El Paso herald. (El Paso, Tex.) 1901-1931, 1919-08-19
DENIES TREATY
POINTS VAGUE
President Unable to Under
stand Doubt Over Mean
ing Of League Articles.


] prove disastrous 20 a large portion Of
I the world, and may, at its worst, bring
I upon Europe conditions even more ter
| rible than those wrought by the war
! itself
"NOthinE. / am led TO believe.
stands in the way Of the ratifica-
tiOn Of the treaty except certain
doubts with regard 10 the mean
ing and Implication Of certain ar
ticIes Of the covenant Of the
league Of nations; and / must
/ frankly say that j am unable TO
I understand why such doubts
! should be entertained.
/ You viii recall that when I had
/ the pleasure Of conference with your
I committee and with the committee OF
l the house Of representatives Of for
| eign affairs at the white house in
/ March last, the questions now most
[ frequently asked about the league OF
! nations We're all canyassed, with a
view TO their immediate Qualification.
I The covenant of the league was then
/ in its draft subject to revision II vas
pointed out that no express recognl-
! ton was given 10 the Monroe doctrine,
that It was not specifically decided
that the league should nave no au-
thority to act or to express a judy
ment on matters OF domestic policy
] that the right to withdraw from the
l league was not expressly recognized,
and that the constitutional right OF
D
lions Of peace and war was not SUI
ficiently safeguarded-
L, :. Suggestions Accepted.
"On my return to Paris all these
matters were taken up again by the
commission on the league OF nations
and every suggestion Of the United
states was accepted The view OF the
United States. with regard to questions
I have mentioned. have in fact already
been accepted by the commission and
there was supposed TO be nothing m
consistent with them IN the draft OF
the covenant first adopted-tne craLl
which was the subject Of our discus
sion in March-but no objection was
made to saying explicitly in the text
what all had supposed to be implicit
in il. There was absolutely no doubt
as to the meaning Of any one Of the
resulting provisions Of the covenant
n the minds OF those who participated
IN drafting them. and I respectfully
submit that there is nothing vague or
doubtful in their wording
ssThe Monroe docSrine Is ex-
pressly mentioned AS m under
standing which Is in no way TO be
impaired or interfered with by
anything contained in the cove
nant and the expression. regional
gnderstundinEs like the Monroe
doctrine WIS used. not because
any one Of the cOnferees thought
there was any comparable agree
ment anywhere else in existence
or in contemplation, hut only he
cause II WIS thought best 10 avoid
The appearance of dealing in such
document with the policy OF n
single nation. Absolutely moth
ing il concealed in the phrase.
With regard to domest<- questions.
article is OF the covenant expressly
provides that. fl in case OF any dis
uute arising between members Of the
league the matter involved is claimed
By one OF the parties, and is found by
the council 10 arise out Of matter
which by international law is solely
within the domestic jurisdiction Of
that party. the council shall so re-
port, and shall make no recommends
tions as 20 its settlement The Unit
cd states was by no means the only
government interested in the explicit
adoption Of this provision. and there
Is no doubt in the mind OF any author
itative student OF international law
that such matters as immigration,
tariffs and naturalization are incon-
testably domestic questions with
which no International body could
deal without express authority TO do
So No enumeration Of domestic Ques-
tons was undertaken because 10 un-
dertal1e il. even by sample. would
have involved the danger OF seeming
to exclude those not mentioned
Explicit Right to Withdraw.
THE right Of any sovereign state TO
withdraw had been taken for granted.
but no objection was made to making
il explicit Indeed, so soon as the
views expressed at the white house
conference were laid before the COM
mission it was at once conceded that
10 was best not to leave the answer 70
so important a question to inference.
No proposal was made to set up any
tribunal 10 pass judgment upon the
question whether a Withdrawing ma
ton had in fact fulfilled all its inter
national obligations and all its obli-
cations under the covenant 1t was
/ recognized that the question must be
left to be resolved by the conscience
Of the nation proposing to withdraw;
and I must say that il did not seem TO
me worth while 10 propose that the
article be made more explicit because
1 knew that the United states would
never itself propose to withdraw from
I the league. If its conscience was not
entirely clear as TO the fulfillment OF
all its international obligations. It
has never failed to fulfill them and
never will
Article 10 Not Doubtful One.
Article 10 IS in no respect Of doubt
{ full 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 article are to be given
/ effect TO. Unless the United States is
a party to the policy or action in
question, her own affirmative note IN
/ the council is necessary before any
! advice can be given, for a unanimous
vote Of the council is required II she
| is a party, the trouble is hers. any
how And the unanimous vote Of the
council is only advice in any case
Each government is free TO reject II It
pleases. Nothing could have been
made more clear TO the conference
/ than the right Of our congress under
our constitution TO exercise its inde-
pendent Judgment in all matters OF
/ peace and war. No attempt was made
| to question or limit that right The
United States viii. indeed, undertake
under article 10 to respect and pre-
/ serve as against external aggression
I the territorial integrity and existing
political independence OF all members
/ Of the league, and that engagement
/ constitutes a very grave and solemn
/ moral obligation. But IL is moral,
not a legal obligation. and leaves our
! congress absolutely free to put its
| own Interpretation upon IL in all
} cases that call for action. It is bind
| ing in conscience only. not in law
Article 10 Is backbone"
] article X seems to me to constitute
D the very backbone Of the whole cove
nant without it the league would
I be hardly more than an internationa
| debating society. 1t has several time.
/ been suggested in public DEBATE anc
/ in private conference, that interpreta'
/ tions of the sense in which the United
] States accepts the engagements Of tbs
{ covenant should be embodied in the
/ instrument of ratification.
There can be no reasonable oh
lection to such interpretations ac-
] commanding the act OF rafificu-