I think this latter reason was a very valid one, but that the first one, which seemed to appeal especially to the President, had little real merit.
In addition to his objection to the Cecil plan of administration, another was doubtless of even greater weight to Mr.Wilson and that was the entire omission in the Cecil proposal of the mutual guaranty of political independence and territorial integrity.

The method of preventing wars which was proposed by Lord Robert was for the nations to enter into a covenant to submit disputes to international investigation and to obtain a report before engaging in hostilities and also a covenant not to make war on a disputant nation which accepted a report which had been unanimously adopted.

He further proposed that the members of the League should undertake to regard themselves as _ipso facto_ at war with a member violating these covenants and "to take, jointly and severally, appropriate military, economic, and other measures against the recalcitrant State," thus following closely the idea of the League to Enforce Peace.
Manifestly this last provision in the Cecil plan was open to the same constitutional objections as those which could be raised against the President's mutual guaranty.

My impression is that Mr.Wilson's opposition to the provision was not based on the ground that it was in contravention of the Constitution of the United States, but rather on the ground that it did not go far enough in stabilizing the terms of peace which were to be negotiated.

The President was seeking permanency by insuring, through the threat or pressure of international force, a condition of changelessness in boundaries and sovereign rights, subject, nevertheless, to territorial changes based either on the principle of "self-determination" or on a three-fourths vote of the Body of Delegates.