New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1920-07-19
The Cox Reservations

Governor OOX UIUuSuC WIFI iiAiii w
Washington two reservations to the
league covenant. The first declares
that the United States will function
ia the league only so long as that
body adheres to cts fundamental
purpose of maintaining peace and
eolnity among the nations" This is
ga empty form of words. The cove
nent itself recognizes in many ways
tAe fact that world peace may be OBJ
Unable only by applying joint eco
uolaic pressure on recalcitrants and
by going to war with them. 1t is
uaian for war as we'll as for peace.
II We enter it for one purpose we
sanot we'll help entering it for an
ososr.
ne second Cox reservation, which
anp RS also in the San Francisco
platter gives notice that in carry
nag ut the purposes of the league
Gu government Unjust act in strict
hsrlony with the terms and intent
r. he United States Constitution"
8'his means that we cannot partici-
nate in any war recommended by the
League Council unless war is first
declared by Congress.
The second reservation, like the
first, is probably nebulous enough to
uit the President. He has at times
admitted that Congress legally is
free to accept or reject recon-
mendation involving war made by
the League Council. But he has set
up sophistical distinction between
a legal obligation to declare war and
moral one. He wants the United
States to enter the league morally
bound by it's pledge to respect and
preserve, as against external aggres-
sion, the territorial integrity and ex-
isting political independence of all
members of the league" If we &C
cept the moral obligation he is not
greatly concerned about the reserved
legal right of Congress to refuse to
declare war. AS he told Senator
Harding in the conference with the
Senate Committee on Foreign Rela-
tons on August 10, 1919, the moral
obligation would always be superior
to any mere legal license granted to
Congress to run away from such
obligation.
Governor Cox's reservations are
therefore probably innocuous from
the White House point of view. They
do not meet the Senate's demand
that the United States shall recog-
nize no obligation of any sort, moral
or legal, to accept advice from the
Council on a question involving war
in advance of action by Congress in
each specific case. An attempt is
being made to show that Governor
CcX's reservations would make our
adherence conform to the American
Constitution. They do not do so be-
cause they are subject to the Presi-
dents favorite Interpretation of a
surviving moral obligation. AS ex-
Governor Simeon E. Baldwin said
the other day in a statement highly
praised by "The New York Tines:
"rhe main one 1.-The main reserva-
ton needed is to make it clear that
no obligations, legal or moral, exist
which would force our government
into war without due action by Con-
gre<s."
Mr.. Cox also fails to see the neces-
slty of safeguarding the Monroe
Doctrine. The covenant article gro
tesquely misrepresents this doctrine
by calling it a regional understand
ing and classifying it among "inter-
national engagements for securing
the. maintenance of peace" 1t is
nothing of the sort. 1t is an express
sion of American national policy.
resting on force. According to the
explanations given out at Paris
when Article 21 of the covenant was
adopted, against President Wilson's
original design, the validity of the
Monroe Doctrine, otherwise than as
a regional understanding for secur-
ing the maintenance of peace (which
it is not was to be passed on by the
League Council. The Lodge reser-
walton expressly affirms our exclu-
sive right to interpret and apply the
doctrine, as in days past. Such a
stipulation is essential. 1t was ap-
proved by a very large majority of
The Senate.
President Wilson has never been
be to make out clear case against
s. Senate reservations. They are
definite. He offers only the vaguest
and most shadowy substitutes. The
OK reservations have no more sub
lance than his have. If the Demo
cratic candidate can't produce any
tcing more concrete and explicit he