The news scimitar. (Memphis, Tenn.) 1907-1926, 1920-01-22
Public Discussion
e&,ss ssss 8 -. % .,:.s, s-:58aS
., 2
. ARTICLE 10 OF TIE e
. LEAGUE or NATIONS. ;
. z
go. AaAs.ae.aEsNsaAANaAs
To M News sclmltar:

q
%s.s:.ss:%4 ss,3&9s,s,9ss339ssSS
To The News Scimitar:
In your editorial of Monday It seems
to me you misinterpret my letter in the
Sunday Commercial Appeal. was not
in that letter arguing for or against the
wisdom of article 10; was merely try
ing to clarity the issue. ! took the
ground that the reservation absolutely
destroys the article and that advocates
OF the league should not be expected u
agree that the league should be adopted
with article 10 stricken out. / was sim
| ply trying to show that the reservation
clided article 10 as completely as II
| Il were a letter passing through the
hands OF Borah armed with the autoy
cratic power OF censor. You seem 10
agree to all this and therefore there Is
nothing in my letter for you to diftef
| from.
If had been writing in favor Of the
wisdom of article 10. | would have ia
ken more space and have written IN
quite different strain. / found tEat
did not understand the. effect of the
reservation until I secured copies re-
Gently of the league and the reserva-
tions and considered the language OF
the two. | found much confusion on
| the subject in the minds of many per-
sons with whom | talked. read an
article by the editor Of the Review of
Reviews in the December number
taking the position that the reserva-
ton as to article 10 does not change the
meaning of the article, but, simply, by
way of explicit explanation, declares the
meaning OF article 10 to be just what,
by necessary implication, it would be
without the reservation,
My letter was intended to show that
this view was not correct | was not
attempting to give my reasons for IA
voring article 10, but merely insisting
that the reservation destroyed the arti-
Gle and that the authors of the reserVa-
ton claimed that the advocates OF the
league had no reason to object to this
reservation.
The Monroe doctrine furnishes a good
illustration of my meaning. That doc
trine obligates the United States to
preserve as against the external ag-
gression Of all European powers. the
territorial integrity and existing political
independence Of all the Latin American
republics. If 1t does not mean that 1t
has no meaning at all / understand the
same kind Of argument was uSed
against the Monroe doctrine when tlrst
proposed as is used against the league
Of nations. Suppose the Monroe doc
trine had taken tho form Of a treaty
between this country and the Latin
American republics The doctrine would
have been more tangible and eXphclt,
hut the effect would not have been dill
ferent Suppose then such treaty had
been formulated and submitted TO the
senate. Some would have championed
it. some would have opposed 1t in toto,
and others would have proposed reser-
vations If one of those reservations
read:
"The United States does not under
take to forbid or oppose the aggression
DC
the Latin American republics and as
sumes no obligation to preserve, as
against such aggression, the territorial
integrity and existing political lnde-
pendence of such republic, unless and
until congress shall so. provide,
Would that reservation express tne
meaning of our Monroe doctrine? 1t
would merely create vacuum. | am
not discussing the wisdom OF the mon
roe doctrine | am trying to show the
effect of such a reservation.
OF course, it goes without saying
that in case of a violation OF the Mon
roe doctrine, just as in case OF ID
breach Of article 10 if it should De
ratified congress would have to pro-
vide for a manner and means of en-
forcing our national obligation: III
either case, congress alone could de-
clare war and provide the men and the
means to carry out our obligation. the
oblieat ton. however, would exist pe-
fore congress acted.
If article 10 is right, it should pc
adopted. If it is wrong, it should be
stricken out or the covenant rejected
on account of it. But l submit that
no one has the right to destroy 1t by
indirection, to exterminate it by APT
confusion of words. and then claim to
be a friend of the league.
F. H. HEISKELAL
Memphis, Tenn.