all its obligations
under the covenant 1t was recog-
nized that that question must be
. left to be resolved by the conscience
of the nation proposing to withdraw;
and 1 must say that it did not seem
to me worth while to propose that
! the article be made more explicit
because l knew that the United
! States would never itself propose to
withdraw from the League if it's
conscience was not entirely clear as
to the fulfillment of all it's interna-
tlonal obligations. 1t has never
failed to fulfill them and never will.
Can Only "Advise Upon"
"Article ten is in no respect of
doubtful meaning when read in the
light Of the covenant as q 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 policy
| or action in question, her own af-
tirmative vote in the Council is
! necessary before any advice can be
given for a unanimous vote of the
| Council is required. If she is a
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
it if it pleases. Nothing could have
been made more clear to the con-
ference than the right of our Con-
gress under our constitution to ex-
! ercise it's Independent judgment in
all matters of peace and war. No
attempt was made to question or
limit that right. The United States,
will, indeed, undertake under Article
ten to respect and preserve as
. against external aggression the ter
rltorial integrity and existing poll
! teal lines of all members of the
League and that engagement con-
stitutes a very grave and solemn
moral, not a legal obligation and
leaves our Congress absolutely free
to put its own Interpretation upon
| IT in all cases that call for action.
1t is binding in conscience only, not
in law.
Article Ten the Backbone
Article ten seems to me to con-
stitute the very backbone of the
whole covenant. Without it the
League would be hardly more than
an influential debating society.
EmbOdy Plain Meaning
1T has several times been sug-
gested, in public debate and in priv
ate conference, that interpretations
of the sense in which the United
States accepts the engagements of
the covenant should be embodied in
the instrument of ratification. There
can be no reasonable objection to
such interpretations accompanying
the act of ratification provided they
do not form part of the formal
ratification itself. Most of the inter-
pretations which have been suggested
to me embody what seems to me the
plain meaning of the instrume ent it
self. But if such interpretations
should constitute a part of the for
NAL resolution of ratification long
delays would be the inevitable con-
sequence, inasmuch as all the many
Governments concerned would have
to accept, in effect, the language of
the Senate as the language of the
treaty before ratification would be
complete. The assent of the Ger
man assembly at Weimar would have
to be obtained, among the rest, and
l must frankly say that / could, only
with the greatest reluctance ap-
proach that assembly for permis-
sion to read the treaty as we under
stand it and as those who framed
it quite certainly understood it.
"If the United States were to quail
| r
over, l am confident from what /
know of the many conferences and
debates which accompanied the
formation of the treaty that our ex-
ample would Immediately be fol-
lowed in many quarters, in some in
stances with very serious reServa-
tionS, and that the meaning andN OPP
erative force of the treaty would
presently be Cloudcd from one end
of it's clauses to the other.
Pardon me, Mr.. Chairman, If I
have been entirely unreserVed and
plainspoken in speaking of the great
matters we all have so much at
heart. If excuse is needed, 1 trust
that the critical situation of affairs
may serve as my justification. The
isslfes that manifestly hang upon
the conclusions of the Senate with
regard to peace and upon the time
of it's action are so grave and so
clearly insusceptible of being thrust
on one side or postponed that I
have felt il necessary in the nuhIic