The evening world. Newspaper, March 11, 1919, Page 22

USTABLISHED BY JOSEPH PULITZER, wep. 00 rt the Press Publishi 5 A Daily Excep Gongey A eee Fubushiog Company, RALPH PULITZER, President, 63 Park Row, ANGUS SHAW, Treasurer... Park Tet JOSEPH PULITZER, Jr, Secretary, 63 Park A MEMBER OF THE ASSOOTATED PRESS, Amoclated Prose ie excturirely nite’ to the nae for rerublication of fl amy Serpetdine seveses NO, 84,001 pied to st of not otherwise im this paper and alm the local vows ee VOLUME 59.,...... “THE COVENANT AND ITS CRITICS. ‘ 0 help busy Americans to a readier grasp and understanding of q the chief arguments advanced for and against specific pro- visions of the proposed League of Nations, The Evening World h presents certain essential articles on the league, and paral- ARTICLE VIL the leagee of I think will find their way into the body, But the fact remains that in the body of delegates England has five votes to one vote of any other country.” \ LODGE. “The inclusion of dominions and solotiies, of course, covers the four ) J ,eat! self-governing dominions of eat Britain, © ° * Canada, New Yealapd, South Africa, and Australia 6 far more worthy and more valu- tle members of a League of Na- “Our participation in belligerent op- ‘tcns than some of the nations which ezations is determined, not by our- t ¢ +¢ ¢ KNOX. | the, reduction of nnth ig — to the low i sdntent with {the enforcement by co Y ited of international | 0 rave Executive Council! to the evil effects att contracting partics mo way to conceal ther euch of their in capable of being lke purposes the scale of their information as to their military end naval programmes.” ted, shall mot be ex- e+ oe because it rests on nothing but the differentiation of the American hem- isphere from the rest of the world. Under this draft of the statutes of the League of Nations American questions and European questions and Asian and African questions are all alike put within the control and jurisdiction of the league, Europe will have the right to take part in the settlement of all American que tions, and we, of course, shall ha the right to take part in the settle- ment of all queStions in Europe and Asia and Africa. Europe and Asia are to take part in policing the Amer- jean continent and the Panama Ca- nal, and in return we are to have, by way of compensation, the right to police the Balkans and Asia Minor when we are asked to do 80, wer “If we were to guarantee the po- litical independence and territorial integrity of Mexico or Guatemala, or any of those states, we should have to stand behind them with our ir- mies and our fleets when the guar- anty was invoked, and there is no es- cape from that obligation.” + ot € ARTIOLE XII, ARTICLE X. high contracting parties political indepe ten members of the league. y such aggression o LODGE, “T have scen it said that the Mon- m Oe Doctrine is preserved under Arti- le X.; that we do not abandon the Monfoe Doctrine, we merely extend Pit to all the wo How any o1 [Gan say this passes my compreh ‘The Monroe Doctrine exists for the protection of the Amer- jhemisphere, and to that henvis- it was limited, If you extend ‘to all the world, it ceases to exist, ; ARTIOLE XH, a executive council akem to give effect thereto.” “I do not think we should leave to the league any question as to immi- gration, because immigration lies at the very root of national character and national economy; it ought to be made plain that league has no jurisdiction whatever over such ques- tons in any way, We do not want a narrow alley of escape from the juris. diction of the league, We want to prevent any jurisdiction whatever, KNOX, “Two things are obvious: First, that this does not prevent but merely delay® war by the high contracting Parties, ¢xcept that, second, if a mem- ber of the league obtaining the * ¢ 7 “Buppose we had a Mexican raid erom our border. It has happened, " ps Mexican nature has changed Wt will never happen again, but happen. We are members of Teague, we will suppose, and to carry oul, as we must, every absolute good faith, will say, ague; she mot yet given ‘effective guaran Of sincere intention;’ she breaks our border, and under this we have got to wait three before we do anything. That, would be a little hard on the ‘who live on the border, ARTICLE XVI. om) what effective military of naval force the members of the league shall eo Athen |tel with each article the eritic ey fui ard nm |the defense of William H. Taft. }enant, lican, William H. ‘Taft, bas suppl tailed defense. Record. March 4. centred, selves. but by the Precutive Council in which we have seemingly, at most, but one voice out of nine; no matter what we think of the merits of the controversy, no matter how we view the wisdom of a war over the cause, we are bound by this covenant to go to war when and in the manner the Executive Council determines,” TAFT. “Objection 1s made to the constitu- tion of the Executive Council with the suggestion that Great Britain might have more delegates therein than other countries, This is an error. The British Empire, which, of course, in- cludes its dominions, ts limited to one delegate in the Executive Council. Provision is made by which, upon a vote of two-thirds of the body