holding their President in France in the noble work he is doing. They are doing their best to belittle and degrade him and befoul the honest name of America before the world; and I object to that sort of a proceeding. I believe in upholding to the best of our power the man who has given prestige to America, whose word has been accepted on behalf of America, and who has placed America on a higher pedestal than ever before in the world's history.

I had a line a few days since from George Bernard Shaw, whom most of you know, in which he said that he is glad there is one American-and that is this one-who is proud of the work being done by Wilson in Paris; that he is sick at heart that so many Americans did not appreciate the splendid work of the President and the splendid man who was doing that work. We talk as though he was some inferior lawyer and knew nothing about affairs, whereas he has been the man in America who of all others has made the closest study of history, for several generations, I might almost say.

The speaker in the negative read you a proposal-from David Jayne Hill, I believe it was. He complains, and many complain, that the covenant, as printed, is indefinite and bears many interpretations. So far as I can see, what he read from Mr. David Jayne Hill is equally indefinite, and practically wants to cover the same ground as was covered by the covenant; but Mr. Hill, of course, does not cover it so fully.

In regard to the Monroe doctrine: We have already been told here that so far from abrogating, belittling or nullifying the Monroe doctrine, the covenant spreads the Monroe doctrine the world. over. It not only prohibits any nation in Europe from getting any foothold in this country, it prohibits any nation anywhere getting a foothold in any other country that does not belong to it. That is an extension of the Monroe doctrine to the world.

One further point: Scripture has been appealed to, and we have been told of a God who smiles on certain wars. I think the world has been cursed with that doctrine all too long. (Applause.) So far as I read scripture, the whole trend of scripture is to a culmination in a league of nations, a covenant of peace. We are celebrating this week in many churches the life of one who was heralded as the Prince of Peace, who came to spread peace on earth and good will towards men. That is what Mr. Wilson has tried to do on your behalf in Paris today, and I hope you will all stand by him like good Americans. (Applause.)

Remarks by Geo. L. Dillman

MR. DILLMAN*: It is to be regretted that the League of Nations, following the trend of the times, is to be examined by oratory and language rather than by sound principles logically applied. This will be an attempt the other way.

Wrong actions, errors, sins and crimes are somewhat synonymous terms, the differences in ideas being solely in degree.

Roughly, these are divided into two classes, sins of commission and sins of omission. The most important subdivision of the sins of omission can be called the sin of submission or slavery.

All the sins of commission are included in butting in or wielding authority of some kind where the corresponding responsibility is not shouldered by the performer.

All the sins of -omission are included in shirking responsibility, when it should be shouldered.

All the sins of submission are included in not resisting the other fellows' butting into our affairs.

There are no other wrongs, errors, sins or crimes--no other causes of trouble-than those cited above.

The League of Nations commits all of these crimes. Any League of Nations commits all of these errors. So it makes little difference what its terms are. Any league is a new sovereignty, a super-sovereignty.

A sin of commission is committed when we direct or help direct the affairs of other nations, since we can in no way shoulder their responsibility of sovereignty nor our responsibility of such performance.

A sin of omission is committed when we cede any part of our sovereignty, our duty as a nation, to any other sovereignty, no matter what its name or location. Such cession lessens our power and authority, and to that extent shirks our proper responsibility.

A sin of submission is committed when we submit or agree to submit to the dictates in any degree of another sovereignty.

It is, therefore, submitted that the League of Nations, any league of nations, is wrong in principle and bound to be pernicious in practice.

What its proponents hope for is perpetual peace. Its effect would be perpetual war.

We make some errors in decisions of what to do, some in methods of performance. Bad performance can ruin a good cause. No performance can rectify a bad cause.

*Read in Mr. Dillman's absence by Executive Secretary.

This is a bad cause, an entirely wrong conception of the effect of an act. It makes little difference what the planks in the league constitution are, they cannot correct the initial error, the most colossal crime ever proposed against free peoples and democratic government, the perpetuation of autocracy.

For, if a real league is attempted, its executive, whether an individual or a council, will be the most autocratic thing in sovereignties ever thought of.

Remarks by J. J. Webb

MR. WEBB: There are two points I would like to dwell upon a little more fully and which, I believe, the critics of the league generally overlook-of course, present company always excepted.

