THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1919. AMERICA AND THE LEAGUE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LVI, Issue 17276, 27 September 1919, Page 8

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1919. AMERICA AND THE LEAGUE.

In spite of symptoms to the contrary there is reason to hope that the two chief parties in the United States are drawing towards an agreement on the ratification of the peace treaty, including the League of Nations Covenant. In estimating the chances of the treaty going through the Senate far more attention must be paid to the fact that a representative Republican like Mr. Taft has appealed for immediate ratification than to the fiery eloquence of Mr. Johnston and the other members of the Senate who are engaged in the pleasant and not very difficult task of making party capital out of Mr. Wilson's mistakes. For the President has made mistakes, numerous and great enough to have doomed any less worthy cause than the League of Nations. Mr. Taft is undoubtedly justified in attributing much o■: the opposition to the treaty to " the partisan character of Mr. Wilson's Administration, his appeal for support on partisan grounds, and his emphasis of partisan and personal elements in negotiating the treaty." The most moderate Republicans point out that Mr. Wilson did not consult any of his opponents and that, as far as is known, he was not advised by any experienced constitutional lawyer. They therefore insist, and reasonably insist, upon their right to interpret the terms of the covenant in such a way as will prevent the introduction of any doctrine repugnant to the American people, and that is as far as they go. There are extreme elements in the party who oppose ratification under any circumstances, and who hope to use the league as a weapon during the next Presidential campaign, but full debate and exhaustive criticism may yet narrow the issue between Democrats and Republicans to one of interpretation.

Few Americans would hesitate to accept the Covenant if they did not fear a hidden meaning. The popular reading of the treaty implies no obligations to which any patriotic American can object, but certain Republicans have professed to find all manner of dangers lurking in the i phraseology, and Mr. Hughes, who i lias been a Justice of the Supreme \ Court, recommends interpretative : reservations, while Mr. Taft, who lias been a Circuit Judge, declares ■ that while no reservations are neces- | sary some are desirable. Under the : < ircuins-tarwes the plain man who is : '"Xpert neither in constitutional nor i ri I errta tional law, may be pardfii.rd fnr wishing to be on the safe F >d<'. This nervousness has been ■ height by some unfortunate : criticism outside America. Thus, ; win the covenant attempts to t safeguard the Monroe Doctrine in I the amplest and most specific terms j Lord Robert Cecil was indiscreet ! enough to say that should any dispute arise between America and the European Powers as to the meaning of the doctrine the league was there to settle it. Now America claims to know the meaning of the Monroe I Doctrine without outside assistance,

and demands the right to put her own interpretation on it, hence there has been a whole crop of reservations intended to demonstrate to the world that America's control and interpretation of the doctrine are to remain absolute. The apprehension of the Republicans has been increased by the description of the Monroe Doctrine as a " regional understanding." They maintain that it is far more than this, and suggest that if the President could not be trusted to make a correct statement of the first plank in American foreign policy he may have been tricked by European statesmen at other points.

It is the same with the vital undertaking in Article X. " to respect and preserve as against external aggression the territorial integrity and existing political independence of all members of the league." There have been many criticisms of this article, but all are refuted by the terms of the covenant. It has been suggested that the league may be used to suppress revolutionary movements or be drawn into civil wars. The word "external" forbids such an interpretation. It has been argued that the league will become a modern Holy Alliance pledged to maintain the territorial settlement reached at Paris, no matter how desirable changes may in course of time become. • Other articles show that the peace treaty is not regarded as sacred and unalterable for all time, in fact machinery is provided for the progressive regulation of international affairs in accordance with the needs of the future. But the objection to Article X. which has most impressed the public imagination is that America may be involved in war at the bidding of the league and without the sanction of Congress. Now the context makes it clear that the executive council of the league has no powers other than those which are recommendatory and advisory, and even in the event of war it can only suggest the armed forces which any member of the league should supply. The authority of the Senate, therefore, remains unimpaired. It is true that America, as a member of the league, would be morally bound to take action under certain circumstances, but under the same circumstances she would probably be driven to war if there were no league. The league covenant is drafted with a view to preserving all sovereign rights, not only in America but other countries. The President has intimated his willingness to accept reservations, but has objected to the drastic character of those proposed by the Foreign Relations Committee of the Senate. It is still open to the Senate to content itself with some simple statement of America's view of her obligations and to reject destructive amendments. Already Mr. Taft has declared for immediate ratification of the treaty, and Mr. Hughes has drafted a resolution which he thinks would make all necessary reservations. Less authoritative exponents of Republican policy at present hold the stage, but their tenure may prove to be short-lived.