New-York tribune., 1920-10-24
Cox Cllerishes
Article Ten,
Says Hug hes
All Reservations Actually
Affecting the League 1g-
nored by Candidate and
Wilson, Records Show
No Relief Offered i. S.
Nation 10 Face War Obliga-
tion if Present Regime Has
Way, Says Former Justice

NEW HAVEN, Conn, Oct. 23.--
Charles f. Hughes declared tonight
in 81 speech at the armory here that
The political cleavage Of the nation
this fall was upon Article X OF she
League Of Nations covenant. On one
Governor Cox and all others WHO 1p-
proved Of the assumption By the
United States Of the obligation TO up
hold by force of arms the territorial
the covenant; on the other were those
who opposed the assumption of such
an obligation, regardless of their views
as to the merits Of league Of nations.
Neither President Wilson nor Gov
ernor Cox, said Mr. Hughes, had evinced
willingness to accept any reservations
designed to relieve the United States
/ OF this obligation. In fact, the Presi
dent, he pointed out, had stated en-
would be acceptable, and Governor Cox
merely had indicated his willingness
to accept reservations such as Presi-
cent Wilson had characterized as
perogatory-reser consisting
simply of statements as to the means
which the United States could employ
under its Constitution to meet the OBJ
legation it assumed in Article X.
when we come to the reservations
which Mr.. Cox is willing to adopt"
said Mr.. Hughes, Eve find exactly the
same attitude as that of Mr.. Wilson, a
Willingness to state The unnecessary
and superhuous, but determination
not to impair the obligation Of Article
x. Mr.. Cox says that he is willing to
accept reservations that will clarity,
or will be helpful, that will reassure
the American people, Does he think,
now that the issue has been presented,
to escape with such banalities? What
will clarity, help or 'reassure'? :?
There is no need to clarity Articlc
X if the obligation is retained The
one thing that will help cr rcassure the
American people is to eliminate it..
Will Mr.. Cox do that? Not by trying
to 'reassure' and retaining Article K
at the same time, but will he frankly
repudiatc the obligation which this
article seeks to impose?
"Then Mr. Cox says that he is willing
clearly to state to our associates in the
league that Congress and Congress
alone has the right to declare war, and
that our Constitution sets up limits in
legislation or treaty making beyond
which we cannot GO OF course, he
might add that the Constitution was
framed in 1887, or any other fact about
which there is no dispute Sucn res
ervations as Mr.. Cox states, are su-
perfuous, because as Mr.. Wilson said
it is not necessary TO stipulate in con-
nection with Article the constitu-
tional methods we should use in full
Ill
is the pth Of the matter.
"Mr Cox says that he favors the
Hitchcock reservations, as follows:
That the advice mentioned in Article
x Of the covenant of the league which
the council may give to the member ma
tions as to the employment of their
naval and military forces is merely ad-
vice, which each member nation is free
to accept or reject, according to the
conscience and judgment OF its then
existing government, and in the United
States this advice can only be accepted
by action Of the Congress at the time
in being, Congress alone, under the
Constitution Of the United. States, hav-
ing the power to declare war
Case Not Met Adequately
"But this does not properly or ade-
quately meet the case. 1t is more sig
in what it does say. 1t does not say
that the United States refuses to as
sumo The obligation which the under
taking OF the first sentence of Article
would impose. This cannot be re
garded as an accidental omission or d
mere question Of form of words. The
significance Of the language chosen is
made perfectly clear by Mr.. Wilson's
attitude and his repeated refusal to
n ~ .
"Now is the time for plain words If
it is intended to eliminate Article X, .r
to destroy its effect by refusing to as
sumo the Obligation, why nCt say so
Evidently Mr. Cox draws distinction
between the Hitchcock and Lodge rcser-
vations. The Hitchcock reservation
tries to say it and not to say it, 1t is
evasivc and eqUivocal. 1t leaves room
to maintain Mr. Wilson's position The
Lodge reservation says we will not as
sumo the Obligation
The time has now passed for efforts
TO placate an autocratic Executive. L
Mr. Cox is going TO part company with
Mt " llson. and Is opposed 20 Articl4
\, why should he not frankly say that
he favors IS elimination? Does he re
pudiate his platform?
The reservations Of Mr.. Cox mean
nothing so long as we assume the OBJ
legation. Mr.. Wilson understands this
even If 1t could be supposed that Mr.
Cox does not
The President has recently SAID
that there is nothing in the covenant
which in the least interferes with or
impairs the right of Congress TO de
clare war or not declare war, according
to its own independent judgment. a.
our Constitution provides confess
that were this statement not over his
signature | should find it difficult to