New-York tribune., 1920-02-02
The End of a sSophistry

The End of a Sophistry
Viscount Grey's admirable letter
to The London Times disposes COM
pletely of the artful contention
that so far as our European allies
are concerned the Senate's reserva-
tions "nullify' the peace treaty. The
case for unconditional ratification
has rested almost entirely on the
fraudulent claim that American res
ervations, unless they were merely
'interpretative" ard therefore" nu-
.gatory, would involve q breach Of
faith with the other signatory gov
ernments and could be properly re-
sented by them. The Senate has
been held up to scorn as taking q
low and mean advantage of our
associates by pressing on them modi-
fications of the treaty to which they
could not assent without loss of
self-respect. 1t was only in this
sense that the Presidents repeated
protests against "nullification' could
be clothed with any semblance of
generosity of feeling or moral force.
If the President had been obliged
to tell the country that the Senate
was "nullifying" the treaty because
it was trying to protect its own pre-
negatives as a part of the treaty
making power and was at the same
time trenching upon his preroga-
tives the public would have recog-
nized with absolute clearness what
the advocates of unconditional rati-
fication have been trying to keep it
from recognizing.
Most of the Senate reservations,
including that to Article X of the
covenant, deal with domestic cues
tion-namely, the distribution of
constitutional power between the
President and Congress. That is
the only issue raised in the reserva-
ton to Article x. Yet large part
Of the public has been misled into
believing that the Senate is trying
to limit or impair our obligations
under this article by defining the
conditions under which the United
States (not the executive branch of
The government alone) can accept
such obligations.
Viscount Grey frankly and SYM
pathetically notes the constitutional
difficulties in the way Of our un-
qualified acceptance of Article X.
He recognizes the proprety of a
reservation. And he tells the peo-
pie Of Great Britain, in a manner
which must convince them and is
perfectly fair to the United States,
that the questions raised in the Ar
ticle X controversy do not directly
concern the European members of
the league. In his view the British
government would have no occasion
to protest against any of the Sen
ate reservations except the one re-
lating to the representation of the
British dominions, colonies and de-
Tendencies in the league assembly,
Even over that, if adopted as it
stands, he says that "it is possible.
| think it is even more than proba-
BILE, that in practice no dispute will
ever arise"
The returning British Ambassa-
dor speaks with full knowledge of
conditions in this country as we'll as
in Europe. 1t is becoming more and
more evident that Great Britain,
France and Italy are not antagonis-
tic to the Senate reservations Fear
that the reservations will "nullify"
the treaty seems to be confined
chiefly to the White House. And that
Is because they frustrate the Presi-
dante personal conception of the
.reaty rather than the European
conception of it. Europe is not wor-
rying over the wording of the res
ervation on Article X or on the
Monroe Doctrine. Viscount Grey's
statement, the fruit of his candid
Investigations here, is highly well
come and ought to be helpful. 1t
has put it beyond the Presidents
power to claim any longer that in
opposing the Senate's reservations
he is fighting the leagues battle and
Lurope's instead of his own.