of dele- gates, new members may be admitted who are independent states or arejsclf- governing dominions or colonies, I * ¢ LODGE. “We certainly owe no international obligation to ybody else to-day as to what fleets and armies we shall have, Yet this article contemplates as one of the tests of disarmament the amount of force which will be needed to carry out the purposes of the league.” KNOX, “it act in good faith under this agree! t_ we shall, of course, adopt the armament limits, which, as @ member of the Exceutive Council, we shall have assisted in formulating. Thereafter, no matter what our ne- ceasity or what its urgency, no matter that does what Congress or the people them~ selv may think the situation qQuiries, we cannot raise a sin man beyond our limit save and ex. cept it be approved by the Executive Council in which we are one of nine participating If war were abolished this might be tolerable, but with war lized even between members of the league and actually commanded in certain contingencies, this may spell for us overwhelming i jsaster.” * ¢ 4 KNOX, “If we adopt this plan we take from the Monroe Doctrine its life, we do not longer contro] the destinies of America, and the great national s curity which for a century has there- by come to us has gone perhaps for- ever.” TAFT. “Those who would seek to enforce a Monroe Doctrine which makes the western hemisphere our own pre- serve in which we may impose our sovereign will on the will of other countries in thelr own interest, be- cause indeed we have done that in the past, should not be sustained. Our conquests of our Western territory of course have worked greatly for the oivilization of the world and for our own usefulness and the happiness of those who now occupy that territory; but we have reached a state in the world’s history when its progress should be now determined and se- cured under just and peaceful con- ditions, and progress through con quest by powerful nations should be prevented, er & Judgment before the arbitration tri- bunal or the council accepts the bene- fit of the judgment—as, of course, the winning party would all but uni- versatly do—then the losing party shall not under such circumstanc go to war against the winning party. TAFT. “Tt ls sald that this would prevent our resistante to a border raid of Mexico or self-defense against any invasion, This is a most extreme construction. If a nation refuses sub. mission at all, as it doea when it begins an attack, the nation attacked ts released instanter from its obliga- tion to submit and is restored to the complete power of self-defense, Had this objection not been raised in the Senate, one would not have deemed it necessary to answer so unwar- ranted a suggestion, Crier’ “And right here I wish to take up the objection made to the league that under this machinery we might bo compelled to receive immigrants con- trary ¢o our national desire from Japan or China. We could and would issue to arbitra- go to mediation, In my judgment the council as a me- diating body should not take jurisdio- tion to consider such a difference. Immigration by international law |s @ domestic queation completely with- in the control of the Government into which immigration js sought unless the question of immigration is the subject of treaty — stipula- tion between two countries, If, however, it be maid that there is no limitation in the covenant of the differences to be mediated, clearly we would run no risk of re- ceiving from the large body of dele- tes of all the members of the league a unanimous report recom e¢ +€ ¥ eo forces to be used to otect the covenants of th. armed LODGE, “d venture to think that cutting off and opening our territory to the | EDITORI Tuesday, Ma AL PAGE | reh if, 1919 of Senators Senators Lodge and Knox represent the highest Republican Sen- atorial brain-power so far exercised in attacking the proposed cov- It happene, most significantly, that another prominent Repub- ied the strongest specific and de- The comments of Mr, Lodge and Mr. Knox are taken from their speeches in the United Stales Senate as printed jn the Congressional The Taft interpretations are selected from his recent public utterances, including his epeech at the Metropolitan Opera House, The articles are those about which discussion has chiefly presume, too, the Philippines might be admitted. But the function ottns body of delegates is not one which makes its inembership of great im- portance. “When it acts as a mediating and compromising body its report must be unanimous to have any effect. The addition of members, therefore, is not likely to create greater probability of unanimity, More than this, the large number of countries who will become members will minimize any import- ant British influence from such domin- jons and colonies who are really ad- mitted solely because they have dif- ferent interests from their mother country. The #uggestion that Great Britain will have any greater power in ehaping the policy of the league tn really critical matters, when an- alyzed, will be seen to have no founda- tion whatever.” TAFT. “The importance of providing for a reduction of armament every one recognizes, It is affirmed in the newly proposed Senate resolution. Can