The New York herald. [volume] (New York, N.Y.) 1920-1924, 1920-10-26
MR.. WILSON'S LAW FAULTY,
Nature of the Promise Made In Article
X. OF the Covenant.

To THE NEW York HERALD; un-
.derstand that Mr.. Wilson is a lawyer
Article X OF the Covenant provides:
The members of the League undertake
TO respect and preserve as against ex-
ternal aggression the territorial integ-
rity and existing political independence
of all members of the League.
Senator Knox asked Mr.. Wilson cate
gorically II this provision created any
legal obligation to enforce It, Mr.. Will
son answered categorically mo. sr"
He added that it created IAN absolutely
compelling moral obligation"
Under further questioning from Sem
ator Harding Mr.. Wilson reduced this
compelling moral obligation to nullity
by saying that we would be at liberty to
Judge whether there was any obligation
in a given case. which right would OBJ
viously extend 70 all other members or
! the League, as Mr.. Wilson admitted.
Without undertaking to determine how
an obligation OF this description can be
compelling. and without attempting to
ride Mr.. Wilson's two horses going In
opposite directions. let us examine his
law for a moment.
/
agreement to do thing at all events.
To the lay mind the language of the
Covenant that 1.-THE members of the
League undertake to preserve the terri
torial integrity and political indepen'
dence of all members of the League" full
| fills the requirements of the definition
No condition or, contingency Is suggested
in the language. 1t Is a fiat undertake
ing to do the things mentioned. Why.
then, Is there not a legal obligation to do
them?
In contracts or compacts the word
undertake" has a perfectly well de-
fined meaning. 1t means to promise.
The definition from Anderson's Law
Dictionary is: ITO assume. engage; to
agree. promise. obligate oneself" An
undertaking in law is simply a bond
as an undertaking in attachment. re-
plevin. injunction and the like. Every
lawyer understands this. An undertake
ing on appeal Is an appeal bond. In
law the clause in the Covenant is the
same as If II read THE members OF
the League bind themselves to-" &c
How can one be bound and at the sam,
time not bound? And II we bind our
selves to do thing, why Is there not q
legal obligation to do It?
Mr.. Wilson's law Is fearfully and
wonderfully made. Where he learned
it one would like to know. While court
decisions are not needed on so obvious 6
proposition here are a few taken a
random:
The words undertake" and promise
are equivalent words. Eastman vs
Anthony. % Ill. 500.
An undertaking is defined by Bouviel
to be an engagement by one Of the par
ties to a contract to the other. Alex
ander VS.. State. 20 Tex. APP. 1856.
An undertaking Is a promise. Thomp
son vs. Blanchard. N. ". 1856.
simplifed bond, without a seal, Il
known as an undertaking. Wollenber,
vs. Sykes. ~ Or. 163.
The term promise" may be n con
tract, q pact, or an agreement. TIL,
word undertake" Is stronger tern
and implies entering into n stipulation
Dennisoa VS.. Barney 40 Colo. 442.
Mr.. Wilson's legal opinion simpl.
comes to this, that positive agree
ment to do n thing does not put yol
under any legal obligation to do II
which is about on a par with his rea
soning on other subjects
C. C. HoRNER.
GUTHRIE. Okla, October 81