Amendments and Reservations

Title

Amendments and Reservations

Creator

Senate Committee of Foreign Relations

Identifier

WWP15842

Date

1919 September 7

Source

Cary T. Grayson Papers, Woodrow Wilson Presidential Library, Staunton, Virginia

Language

English

Text

The Senate Committee of Foreign Relations has completed its work on the peace treaty, and its report will be presented to the Senate some day of this week, it is said. The result of two months’ application to this task is the decision, by a majority of the committee, to recommend some forty amendments to the treaty, and four reservations for the covenant of the League of Nations. The division in the committee is along party lines, although not strictly so, for on some questions one or two Republicans voted with the Democrats, and Senator Shields of Tennessee voted with the Republicans in supporting three of the four reservations. Republican majority in the Foreign Relations Committee is composed largely of avowed and bitter opponents of the covenant of the league and five or of the ten are in favor of a rejection of the entire compact. So it is safe to assume that the report of the committee is as antagonistic to the treaty as these men could make it. The fight on the floor of the Senate will begin, no doubt, on the amendments. For the reasons that we set forth the other day all of them, we believe, will fail of adoption, not because there is no merit in any of them, but because they are not essential and because we simply cannot afford to prolong the suspense of the world by throwing the treaty back to the Peace Conference for a renewal of discussions upon questions which have been unanimously decided by the representatives of the nations, and which they would be very reluctant to reopen, knowing as they do the great difficulty they have had in reaching any agreement, and the grave danger that renewed discussion would imperil the entire treaty. The majority of the Senators can hardly fail to realize that textual amendments are perilous, not only to the treaty per se, but to the immediate and future welfare of the people of the United States.

But in addition to the amendments the committee proposes four reservations to the covenant of the League of Nations. These reservations cover the four points that are the chief subjects of controversy, and which all the Republicans agree, and not a few of the Democrats concur, should be clearly defined, from the American point of view, in the resolution of ratification, namely, the right of withdrawal, our exclusive jurisdiction over our domestic affairs, the full recognition of the Monroe doctrine, and the supremacy of Congress in the interpretation and application of our obligations under article 10. But the reservations of the committee are written in the same spirit of antagonism as the amendments. The first, third and fourth of the reservations seek to accomplish in general what all who favor reservations desire, but they are all ill-naturedly and defiantly phrased. They do not speak the language of friendly co-operation which is the basic principle of the the covenant of the league. It is as if they were saying, we will approve this thing under compulsion, but we want you to understand that we are against it.

They go farther than this in the reservation relating to article 10. This reservation, as it is framed by the committee, is a plain refusal to assume any obligations to apply the powers of the nation, whether economic or military, to compel recalcitrant nations to respect the terms of the covenant; a refusal to take any share in the adjustment of the controversies between nations, or to accept any mandates, “except by action of Congress.” We believe all are agreed, whether they insist upon reservations or not, that any action bringing into use the war powers of the country, must be taken by Congress, but it is essential, if we are to advance the purposes of the league in the maintenance of peace, that our position be one of support; that we show that we are not unwilling to apply our powers to that supreme service when occasion requires, but that such application must be in accord with our constitutional procedure. To explain what we mean with greater clearness let us compare the reservation proposed by the committee with the one suggested by Charles E. Hughes. The committee reservation reads as follows:2. That the United States declines to assume, under the provisions of article 10 or under any other article, any obligation to preserve the territorial integity or political independence of any other country or to interfere in controversies between other nations, members of the league or not, or to employ the military or naval forces of the United States in such controversies or to adopt economic measures for the protection of any other country, whether a member of the league or not, against external aggression or for the purpose of intervention in the internal conflicts or other controversies which may arise in any other country, and no mandate shall be accepted by the United States under article 22, part 1 of the treaty of peace with Germany, except by action of Congress of the United States.

Now it is plainly to be seen that the tenor of this reservation is entirely negative. Notice how differently Mr. Hughes handles the same subject.4. That the meaning of article 10 of the covenant of the League of Nations is that the members of the league are not under any obligation to act in pursuance of said article except as they may decide to act upon the advice of the Council of the League. The United States of America assumes no obligation under said article to undertake any military expedition, or to employ its armed forces on land or sea, unless such action is authorized by the Congress of the United States of America, which has exclusive authority to declare war or to determine for the United States of America whether there is any obligation on its part under article and the means or action by which any obligation shall be fulfilled.

This, we say, is at once judicial, tactful, fr and altogether effective. It interprets the article and it clearly explains the constitutional requirements of our government. It fully protects our sovereignty and our independence of judgment and action. in accord with the interpretation of the article by framers, and with the understanding of the other tions as to our constitutional limitations. It is in line with the general spirit and purpose of the covenant, and would, we are quite sure, meet with no objection from the other governments concerned. In fact, all four of the reservations suggested by Mr. Hughes are models of phraseology. The Senate of the United States could hardly do better than to accept them as a fair, clear, effective and satisfactory solution of the problem of reservations.

Files

http://resources.presidentwilson.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/D06882.pdf

Citation

Senate Committee of Foreign Relations, “Amendments and Reservations,” 1919 September 7, WWP15842, Cary T. Grayson Papers, Woodrow Wilson Presidential Library & Museum, Staunton, Virginia.