New-York tribune., 1921-09-28
Keeping History Straight
Responsibility for the Defeat o.
Covenant Ratification

NOFCN0ut l\ctiIt\dtlOll
To the Editor of Tho Tribune.
Sir: The note OF Raymond B. Fos-
dick in your issue Of to-day prompts
an inquiry. He recalls that certain
eminent Republicans during the recent
campaign plead with the American
people to vote for Mr.. Harding on the
ground that the Republican party and
its candidates were bound by every
consideration Of good faith to have the
United States enter the existing
League of Nations, with such rcserva-
tions as necessity might require
Whether Mr.. Fosdick literally quotes
Republican language, even to the ex-
tent Of the phrase he puts in quota
tion marks, ! am not sure, not. having
that document before me, but let US
assume for the moment that he either
quotes exactly or summarizes correctly,
and consider.
Recalling recent history, we know
that on March 10, 1920, the Senate
voted finally on ratification, with the
Lodge reservations; which reservations
may be assumed to have been such as
necessity might require" to adopt Mr..
Fosdick's phrasing. The great majority
of Republican Senators voted to so
ratify, and with them twenty-threc
Democratic Senators, including the new
minority leader, Senator Underwood,
whom the President now has placed on
the new disarm ament commission. But
President Wilson controlled enough
votes to prevent two-thirds afilma-
tive vote, even with the twenty-threc
Democrats-it was his will and demand
that that form of ratification should
not prevail-and it thus was defeated.
l have seen no intmaton that those
Senators who voted in the negative and
defeated such ratification had changed
their minds and were ready to vote
afnrmatively on a presentation of
the question. AS long as they are in
such numbers as to prevent q two
thirds affirmative vote they obviously
hold the control-a change of attitude
on their part is condition precedent,
inexorably, to any different action. Can
Mr.. Fosdick assert that their attitude
Of opposition has changed?
At Marion, on August 2S, 1920. Mr..
Harding said he had voted twice for
ratification with the Lodge reseya-
tlons, and under like conditions would
40 SO again. His attitude and that of
Senator Borah were contrary. Senator
Borah, opposed to any league, and the
Democratic Senators who on that date
in March, 1920, voted against ratifica-
tlon with the Lodge reservations de-
feated ratification with those condi-
tions. Is it quite fair or statesman
like to charge any one with not keep
ing pledge when associates and
friends of the one making the charge
are the very ones who, on the last vote,
defeated affirmative action and have
never announced that they had changed
their attitude and were ready to vote
the other way?
Doubtless Mr.. Fosdick has noted the
recent report from the league itself at
Geneva that the phrase in Article X
OF the covenant pledging preservation
OF the territorial integrity and political
independence of all members of the
league has been construed as of no
effect or force. This conforms sub-
stantially to that Lodge reservation
which provided for the entire omission
OF Article X. Under the form Of y
construction, Or at least so reported.
this seems to have been an official
waiver of clearly expressed stipula-
ton, but the result is the same.
Article X, the main provision of which
the league itself now discards. was
one of the things President Wilson
most determinedly adhered to. With
what he will think of the waiyinp Of
Its chief crucial provision probably the
country now will not feel much con-
Germ GEORGE R. BISHOP.
New York, Sept 25, 1921.