The Farmington times. (Farmington, St. Francois County, Mo.) 1905-1926, 1920-10-22
England's Six
Votes in League

The covenant or constitution of the
League of Nations provides for an
Assembly and Council as the in
strumentality by or through which its
purposes and actions may be effected.
The Assembly is composed Of one or
mo-e-not to exceed three--represen-
tatives of each member of the League,
which must be "fully self-govern-
ing state, dominion or colony" but
each member is restricted to one vote
in the Assembly. England, or rather,
the British Empire, has five fully
self-governing dominions or colonies
Canada, Australia, South Africa,
New Zealand and India. Each Of
these the Council of Peace of the Al
lied Nations deemed it wise to give
representation in the Assembly. That
their votes might or might not be
cast solidly with the one vote of Eng
land cuts little or no figure, though
it is not probable that they would;
and if they should it is also probable
that the vote of The United States
would be cast in agreement with them
on the large majority of questions
with which the Assembly may have to
deal.
The purpose of the Assembly is
that no member of the League shall
be without representation in its de-
liberations, regardless of it's size or
Importance, thus assuring it that the
League does not purpose to take any
advantage of its weakness, but to
give it all the consideration and pro-
lection accorded to other members.
No action or decision of the Assembly,
which is not satisfactory to or is not
accepted by Che disagreeing members
involved in the question or case sub
mitted for settlement or adjustment,
is final. If not acceptable to either
party the Council must decide the
dispute, and that by unanimous vote,
any one vote vetoing the action of the
Assembly. As final 2rbiter, section
fourteen of the covenant provides for
Permanent Court of Justice" or
Arbitration. At recent convention
of representatives of tire League at
the Hague--in which our great inter-
national lawyer. Elihu Root of New
York, a staunch Republican, was in
vited to and did take part in, al
though the United States is not yet
member of the League by reason OF
the Senate's action in not ratifying
the Versailles Treaty of Peace and
Covenant of the League of Nations,
the scope and rules for the govern
ment of this Court were formulated
and will be put in operation by and
under the provisions of the League
covenant.
Is this a depression from the sub
tect of the article--England's alleged
six votes in the Assembly? Has the
reader not already discovered that
they cannot in any way initiate
against the United States or any
other member of the League? France,
Italy, nor any of the other great sig
natories of the covenant find in this
characteristic of the Assembly any
thing harmful or Objectionable. But
let US bring this matter more closely
to home. Suppose some serious in
ternational dispute or claim for dam
ages should arise between the United
States and England. Since the war
of 1872, more than hundred years
ago, frequent disagreements have
arisen between them, and they
all have been settled amicably through
diplomacy or peaceable commissions
without resort to war. But if dis
pute between the United States and
England should arise that could not
be adjusted by diplomacy and it were
referred to the League of Nations,
what then? Neither the United
States nor England nor any of her
self-governing colonies would have a
vote in either the Assembly or the
Council, as they would not be permit
ted under the provisions of the COW
enant to sit in judgment on a case in
which they were plaintiff or defend
ant, as the case might be. Of what
avail then would be the five votes of
Great Britain's dommions in the AS
sembly?
Remember, it takes only one vote
in the Council, of which there are nine
representatives, to veto any action of
the Assembly. If the cause of the
United States should be just and rea-
sonable, are we so unpopular among
the nations Of the earth that we
could not get a single representative
of the Council to see and support the
justice of our claim? Do you be-
lieve that your government would
urge against England or any other
nation a claim SO unjust, unreasonable
and in violation of all international
polity that the Council would have to
decide unanimously against it? If
such an improbable, not to soy impos-
sible, case should be presented, what
high-minded American would say that
judgment against it would be un-
just? Not one.
Again, suppose the United States
should refuse to ratify the covenant
and enter the League of Nations.
the League being established with all
the other major nations and all or
nearly all the minor nations-any
claim it might have against any one
of them would have to be submitted
to the League for settlement, or it
would have to "stand pat" and under
take to force it's claim or defend it.
self against the claim of any other ma
ton by resort to arms. How much
better off would we be in such a sit