"Said articles do not confer upon the League any powers with respect to immigration, imports, property, inheritance, naturalization, citizenship, labor, coastwise traffic, or any other matter of proper domestic policy

99 31

On the same day, Mr. Trammell of Florida stated that he supported the reservation offered by Mr. Hitchcock of Nebraska, which read:

"That no member nation is required to submit to the League, its council, or its assembly, for decision, report, or recommendation, any matter which it considers to be, in international law, a domestic question, such as immigration, labor, tariff, or other matters relating to its internal or coastwise affairs.32

He added that he would now support the reservation offered by Mr. Lodge of Massachusetts on behalf of the Committee on Foreign Relations, which provided that questions of immigration, tariff, etc., were solely within the jurisdiction of the United States.

RENEWAL OF DEBATE ON THE LABOR PROVISIONS

A reservation was offered by Mr. McCumber on November 17, by which the United States withholds its assent to Part XIII unless Congress, by act or joint resolution, makes a provision for its representation in the Organization to be established by Part XIII.

In a renewal of this discussion of Part XIII in the Senate on November 18, Mr. Myers of Montana declared that the proposed super-nation to be erected by this section would "simply be an international body of official meddlers . . . as it would be continually meddling with the industrial conditions of the world, and would keep them in a continual stew and upheaval, in a condition of uncertainty, just as they are now in this country." 33

31 Congressional Record, 66th Cong., 1st Ses., Vol. LVIII, p. 8558.

32 Ibid., p. 8559.

33 Ibid., p. 8702.

NATIONALISM JEOPARDIZED BY LABOR PROVISIONS

The train of thought as advanced by the Senator from Utah, Mr. King, was renewed by him at this point in an exhaustive discussion of Part XIII. He appeared to be convinced that questions of labor were of strictly domestic concern, and he seemed to concur with the Senator from North Dakota in the opinion that the labor provisions are not only "obnoxious " but "abhorrent." He continued that "the standard of labor in the United States is superior to that in other lands . . . and the conditions prevailing in this Republic are so superior in character, measured by every standard, to those obtaining in other nations, that it would be unfortunate for the American workmen to be drawn into an international organization, the control of which would be in the hands of European and Asiatic nations." 34

The reservation as presented by Mr. King reads in part,

"Whereas the Government of the United States takes the view it is entirely competent through the legislative powers delegated to Congress by the Constitution, and the inherent legislative powers of the several states of the Union, to deal with all questions of domestic policy and especially with all questions concerning the status and relations of labor; Therefore, the United States of America withholds its assent to Part XIII, comprising Articles 387 to 427, inclusive, of the said treaty of peace, and excepts and reserves the same from the act of ratification, and the United States of America declines to participate in any way in the said general conference, or to participate in the election of the governing body of the international labor office constituted by said articles, and declines in any way to contribute or be bound to contribute to the expenditures of said general conference or international labor office." 35

To this reservation Mr. Johnson of California agreed because he seemed "tired of conscience-salving peculiarly-worded reservations," which had been adopted, and because he wanted no "inter

Congressional Record, 66th Cong., 1st Ses., Vol. LVIII, pp. 8710, 8714 (pp.

8706-19).

35 Ibid.,

p. 8710.

national banker control, no international labor control and no international imperialistic control in this country."

In following the last speaker, Mr. Sterling, of South Dakota, accepted these principles and was in general sympathy with this viewpoint, but considered that labor must not be eliminated from all deliberations in international conferences that might be called in the future.36

To this Mr. Penrose of Pennsylvania contributed his former theory that if the American Federation of Labor were to be given another opportunity to be heard it would overwhelmingly protest against Part XIII.

