Nelson Evening Mail. FRIDAY, OCTOBER 31, 1919. AMERICA AND THE TREATY.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LIII, Issue LIII, 31 October 1919, Page 4

Nelson Evening Mail. FRIDAY, OCTOBER 31, 1919. AMERICA AND THE TREATY.

OPPOSITION to the Peace Treaty in the United States arises, it is said, mainly out of fear of, and objection to, the introduction of a new ei'a in the international relationships and obligations of tho country. The textual report of the discussion at the important conference at the White House on August 19 between tho President and the members cf the Foreign Relations Committee has been closely examined by the Otago Daily Times and the following details from its review will be of general interest. Tho- conference, is says, ,wag of a very amicable nature, free from utterances of the violent character that have been recorded in the cablegrams as having fallen under other conditions from .som e of the Republican Senators. What Mr Taft may mean by “mild reservations” is not very clear. At the conference President Wilson made plain his attitude in regard to reservations, when lie said '“lt has several times been suggested that interpretations of the sense in which the United States accepts the engagements of the covenants should be embodied in the instrument of ratification. There can be no reasonable objection to such ratification. There can bo no reasonable objection to such interpretations accompanying the act of ratification, provided they do not form a part of the formal ratification itself. Most of the interpretations which have been suggested embody what seems to mo the plain meaning of tho instrument itself. But if such interpretations should constitute a part of the formal resolution of ratification, long delays would ho the inevitable consequence, inasmuch as all the many Governments concerned would have to accept in effect tho language of the Senate as the language of th° treaty before ratification would he complete. The assent) of the German Assembly at Weimar would have to be obtained, among the rest, and I must frankly, say that I could only with the greatest reluctance approach that Assembly for permission to read the treaty as we understand it, and as those who framed it certainly Underatc/od. If 't)hq United States were to qualify the document in any way, moreover, I am confident, from what I know of the many debates and conferences which accompanied the formulation of the treaty, that our example would immediately bo followed in many quarters, m some instances with very serious reservations, and that the meaning and operative force of the treaty would presently be clouded from one emf of its clauses to the other.” This statement was made by the President in his opening remarks, and during the prolonged discussion that followed no serious attempt was made t 0 dispute its cogency. The attitude of members of tho Foreign Relations Committee made it clear that certain

Increased healthfullness and vigour revolt from drinking KoJa-nip—the beverage with fh 0 nutty flavour. Nonalcoholic yet snappy—full of twang delidou*. Try a little with aerated

articles in the Covenant of the League of Nations were the subject of their special suspicion. Particularly was this the case in respect of Article X, involving an undertaking on the part of the United States to “respect and preserve against external aggression the territorial integrity and existing political independence of all members of tiie League, ’ and Article XL, which lays it down that “any war or threat of war. whether immediately affecting any of the members of the League or not, is hereby declared a matter of concern to the whole League, and the League shall take any action that may be deemed wise and effectual to safeguard the peace of nations.” President Wilson was subjected to the closest questioning as to the exact nature of the obligation Incurred by the United States under these articles. It cannot bo said that an exact definition was actually arrived at. But the President’s reading of the position, which he was called upon to explain and reiterate at ■ length, ia of interest. Nothing, he averred, could have been made more clear to the Peace Conference than the right of the United States Congress under the American constitution to exercise its independent judgment in all matters of peace and I war. The engagement into which the United States entered under Article X was a very grave and solemn moral obligation, but it was a moral, not a legal obligation, and. left Congress absolutely free t 0 put its own interpretation upon it in all cases that called for action. While referring t 0 Article X as “binding in conscience only, not in law,” the President characterised it as constituting the very backbone of the whole Covenant, without the League of Nations would be hardly more than an influential debating society. This distinction between a moral and a legal obligation was productive of much interrogation and much destructive argument. It was contended by several Senators that if members of the League took, the view that then* obligation under Article X was a moral question, into which the element of individual judgment entered, the terror to wrong-* doers by what it was hoped would be united, concerted action, on the part of the League would scarcely bo very effective. We can give here only a portion of the Presidents reply, which reads: “X take J t for* granted that in practically every casethe United States would respond, but that does not seem to be the question. I agree that a moral obligation is to be fulfilled, and I am confident that our nation will fulfil it, but that does not remove from each individual case the element of judgment which we arc free to exercise two stages. We are first free to exercise it in the vote of our representative on the Council, who will of course act under instructions from the. home Government; and in the second place wo arc to exercise it when the President, acting upon ihc action of the Council, makes his recommendation to Congress. Then Congress is to exercise its judgment as t 0 whether the instructions of the Executive to our member of the Council were well founded or not, and whether this is a case of distinct moral obligation.” Later reports, fortunately, indicate the growing sentiment in America towards ratification -