Evening star., 1944-06-14
Letters to The Star
League Principle Condemned
by Madison Citations
To the Editor Of The Star:

To tn. Editor Of The Star:
David Lawrence's column OF June
raises some interesting questions of fact.
The second paragraph reads: Foreign
governments now have draft which a
group OF United States Senator'S of ali
political parties consider to be in keep
ing with American traditions and Ameri-
can constitutional concepts" The third
paragraph goes on to say: The new or
ganization will be patterned after the
League Of Nations, etc" One gets the
impression moreover that MIR. Lawrence
himself thinks another world league is
I'm keeping with American traditions"
1t is in order to inquire: How does
league keep faith with American tradi-
tions? At the Constitutional Conven-
ton OF 1787 in Philadelphia, the Found
ing Fathers abandoned the league prin-
ciple In favor of new one: Federal
Union. According to the notes Of Robert
Yates. one OF the New York delegates,
on June 80, 1857. James Madison made
the following observation in commenting
on the league system: why then ad-
here to system which is proved to be
so remarkably defective?" The men at
that convention who were interested in
stable interstate government knew all
about the worlds leagues that had pre-
ceded them In history; they knew that
no league could be trusted to keep the
peace. They were determined to avoid
the mistakes Of history. We have the
same leagues as failures for examples
that they had, plus few more, includ-
ing the late League OF Nations" But
we seem bent on repeating history's
failures. That strikes me as q very clear
breach OF faith with American tradi-
tion.- ''
Further on in his column Mr.. Law
renee afhrms: "All these principles and
concepts are new" That Is an astonish-
ing statement, in view Of the facts. There
is nothing new at all about leagues These
principles" were well known to the men
at our constitutional convention. Page
after page OF Madison's notes on the
convention we find devoted to detailed
discussions Of the Greek leagues, the
German and Swiss confederacies, ETC.,
and their universal failures as satisfac-
tory interstate governments. Consider
the following statement by Madison
from his own notes (Thursday, May 81,
178O: "Mr. Madison observed that the
more he reflected on the use OF force,
the more he doubted the practicability,
the justice and the efficacy of it when
applied to people collectively and not
individually" He was talking about the
league principle, which IL government
OF governments instead Of government
OF men. This Is the principle which
Alexander Hamilton often referred to
as an imbecility. John Fiske, In his
Critical Period Of American History"
summarizes the league difhculty~as fol.
lows: When an individual defies the
law, you can lock him up in Jail, or
levy an execution upon his property.
The immense force Of the community
Is arrayed against him, and he Is as
helpless as q straw on the billows Of
the ocean. He cannot raise militia
to protect himself Hut when the law
is defied by : State It ID quite other
wise. You cannot put State into Jail,
nor seize Its goods; you can ori1y make
war on 1t. and 4 you that expedient
you find that the State is not helpless"
(Chapter VI0
Mr.. Lawrence apparently is unaware
OF the difference between leagues and
unions. Writing about another league,
he mentions = new constitution for a
world organizAtion bat leagues and
constitutions simply DO not go together.
In Madison's Notes 81 July %, he "con-
sidered the difference between 1 system
founded on the legislatures only, and one
founded on the people, to be the true
difference between league or treaty,
and constitution. The former in point
of moral obligation might be as inyio-
liable rs the latter. In point Of political
operation, there were two important. dis
tinctions in favor of the latter. la
law violating treaty ratified by pre-
existing law, might be respected by the
judges as law, though an unwise or
perndious one. A law violating a con.
stitution established by the people them
selves, would be considered by the judges
as null and void. 2. The doctrine laid
down by the law of nations in the case
OF treaties is that breach of any one
article by any OF the parties, frees the
other parties from their engagements.
In the case Of union Of people under
one constitution, the nature of the pact
has always been understood to exclude
such an Interpretation"
Mr.. Lawrence, and others who might
like to Acquaint themselves with An1eri-
can traditions and history, doubtless
would enjoy reading Formation of the
Union," obtainable from the Govern
ment Printing Once. 1t Is q com.
mendable book
JOHN r. SCHMIDT,
. Capt, U. o. Army.