New-York tribune., 1920-10-24
u. S. and the World
A Study of Policies and the
\ League of Nations

I is safe to assert that a majority
of the American people has adopted
an attitude toward the League Of
Nations which, while not precisely hos
tile, is plainly unfriendly Yet if one
questions citizen, seeking to uncover
the exact causes that actuate this
animus, he is apt to receive replies that
fail to establish antipathy in sound rea-
son. There has been elbow room for
an elucidation of the American stand
point, one that follows the argument
of the man in the street, and then,
through the uplift of scholarship and
acquaintance with international rela-
tlons, raises this argument to the level
of craftsmanship. David Jayne Hill, in
his American World Policies (Doran).
has written the book that answers the
demand. 1t is the clearest, sanest
statement of the Republican doctrine
of wholly independent United States,
Of nation willing to combine with the
nations of Europe on basis that leaves
America unfettered, that we have read
In fact, it is G.. O. P. textbook par
excellence on the problem of the League
of nations.
The kernel, the meat of this book. is
found in Chapter ", on "The Struggle
of the Senate for Its Prerogatives," and
in Chapter VI, on "The Covenant and
the Constitution" We quote two SEN
tences that reveal the incisiveness of
DR.. Hills presentation. The first, from
Chapter ", follows:
81 draw attention, therefore, to the
fact that, while the covenant of the
League of Nations, if respected, would
Tredetermine the occasion for the
United States going to war or refusing
to go TO war, and is to that extent q
super government controlling the con-
| stltutlonal right of Congress freely to
decide these questions, it virtually
places the entire control of foreign pol
icy, SO far as any independent national
control is left, in the hands of the Chief
Executive, who is at the same time the
commander in chief of the military and
naval forces Of the United States. The
moment war is automatically called for
by the obligations of the covenant, at
that moment the President might claim
the right to act by the auth ority of
treaty, and a decision regarding his
right to act under the treaty could be
reached only by a long and difficult
process, if at all"
Our Constitution is the instrument
through which we function politically,
for Congress merely enacts what is
constitutional. We arrive at once at
the gist of the matter of the league
and the Constitution when We recall.
with Dr. HILL Lord Grey's remark in
1914:
You cannot, you should not, pledge
democracy in such matter without
consulting it, without clearly knowing
its mind"
In his Chapter VI DR.. Hill elaborates
upon this dictum in these words:
Here, in brief, is the constructive
|
war power is based in the Constitution
of the United States. The covenant
of the League of Nations is not found
ed upon that principle. 1t is a pledge
to act, and it makes all necessary prep
aratlons TO act, upon the opposite
principle, namely, that if the people
were consulted, if their mind were
clearly sought at the moment Of ac-
ton, perhaps they would not choose to
act at all. In order to secure their
action, this is the theory of the cove
nant, they must be bound beforehand.
while the circumstances are yet un
known and only generally stated A
solemn pledge must be given in their
name. and to avoid the possible calam
ity Of their breaking it execution
must be confded to dominant au-
thorlty who can remove the subject
from all debate"