The Hartford republican. (Hartford, Ky.) 18??-1926, 1920-10-08

Inc tact that Uecldeu the question
is not material but the fact that that
minister whose words are listened to
by his people has been saying that
under such circumstances the United
States would have a vote, when he
could have analysed and found 1t ex-
pressly denied by the Covenant is Of
immense concern. He was evidently
In good faith but how will he or his
followers feel when the analysis does
come No, the United States will have
no vote in decisions where most need
ed.
In another part of Article No. It
is provided that all matters of pro-
ceedure at meetings of the Assembly
or Council may be decided by a ma
jority vote. As in the construction of
Statutes by our courts, the language
of this Covenant can be transposed
by the League in its efforts to ascer-
tain the meaning and who is to say
the decision will differ from McKin-
/ ley's message to Dewey to proceed to
Manila and destroy the Spanish fleet
or be applied to rules of order or
what not?.
That eminent authority, the Su-
preme Court of the United States has
decided that the word, procedure"
is so broad and comprehensive in its
meaning that it is not used by text
writers as a term of art Somebody
evidently slipped a cog and overlook
ed that decision; and it is all poppy
cock to say that the League would
not adopt such construction or any
construction it decided upon. Even
the Supreme Court has decided ques-
tions on a division of its judges by
the figures five to four and plaintiff
and defendant won or lost accordingly
and however much we fret about it
and question such a decision it re-
mains the law and is enforced by
procedure. Who amongst us
could have foreseen that a combina-
ton alleged to be in restraint of
trade would be decided to be a rea-
sonable trust?
Some persons may differ with this
view but none can deny thac our law |
books are filled with decisions of |
our courts transpOsing, adding 10 or
taking from the language of an am
biguous Statute to get at its mean
ing; and the only appeal from a de- |
cision of the League is by force of |
arms; and how can we appeal to arms
once we have ratified and become |
morally and legally bound to the !
Leagues tenets? Senator Borah say
that Congress itself would carry out
those edicts Of the League to which
we were morally bound, a statement
hard to swallow but more than like
ly true. Pity the thought-the U. S
following the edict of another.
Some speakers point to Article p
of the Covenant and in loud tones
proclaim the preservation of the Mon
roe Doctrine. Let us read that Ar
ticle:
Nothing in this Covenant shall be
deemed to affect the validity of in
ternational engagements, such as
treaties of arbitration or regional un-
4 o,ot pdfpug Tho tba NTOproo Joot r;, q, |
for securing the maintenance OF
peace"
They do not point out that while its
validity" is preserved it does not
say that doctrine shall be construed
and applied by the United States.
No, the duty is upon the League to
say what is or what is not within
he validity of that doctrine.
If the United States should object
% Japan's buying a military and ma
yal base in Mexico and seek to apply
he Monroe Doctrine, it would not be
he United States who would decide
he question, but the League of Ma
ions would say whether or not the ,
dispute fell within those principles
All will recall that when President
wilson first came back from France
great howl was raised because Of
he failure to properly protect tn
IOnroe Doctrine. Later Article q
vas inserted. Read what Senator
Ohnson said of it on June End, 1920:
IF an American with the purpose
f protecting the Monroe Doctrine
yrote this Article his affection for
was tepid and his allegiance fee
lie.
He also said: If the purpose OF
he man who wrote this so-called pro-
ection of the Monroe Doctrine was
0 place that Doctrine specifically
'ithin the jurisdiction of the League
( Nations he succeeded admirably.
But now see how the forty-nine