New-York tribune., 1920-09-19

duty by Senator'S, as in some way In
volving a breach Of national faith, was
both puerile and unworthy. 1t was
we'll answered by Lord Grey when he
Constitution, is an independent body.
an independent element in the treaty.
making power. Its refusal to ratifv
the treaty cannot expose either itself
or the country to a charge Of bad faith
or of repudiation.'
Must Safeguard Monroe Doctrine
at is indeed an amazing thing that
it should have been necessary to de-
mand an amendment in order that the
Monroe Doctrine should be safeguarded
and that our representatives should
have proposed even n draft covenant
heap. understand that the Presi-
dents legal advisers had informed him
that such an agreement would DESTROY
the Monroe Doctrine 1t was only
when it became apparent that Ameri-
can opinion would not tolerate this re-
versal Of established policy that
amendment was favored by the
President.
"But the Monroe Doctrine Is not q
regional understandings 1t does not
belong in the category Of diplomatic
Understandings regional or other
wise. 1t is distinctively national pol
icy deemed essential to our national Sc
curity. 1t is difficult to imagine Amer
lean representatives consenting to such
misdescription. If it was intended
to reserve the Monroe Doctrine unim-
paired, why not say so? Why slpuld
American representatives have failed
to secure clear and adequate provision
upon this point? Certainly, it is far
from accurate to say that the amend
ments proposed by Republicans FOR this
purpose were incorporated in the
Covenant.
Justiciable Questions
"Mucn appears to be made of the in
PRODUCTION in Article XIII of clause
defining disputes suitable for arbi-
tration: understand that Gov
ernor Cox refers to this clause when
were introduced. But this clause did
not at all meet Mr. Roots point
ut was because of this reactionary
proposal, which gave the disposition Of
iusticiable questions to politicians,
guided by considerations of expediency,
instead of confiding them to a perma-
nent court with juristic standards so
as to secure international justice ac-
cording to international law, that Mr..
Root proposed to put teeth into the
system provided by the Hague conven-
tions by making the arbitration of JUS
ticiable questions obligatory under the
ference, or before the proposed Court
of Arbitral Justice, or, if the parties
preferred in particular case, before
some specially constituted tribunal and
by defining justiciable questions"
At this point Judge Hughes quoted
Mr.. Roots proposed amendment con-
cerning justiciable matters, asserting
that the Wilson covenant did nothing
for the reestablshmcnt and strength
ening of a system of arbitration, and
then, recurring to Governor Cox's con-
tention that Mr. Roots views had been
adopted, he said:
Covenant Requires Amendment
at is inaccurate and grossly mis-
leading to say that the amendment was
accepted in substance. 1t was not. The
significance of this refusal to accept it
is that our representatives at the peace
conference apparently did not desire
to base their plan for peace upon the
justice of international law, judicially
eXpounded, but sought to build on the
sands of diplomacy and expediency.
"Mr. Root has been doing a great in
ternational service in his recent work
in the development of plan for an
international court, but the provisions
Of the covenant require amendment.
"But there is far more serious and
indeed a fatal objection to the cove
nant, if there are not adequate amend
ments or reservations. That is what
Mr.. Root has called the incredible
mistake of Article X. Nothing has
been done to change that. This article
has been described as the heart of the
COY enant.' If it is, the covenant has
a bad heart. Article X is really the
vice of the covenant. Why there should
have been such tenacious insistence
Upon it must remain mystery, unless
it can be said to be due to pride of
auth orship. Let US rercad this article !:
"'The members of the league under
take to respect and preserve as against
external aggression the territorial integ-
rity and existing political independence
of all members of the league. In case
of any such aggression or in case of any
threat or danger of such aggression the
council shall advise upon the means by
which this obligation shall be fulfilled.
Obligation on Signatories
"That this article imposes an obliga-
tion on the signatories is perfectly clear
The obligation is immediate; the cove
nant itself creates it; it awaits no ac-
tion of the league to impose it. The
members of the league undertake" to