RESERVATIONS REPORTED BY THE COMMITTEE ON

FOREIGN RELATIONS

Among the reservations to become a part of the resolution of ratification of the treaty when submitted, as reported by Mr. Lodge of Massachusetts on November 19, 1919, were the following sections:

No. 4 is as follows:

The United States reserves to itself exclusively the right to decide what questions are within its domestic jurisdiction, and declares that all domestic and political questions relating wholly or in part to its internal affairs, including immigration, labor, coastwise traffic, the tariff, commerce, the suppression of traffic in women and children and in opium and other dangerous drugs, and all other domestic questions, are solely within the jurisdiction of the United States, and are not under this treaty to be submitted in any way either to arbitration or to the consideration of the council or of the assembly of the League of Nations, or any agency thereof, or to the decision or recommendation of any other power.37

Reservation No. 13 reads:

"The United States withholds its assent to Part XIII (Articles 387 to 427, inclusive) unless Congress by act or joint resolution shall hereafter make provision for representation in the organization established by said Part

36 Congressional Record, 66th Cong., 1st Ses., Vol. LVIII, p. 8719. p. 8556.

37 Ibid.,

XIII, and in such event the participation of the United
States will be governed and conditioned by the provisions
of such act or joint resolution." 38

REJECTION OF RESOLUTION OF RATIFICATION OF THE
TREATY OF PEACE IN THE SENATE

Senator Lodge now introduced the resolution of ratification of the Versailles Treaty, and 93 out of the 96 Senators answered to their names at the roll-call.

After debate, the Lodge resolution of ratification of the Treaty of Peace with Germany, containing 14 reservations, including Nos. 4 and 13 as stated above, was rejected by a vote of 39 yeas to 55 nays.39

After a few formalities of reconsideration, a vote on Senator Lodge's resolution was again taken, and again rejected by a vote of 41 yeas to 51 nays.40

On February 11, 1920, Senator Lodge again presented certain proposed amendments and reservations, and after weeks of debating over the various reservations, the Senate was prepared to agree to a roll-call on the subject.

INSEPARABILITY OF THE CLAUSES OF the League OF NATIONS AS THE CAUSE For the Second Rejection of the VersaILLES TREATY OF PEACE

Exactly four months after the first rejection of the Treaty of Versailles, the Senate again, on March 19, 1920, voted upon a resolution of ratification with reservations of the Treaty of Peace with Germany.

The final arguments surrounding Reservation No. 4 showed that the domestic rights and principles in matters of the tariff, immigration and labor, were still being jealously safeguarded by members of the Senate, while the problems included in Part XIII were those which the United States could definitely handle without any suggestions from foreign powers.

A resolution of ratification of the Treaty of Peace with Germany was voted upon, with forty-nine Senators voting for, and thirtyfive voting against, the resolution of ratification, and twelve

38 Congressional Record, 66th Cong., 1st Ses., Vol. LVIII, pp. 8777-86. 39 Ibid., p. 8786.

40 Ibid., pp. 8802-3.

Senators not voting. The necessary two-thirds of the Senate not concurring, the resolution was again rejected."1

The treaty was finally voted upon on the same day and, failing to receive the required number of votes, a resolution was adopted, by a vote of 47 for, with 37 against, instructing the Secretary of State to inform the President of the United States that the Senate had failed to ratify the treaty.42

IMMIGRATION, THE TARIFF, AND LABOR AS FACTORS IN THE REJECTION OF THE TREATY

National control of immigration and tariff in conjunction with the effort to prevent the lowering of the standard of living of the American laborer played an important part in the rejection of the Versailles Treaty by the Senate.

It has previously been shown to how great an extent tariff and immigration laws are affected by varying standards of living. It may now be considered to be a logical deduction that the differing standards of living among the various races of the world were to an appreciable extent directly responsible for the rejection of the League of Nations by the United States Senate.

THE INFLUENCE OF THE LABOR PROVISIONS ON THE SEPARATE TREATY OF PEACE WITH GERMANY

The attitude of the United States in respect to the labor provisions of the Versailles Treaty of 1919 is again exemplified in the Treaty of Peace with Germany of August 25, 1921. Article II of the separate treaty under Section 3 states:

"The United States assumes no obligations under or with respect to the provisions of Part II, Part III, Sections 2 to 8 inclusive of Part IV and Part XIII of that Treaty."

43

41 Congressional Record, 66th Cong., 2nd Ses., Vol. LIX, p. 4599.

43 Senate Document No. 49, U. S. Stat., 67th Cong., 1st Ses., p. 117. Treaty of Peace with Germany, August 25, 1921

Treaty of Peace between the United States and Germany, signed at Berlin, August 25, 1921; ratification advised by the Senate, October 18, 1921; ratified by the President, October 21, 1921; ratified by Germany, November 2, 1921; ratifications exchanged at Berlin. November 11, 1921; proclaimed, November 14, 1921.