The idea that a reservation may be so drastic as to be "in substance" an amendment is refuted (a) by the precedents. which make no attempt at such distinction. (b) by the basis for distinguishing between them. which is the mechanical test of whether they apply to the language of the treaty or to the language of the resolution of ratification. and (c) by comparing some of the various drastic reservations that have been proposed. and on occasion adopted. without challenge to their character as reservations. For example. the reservations proposed to the Versailles Treaty on November 18 and 19. 1919. 66th Congress. lst session. RECORD. page 8759 and those that follow. the reservation reserving the right to control immigration attached to the resolution of the United StatesGerman Commercial Treaty of 1923 (44 Stat. 2132) as compared with some of the rather mild amendments that have been proposed and adopted without challenge to their character as amendments. such as the amendment proposed by Senator Pittman to the proposed JapaneseAmerican Treaty on February 28. 1922. 67th Congress. 2d session. RECORD. page There may be a very fine line between "reservations" and "conditional ratifications." and between "reservations" and "understandings." Such blurring raises. a procedural problem. however. since all three go to the resolution of ratification. and are therefore equally in order before the Senate itself. There is one unfortunate. confused precedent cited in the work "Senate Procedure" which appears. from the text of the manual. to support the position that amendments to the resolution of ratificationreservations. and so forthmay not be proposed from the floor of the Senate.
Keywords matched
immigration