The news scimitar. (Memphis, Tenn.) 1907-1926, 1920-01-19
. CASE IN CHANCERY

A letter from Chancellor Ieiskeu, printed in Sunday 5 Nom-
nercial Appeal, states quite accurately the main points III Inc
controversy over article 10 0. the league OF nations covenant
With his accustomed facility for judicial Interpretation the
chancellor described the contention on both sides OF the question
He reproduced the article as it was written in Paris and the reser-
vations as they were written by the committee on foreign rela
tions and adopted bv the United States senate. We accept his
definition OF the article and his definition OF the reservations
The language OF each is too clear TO permit the charge OIL
ambiguity, .
even il we part there we are sure he will pardon our limitation
when he considers that even so learned a Judge as he sometimes
has been held in error, and everyone admits that the chancellor Is
exceedingly we'll versed in the law,
AS the champion of article 10 as originally written, the chan
cenor believes the United States through II ueSt IN
power, should delegate to the council OF the league OF nations
the right to determine for the United States how IT shall secure
respect for the territorial integrity and existing independence o,
all members of the league. He believes that the council should
determine for the United States how it shall preserve against
external aggression the territorial integrity and existing political
independence of all members OF the league. He believes in the
case of any aggression against the territorial integrity and exist
ing independence OF members of the league; that IN case OF any
threat Of aggression against the territorial integrity or existing
political independence, or in case OF any danger to the poitcai
Independence of members OF the league, that the council OF the
league OF nations should advise the United States upon the means
by which its obligation under article 10 should be fulfilled,
The chancellor does not agree with a majority OF the United
States senate, which believes that the United States should assume
no obligation to preserve the territorial integrity or pohtical m
dependence OF any other country, interiere-ln c9nfroveISes 1Mc
tween nations, or employ the military or naval FORCES u inc
United States under any article OF the treaty except by JONI
resolution Of congress, which has sole power under the constr
tuition to declare war,
The article is SO plain and the language OF the reservation
Is SO plain that there can be no misunderstanding as to the mean
ING OF either. The controversy is whether the article with the
reservation or without the reservation is best for the United
States. The motives of one who takes either side should be
above question.
The cruX OF Chancellor Heskelrs argument for article 10
without reservation is this statement in his letter:
"A treaty is a contract. A written instrument which creates
no obligation at the time it is executed is no contract. Article 10
with reservation two, is as il a corporation by its officers executed
a note promising to pay you $1,000 July l and then added, but
this note creates no obligation on the corporation to pay said
amount unless the stockholders at their next meeting agree to
assume and pay same. You would find it difficult to discount
the paper"
As a matter OF law we assume the chancellor is right, as he
usually is, but in his imaginary contract the corporation is the
government OF the United States, its Officers are the members
Of the league of nations, the Stockholders are the people OF the
States.
The question is whether under the bylaws OF the corpora
ton the members OF congress, who are designated as Officers
have the right to surrender to the league Of nations the exclusive
power to execute promissory notes without authority from the
stockholders.
Article 10 SAYS the authority should be conferred upon the
league and the reservation saws it shall be retained by the congress.