So you will note that Mr. Hays does not say that article 10 should be eliminated. but he Is willing that "it be modified to the extent that Congress shall be morally as well as legally free. after a specified period. to contest when and where and to what extent our soldiers shall be employed." Mr. Hays is about the only one who is presumed to have read the covenant who contends that article 10 or any other article in the treaty will compel the United States. without an act of Congress. to say " when and where and to what extent our soldiers shall be employed." He further says that reservations should be made that will "retain our full control of Immigration. tariff. and all other purely domestic policies." What need would there be for such reservation when it Is expressly provided in the covenant itself that the league has no power over domestic affairs? It deals only in international questions. and the immigration and the tariff. being purely domestic. are not brought within the scope of the league. and he says. further. that reservations must be made "that will provide full right to withdraw from the league at any time without hindrance or conditions of any kind. upon giving suitable notice." Surely Mr. Hays has not read the last draft of the covenant or he would have seen that in article 1 It is expressly provided that "any member of the league may. after two years notice of its Intention so to do. withdraw from the league. provided that all its international obligations and all its obligations under this covenant shall have been fulfilled at the time of its withdrawal." Now. If the distinguished chairman of the Republican committee would have his reservation made that the United States shall have the right to withdraw from the league even though it had broken some of the obligations that it had agreed to by joining the league as a member. he should say so and let the people know the hypocrisy of his position.
Keywords matched
Immigration immigration