New-York tribune., 1920-02-09
What Does He Mean?'

Wnen coIIdCOI I1ltSiSOSh lCoO
President Wilson'S letter to the DEM
ocratic caucus nobody present was
sure he understood it, 1t had to be
read over again. And the caucus
dispersed with no clear idea of what
it meant.
The Democratic Senators are not
to blame for feeling mystified. The
letter is cryptic. 1t seems to have
been written not for the purpose of
clarifying the situation in the Sem
ate, but of holding a settlement in
suspense.
Even those who have heretofore
been active in Interpreting the Presi-
dents thought fail to agree on what
he means. The Worlds Washington
correspondent says bluntly: "In a
letter to Senator Hitchcock he 1.-THE
President] confirms the opinions ex-
pressed in the jackson Day COM
munication." The Jackson Day COM
munication advocated ."great and
solemn" referendum on unconditional
ratification in the coming national
election.
The Times's correspondent says:
"Mr. Wilson's views were stated with
exactitude and clarity" Then the
correspondent goes on for half
column to argue that perhaps the
President intended to suggest that
the gulf between his own view and
that of the Senate majority "was not
too wide to be bridged."
The letter is, in fact, a puzzle. The
main difficulty is, as always, over Ar
ticle X. The President said in Salt
Lake City that the reservation
adopted by the Senate would "cut out
the heart of the covenant" Now he
abates somewhat the extravaganza Of
that statement. He contents himself
with this remonstrance: "Any res
ervation or resolution stating that
the United States assumes no obliga-
ton under such and such an article
unless or except would, I am sure,
chill our relationship with the ma
tions with which we expect to be as
sociated in the great enterprise of
maintaining the worlds peace"
Is such chilling of relations
equivalent to "nullifying" the treaty?
Is it an offense as grave as cutting
out the heart of the covenant? ?
These questions remain unanswered.
Yet at the same time the President
assures Mr.. Hitchcock that he cad
heres to the substance" of the sub
stitute reservation discussed in the
recent bipartisan conference of Sen
ators. That substitute employs the
phrase: "The United States as
sumes no obligations un-
less" Furthermore, the President
says that he can see 40 objection to
a reservation to the effect that the
United States can accept an obliga-
tion under Article XIII-to enforce
an arbitration award involving dis
pute over territory-"only by the
direct authority and action of the
Congress of the United States"
1t is evident, therefore, that only
Article x is sacrosanct. 1t is the one
concrete contribution which Mr.. Will.
son made ta-the covenant. He seems
to feel toward it an exaggerated
pride of authorship. And he has
committed himself to a metaphysi.
cal Interpretation of it which would
be wrecked by plain, matter-of
fact statement that no obligation
under illegal, moral or sentiment
tal---can be imposed on the United
States until and unless Congress, il
any particular case, brings thai
obligation into being by it's owr
action.
Describing Mr.. Wilson's attitud.
in the Council of Four, Mr.. John M
Keynes says in "The Economic Con
sequences Of the Peace: 9Th,
President was like Nonconformis
minister, perhaps Presbyterian
His thought and his Temperament
were essentially theological, not in
tellectual." The theological cast Of
mind is very obstinate and is much
given to subtleties. 1t lays unusual
stress on niceties of definition and
language.
The President has exhibited this
tendency in his many attempts to
draw an illusory distinction between
the moral and the legal obligations
established by Article x. The first
he holds ~ immansnt. and inde-