of honor would compel her to do anything contrary to the dictates of conscience or to the freedom and the interests of the American people. This is the hour when we can say precisely what we will do and exactly what we will not do, and no man can ever question our good faith if we speak now. When we are once caught in the meshes of a treaty of alliance or a league of nations composed of 26 other powers our freedom of action is gone. To preserve American independence and American sovereignty and thereby best serve the welfare of mankind the Committee propose these amendments and reservations."

CHAPTER X

THE LEAGUE IN THE SENATE THE VOTES AND THE DEBATE

THE President, as I have already said, started on his tour through the country on the 3d of September. On September 10th the report of the Foreign Relations Committee was presented to the Senate, together with the amendments to the treaty agreed to by the Committee, and four reservations. For the reasons I have already given, the amendments were rejected in the Senate, as a sufficient number of Republicans believed that amendments would delay the adoption of the treaty by the other signatories. It is only necessary to give here the votes on the amendments offered by Senator Moses and Senator Johnson of California, on one of the amendments offered by Senator Fall (because the other Fall amendments were practically identical), and on the amendments which I offered in regard to Shantung. The debate, which went on steadily from day to day, although the amendments were first before the Senate, covered both amendments and reservations and the entire general question of the treaty and the covenant of the League of Nations. I think I can say, what I believe was generally admitted, that the debate which ensued was one of the most remarkable, if not the most remarkable, which had ever occurred in the Senate of the United States. Very great ability was shown in the discussion, and I think I can assert now without partiality that those who opposed the treaty and those who favored reservations and would not vote for the treaty without them, were far the stronger side. Of course this opinion has nothing what

ever to do with the merits of the question. I am referring now only to the merits of the debate as a debate. The weight of ability and knowledge rested decidedly with those who were opponents of the treaty, whether "irreconcilables" or reservationists. The support given to the treaty and to Mr. Wilson's position was, in the field of debate, as a whole ineffective and weak. The proof of what I say is shown by the steady advance of opposition to the League of Nations as presented by Mr. Wilson, among the mass of the American people. That opposition became stronger day by day as, owing to the debate, the average American came to understand the questions to be decided and especially the leading issues involved in Article X, the equality of voting, the Monroe Doctrine and Shantung. The votes on the amendments to which I have referred were as follows:

The amendment of Senator Johnson of California, providing for equality of voting in the council and the assembly of the League, was defeated on October 27th by a vote of 38 to 40. Eight Republican Senators voted against the amendment and three Democratic Senators voted or were paired in favor of it.

The amendment of Senator Moses was voted upon on October 27th and was defeated by a vote of 32 to 49. That amendment also dealt with the question of equality of voting. Ten Republican Senators voted or were paired against the amendment and three Democratic Senators supported it.

The committee amendments, six in number, which proposed to restore to China the rights renounced by Germany in favor of Japan, were all defeated on October 16th by a vote of 35 to 55. Three Democratic Senators voted for the amendments and 15 Republicans voted or were paired against them.

The series of amendments proposed by Senator Fall and reported by the committee were voted upon on

October 2d. Their purpose was, as has been said, to relieve the United States from representation on the various commissions established by the League. A record vote was taken on three of these amendments and they were defeated by large majorities, the first by 30 to 58, one Democratic Senator supporting it and 16 Republican Senators voting against it. The other two amendments were also defeated by practically a similar vote and at the suggestion of Senator Fall the remaining amendments of the series were acted upon by a viva voce vote and were all defeated.

Then on the 6th of November I reported from the Committee the resolution of ratification, which contained some very important clauses not usual in resolutions of ratification, and fourteen reservations which included the four that were recommended in the report of September 10th.

I shall now review those reservations one by one and show the votes, because the votes are very important for a just understanding of the position of the Senate as opposed to that of the President.

The first action taken was in connection with an amendment to the text of the resolution of ratification. That amendment was to insert the following:

"1. The reservations adopted are hereby made a part and condition of this resolution of ratification, which ratification is not to take effect or bind the United States until the said reservations and understandings adopted by the Senate have been accepted by an exchange of notes as a part and a condition of this resolution of ratification by at least three of the four principal Allied and Associated Powers, to wit, Great Britain, France, Italy, and Japan."

To this proposal many amendments were offered, but they were all voted down by varying votes, the highest being 63 against to 25 in favor, the lowest being 46

against to 42 in favor. After the rejection of all the amendments offered to this provision it was adopted on November 7th as reported by the committee, the vote being 48 to 40, one Republican, Senator McCumber, voting against the committee recommendation and four Democrats voting or being paired in favor of it.

The first reservation voted upon was that dealing with the question of withdrawal from the League.

The last clause of Article 1 of the covenant of the League of Nations 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 have been fulfilled at the time of its withdrawal."

The committee report, already given, makes the following statement:

"The provision in the league covenant for withdrawal declares that any member may withdraw provided it has fulfilled all its international obligations and all its obligations under the covenant. There has been much dispute as to who would decide if the question of the fulfillment of obligations was raised, and it is very generally thought that this question would be settled by the council of the league of nations. The best that can be said about it is that the question of decision is clouded with doubt. On such a point as this there must be no doubt. The United States, which has never broken an international obligation, can not permit all its existing treaties to be reviewed and its conduct and honor questioned by other nations. The same may be said in regard to the fulfillment of the obligations to the league. It must be made perfectly clear that the United States alone is to determine as to the fulfillment of its obligations, and its right of withdrawal must therefore be unconditional as provided in the reservation."