we not trust our Congress to fix a limitation safe for the country and stick to it? If we can't, no country can. Yot all the rest are anxious to Go eile, They are far more exposed “The reduction or increage of arma- ment is something which asda Constitution Congress is to do, va not deprive the 7 making power of binding the Gere creme tls the United States not to in. crease its armament beyon, point, For one trun dred poe Government has recognized its obli- on under @ contract with Great ritain not to place fortificationg on the border and not te put warships there. We are ali proud of the fact that this plain limitation upon arma. ment @s against Great Britain bas been maintained eacredly for a een- ury,’ “The idea that the conditioms in America and in Europe can be main. tained absolutely separate, with the great trade relationa between Nerth America and Europe, an rope, is looking backward, not forward. It d fot oes not face existing . e “The question, both under Artic! XVIIL. and under Article X, aa te whether the United States shall de. clare war and what forces it shail fur- nish, are remitted to the voluntary action of the Congress of the United States under the Constitution, hav:n, regard for @ fair division between aii the nations of the burden to be borne under the league and the proper means, whether by the enjoined and inevitable boycott alone, or by the ad- vance of loans of money, or by the declaration of war and by the use of military force. This is as it should be. It fixes the obligation of action in such a way that American na- tions will attend to America and Eu- ropean nations will attend and Asiatic nations to Asia.” baibiae mending a settlement by which Jap- @nese immigrants shall be admitted to our shores or Japanese applicants be admitted to our citizenship con- trary to our protest. But were it made, we are under no covenant to obey ‘such recommendation, “Lf it could be imagined that all of the other nations of the world would thus unite their military forces to compel us to receive Japanese immi- grants under the covenant, why would they not do go without the covenant? “It 19 said that it is unconstitu- tional for the treaty-Making power to agree, on behalf of the United States, not to make war, If this be uncon- stitulional, then the present Senate has violated the Constitution twenty times, for it has already agreed in twenty different treaties with the other nations of the world not to be- «in war until one year after the oc- currence of the event upon which wir May ensue, and until after a commission of inquiry into the sub- ject matter of the dispute shall have been had and a report made, “Did this violate the Constitution? Did this deprive © power to make war in accord with its constitutional authority? If it did, it} violated the Constitution, but it did not do anything of the sort, It mere- ly bound the Government not to make war, and it left to Congress the power to perform that obligation by not making war. Under the Constitu- tion Congress would have the power to violate the obligation and dishonor the promise of the Nation, but that | would not make the contract of the Nation invalid or unconstitutiona! any more than the fact that a man who lets his note go to protest should render invalid the original making of the note." > and Knox and| passage of promise to this is a direct interference with the visién may be carried out.” over, that situations calling for un- constitutional action by this Govern- ment might arise tee might demand the making of laws which in the sound discretion of Congress ought not to be made, and yet Congress might find itself under the compelling force of war with the troaps is @ very serious make.” 8 “It seems to me that, in any event, power of Congress to raise armies entire league to enact such legis- land maintain navies, and we shall be lation,” compelled to have a constitutional TAFT. amendment in order that this pro- It is said we have no right to agree to levy an embargo and a boy- It is true that Congress deter- mines What our commercial relations shall be with r countries of the world, It is tru tifa be levied Cong form of vas levied bi Administration, ° e which was sustain “Under these provis‘ons the league Court, with John } X. cott. “It seems reasonably certain, more- under the pro- visions of Article 16 relating to financial and economic measures vf support. ‘erson’s idity of the d by the Supreme arshall at its head, and ¥ After examining the above, we believe the thoughtful American will have a clearer idea of the character of such attacks as have been aimed against the proposed covenant. He wiil be in a better position to see how far the spirit of those attacks falls short of representing the earnest desire of a vast majority of the people of the United States to see the most, rather than the least, that can be made of a concerted attempt, after four years of tragic human experience, to safeguard the peace of the world. The extremes to which partisan faultfinding may lead even one of the most distinguished and highly endowed of United States Senators is seen in Mr. Lodge’s extraordinary criticism of Article XXIV. We quote from his speech of Feb. 28 in the Senate, as printed