New-York tribune., 1920-09-12

little less reverence than the Amer
lean Constitution itself So, on his
return to Paris, the President made,
or pretended to make, a concession to
the reverence of the American ceople.
The concession was made in connection
with Article XXI. The official copies
Of the league covenant, executed by
the various commissioners, including
and French, in parallel columns. The
signatures to the covenant were ap-
pended beneath these parallel columns,
and very naturally each column
is presumed to express precisely what
the other column conveys. In the
English text the exact words Of Ar
ticle XXI read as follows:
Nothing in this covenant shall be
deemed to affect the validity of in
tcrnational engagements, such as
treaties of arbitration or regional
understandings like the Monroe Doc
trine, for securing the maintenance
of peace
This is the quotation from the Eng
lish text as proclaimed to America, and
alluded to as the one outstanding ex-
preston which safeguards the Monroe
Doctrine. But it really does nothing
fthe sort, for it is a very fragrant
misrepresentation Of what the Monroe
Doctrine really is. The Monroe Doc
ment' nor treaty of arbitration nor
a regional understandings 1t is a
plain. square, fearless declaration of
the United States which is warning
against European nations exertinc un-
due influence OR applying improper
pressure upon the helpless republics of
the Western Hemisphere. Indeed. it is
Americas warning to the Old World
against foreign aggression. for our own
protection and for the protection Of
those who have a right to look to this
Republic for an effective manifestation
OF neighborly interest.
"But this is not the main am
biguity in the contract The point I
really wish to stress is the differ
ence between the French and the
English text, which might very read
Nv involve us IN unhappy conflict
The French text is quoted as follows:
Les engagements internationaux,
tcis que les traitcs d'abitragc, ct les
ententes regionales, CONNIE la Doc
trine de Monroe, qui assurent lie
sideres CONNIE incompatiblcs avec
aucune des dispositions du present.
Pacte'
Translators say that the French. is
so simple and lucid that one can read
it without being a master of the lam
guage and understand it perfectly. The
literal translatioa reads as follows:
international engagements, such
as treaties OF arbitration, and re-
gional understandings, like the Mon
roe Doctrine, which assure the
maintenance of peace, are not con-
s'dered as incom patible with any of
the provisions of the present pact
Texts Reverse Each Other
"Comparing the two versions of this
solemn covenant, no one can fail to
reversal of the other. The English
translation pretends to say that moth :
ing in the covenant shall affect the
validity of the Monroe doctrine, while
the original version in French asserts
very plainly that engagements like
the Monroe Doctrine are not con-
sidered as incompatible with any p o.
visions of the present pact The init
nation in English is that, in the event
of conflict concerning the two provi-
sions, the league covenant must be
made to coincide with the Monroe Doc
trine, but the literal effect of the clause
as originally drawn in the French, in
case controversy arises. is the su-
bordlnation of the Monroe Doctrine 10
such degree as virtually to involve
ITS complete abandonment The Presi
dent and the other American commjs-
sioners signed both of these texts in
committing this Republic to the league
covenant. 1t is not difficult to see
what the result would have been il
the Senate had been driven into un-
qualified ratification.
"lnevltably some question involving
the integrity Of the Monroe Doctrine
would have soon arisen, with an an
parent conflict between this cherished
American doctrine and the league
covenant. Americans would natura]1v
have said the doctrine must stand nm.
impaired. for the covenant saws TINT
nothing in the covenant shall affect
the doctrine.' Any European power
might have replied in good reason,
NO, the doctrine must give wav to
the covenant, for the covenant saws
nothing in the doctrine shall be con-
sldered incompatible with the treatv.'
Each side would have been right, ac-
ccording to its version of the Language
IN the treaty. The question which
verslon Is correct would, of course
have been raised incidentally, and, in
the words of Lord Cecil, the council
of the league, containing one vote
from the United States, would have
been called upon to settle it, Can
any one doubt that the decision would