New-York tribune., 1920-02-08
MIR. Hitchcock's Latest

In his management of the fight
for unconditional ratification Mr..
Hitchcock always has been willing to
make one concession to appearances
and circumstances. He has never
changed his position, but he has
shown pleasing agility in chang
ing his arguments.
Mr.. Hitchcock's attitude has been
one of complete responsiveness to
suggestions from the White House.
Whatever the President wanted, he
wanted. So, although he firted oc-
casionally, for tactical purposes,
with reservations to the treaty, he
has always been at heart with the
President in opposing any reserva-
tions which would be more than
formally 'interpretative."
His main argument-that of
nearly all the supporters of uncon-
ditional ratifcation-was that reser-
vations which were more than
formal would be dstasteful to the
other signatories, would arouse their
opposition, throw the treaty "back
into the peace conference" and
would therefore ''nullify" it. 1t
used to be suggested that the Presi-
dent was bound to live up to the
commitments which he had made at
Paris to the heads of other nations.
It " urged that, knowing their
aversIn to reservations, he could do
no less than refuse to sanction those
framed by the Senate.
Niscount Grey's letter exploded
the fiction of European hostility to
the Senate's reservations. Mr..
Hitchcock admits now that he knew
before the British Ambassador sailed
for home that Europe's heart would
not be broken by ratification with
real reservations. 1t may be that
after this knowledge came to him
he privately dropped the argument
the treaty from the European point
of view. He never did SO publicly.
But since the old argument was
dead it was imperative to produce
substitute This the Nebraska SEN
ator has done in characteristically
naive manner. Possibly Secretary
Tumulty cooperated. According to
Mr.. Htchcocks former theory, a
reservation to Article X was unde-
sirable because the United States
owed it to the European nations to
60 to their aid in preserving the
political independence and terri
torial integrity of all existing ma
tions, and shouldn't haggle, under
the circumstances, over any petty
domestic question concerning the
relative responsibility Of the Execu-
tive and Congress in the matter of
fulfilling American obligations.
Now when the European govern
ments say they don't care to what
extent Congress participates with
the President in recognizing and full
filing the American obligations,
new reason must be found why the
sacrosanct text of Article X must
lot be modified. The new reason
IS an amazing one.
If Great Britain and France, ac-
cording to the Nebraska Senator,
don't want to be protected any
longer against an American reser-
walton to Article X their purpose,
If Ineligible at all, must be sim
lister. Says Mr.. Hitchcock:
Il have been wondering whether it
might have occurred to anybody in
connection with the controversy over
Article that England and France
would be very willing to have us
make a reservation on that article
that would leave the American
pledge under Article x as weak as
possible, in order that it should not
interfere with their taking further
territories than have thus far been
assigned tc them"
Such q suggestion is as pathetic
as it is comic. Great Britain,
France, Italy and the other nations
which have ratified the treaty have
pledged themselves to respect and
preserve the territorial integrity Of
all members of the league. The
American reservation to Article K
/ does not interfere with an accept
ance Of the same obligation by the
/ United States. It merely stipulates
that Congress must be consulted IN
any case arising under that obliga-