in the Congressional Record: ‘ “Article XXIV, is not very clear, but {t says “It shall be the right of the body delegates from time to time to advise the reconsideration by state members of the league of treaties which shall become inapplicable and of international conditions of which the continuance may en- danger the peace of the world. x “I confess I do not clearly understand what {s meant by this. I have no doubt that there are Senators who like the league just as it 1s printed, who perhaps can explain that thoroughly; but ‘inter- national conditions of which the continuance may endanger the peace of the world,’ and ‘the league of treaties,’ I think it must be misprinted; but, at all events, {t needs some examination,” Harvard is Mr, Lodge’s Alma Mater would see at a glance that in the above article the words “ Any Haryard freshman tate mem- bers of the league” group themselves together, while “of treaties” goes with the preceding word “reconsideration.” The same meticulous overzeal to find defects appears in Sena- tor Knox’s elaborate attempt to make out that the terms “high con- tracting parties” and “the league,” as used throughout the covenant, give rise to dire and hopeless confusion as to the “operating entiti Common sense would take for granted the use of the term “high contracting parties” to designate the several and individual powers entering into the contract and “the league” to denote the collective our intercourse with another nation entity by which they are to become eventually co-operative in action. Even Mr, Lodge, who is also a lawyer, was not troubled by this lawyer’s bugaboo of “operating entities.” . | It is true that Congress might repudi- ate the obligation entered into by the treaty-making power and refuse to levy such an embargo, but this would not invalidate or render unconstitu- tional the treaty by which it was made the obligation of the United States to levy it. . tween nations, except to change our form of government or part with ter- ritory of a State without its consent, ‘The treaty-making power is a sover- eign power, eo. “The covenant takes away the sov- ereignty of the United States only as any contract curtails the freedom of action of an individual which he has voluntarily surrendered for the pur- pose of the contract and to obtain the benefit of it. The covenant creates no super-sovereignty. It merely cre- ates contract obligations. It binds nations to stand together to secure compliance with those contracts. That is all. This is not different A from a contract that we make with one nation.” . . “Objection is made to this league on constitutional grounds. This league is to be made by the treaty-making power of the United States. What does the treaty-naking power cover? The Supreme Court of the United States, through Mr. Justice Field, in the Riggs case, has held that it cov- ers the right to deal by contract with wl subjects matter which are usually dealt with by contract in treaties be- The more one studies the specific arguments of the three men { the stronger is the conclusion: } The attitude of Senators Lodge and Knox is so faz aa possible to l destroy the proposed instrument as a whole, regardless of its great ourpose, regardless of the obvious impossibility of gaining the con- sent of fourteen nations to a covenant drawn with a view to the pecial interests of any one of them. A constructive criticism upon which all three Republicans agree i> one which suggests provision for the withdrawal of a nation from the league. Obviously this, like making immigration specifically a domestic question, is a minor addition which may be secured. Mr. Taft's later insistence upon the need of revision is nothing In his Metropolitan Opera House speech he expressly stated his opinion that the covenant as it now stands should be regarded ay new, subject to revision in certain minor points. President Wilson, fo\- lowing Mr, Taft on the same platform, did not dissent. It may well be that with final ratification of the proposed cov enant by the powers yet to be secured the President deemed it wiae not to emphasize, in advance of discussion in which he must take a leading part, the necessity even of lesser revisions as affecting a tenta- tive draft already approved by the nations concerned. Mr. Taft's vigorous support of the present covenant as a whole s in strong contrast to the attitude of Republicans who would de- stroy so much of the proposed Constitution that the rest could have no chance, The hope of lesser additions and clarifications to the present draft in no wise alters the fact: The covenant as it now stands claims the support of all i Americans who read it with the consciousness that it is something immeasurably bigger than any man or any party. More and more as the days go by this tangible covenant of a League of Nations is fixing itself in American minds as the only attainable practicable certainty that, for this and for other civilized nations, the millions who have died in battle and the sacrifice and suffering of millions more in the greatest of all wars shall not have to be counted as a gigantic, meaningless loss which leaves the peoples of the earth no more secure, no nearer together than they were before, NERO Ty