In the first place the basis of this league is international good will and international good faith, without which it cannot endure. If it has a tendency to promote bickerings, quarrels or war it will soon become a dead letter. If, on the contrary, it has a tendency to promote peace and international justice it will live. I say this because the strength of the league rests, not in the document itself, nor in its articles, no matter how concisely worded, but rather in the fundamental principles underlying the league. Whether or not it is to endure we must leave to the people, to the enlightened conscience of the people, rather perhaps than to the Senate-you know it took the Senators about seventy-five years to find out that the people of the United States wanted to vote for them directly rather than through the legislatures. In its last analysis it is the opinion of the people that enforces your laws or your treaties. We have many statutes upon our statute books that were dead letters even before they were written. Why? Because the people failed to and would not sanction the enforcement of the laws.

With this premise, suppose, for the sake of argument—and we hear it frequently-that England should attempt, so to speak, to pack the jury by having Canada, New Zealand, Australia and the South African Republic represented in the executive council, thereby giving England five delegates to America's one. What would be the result? It would mean the death of the League of Nations. Of course, England might well say that the United States is going to "pack the jury," and in passing I might say that I have little patience with those who are trying to create opposition to the league by constantly attacking England, for it seems to be plainly written that England and this country are

destined to come closer together-so plainly written that "he who runneth may read." (Applause.)

The second point is that one of the primary objects of this league is to settle international disputes by arbitration rather than by war.

Now, this is a victory, as I see it, for this country. Why? The United States has been and still is the foremost advocate of the settling of international disputes by arbitration, not by resort to arms; and I do not care whether General Smuts actually wrote the words or President Wilson penned the document. Whoever wrote the words wrote an American principle, and that is what we should be concerned with more than the form of the document.

Now, how is it going to operate and what is going to be its effect? In the first place, the parties agree that they will not go to war for a period of three months after the executive council or delegates at large have agreed upon a decision. The executive council or the delegates have a period of six months within which to render a decision. That gives us a period of nine months. What effect is that nine months going to have?

First-The contending parties will have time within which their passions may cool; and we all know the effect of time and reflection when we are likely to get into trouble.

Secondly, and of greater importance-The entire controversy will be submitted to publicity, to the enlightened opinion of the world. The public will have a chance to crystallize its opinion, to form its judgment as to the merits and demerits of the respective claims. And what nation will defy public opinion after it has been formed and given out to the world. Is not the force of public opinion, at times, more potent than your armies or navies?

In conclusion we should not be so much concerned with the form of the document as with the principles involved, the ideas attempted to be created and fostered and as to whether this league. is to become a living instrument and a dominant factor in international affairs, or whether it is to become a dead letter. We must leave it to the enlightened conscience of the masses of the people of the world. (Applause.)

Remarks by Ernest J. Torregano

MR. TORREGANO: Let me in my humble way suggest that this movement is a forward movement, not a backward movement. We have heard quotations from patriotics, utterances of the Father of our Country and those who followed in his footsteps. When

George Washington, James Madison and James Monroe made their famous utterances, quoted by the few who have attempted to oppose this movement, it was not of the America of today; it was not of the America that in this crisis stands at the threshold of liberty for almost each and every nation; it was not the America now a world power, who, whether she wants to or not, has to keep in touch with the doings of all the world in order to protect herself.

No more can we say Americans for America first and only. It is to us that the whole world is looking for ideals and teachings. We are now leaders and must therefore shoulder the great responsibility that accompanies leadership. It is the grandest and the proudest heritage we can boast of, when we stand on foreign soil but are still able to proclaim to the world that "I am an American and I represent all that is unselfish."

Let me also suggest in reply to the statements made in disapproval of our having anything to do with policing the nations of Europe that to do the things proposed in the constitution of the league our boys died "over there," and I know that they can be depended upon to live "over there" a certain period of time if by so doing it will make the world better.

There is also a warning given to us in regard to surrendering the sovereignty of our country. I wish that the document was named a constitution to prevent wars (with all its horrors, etc., as we have learned from this recent conflict) rather than the constitution of the League of Nations. It probably would then bring more vividly to our mind what we would be justified in sacrificing in order to achieve that purpose. (Applause.)

Remarks by Gustave Brenner

MR. BRENNER: I should like to ask Mr. Shortridge a question: Do you disapprove, Mr. Shortridge, this particular constitution, or any constitution of a league of nations?

I think I understood you to say that if a constitution were carefully drawn, and if it safeguarded the interests of everybody, particularly the sovereignty of the United States, such a constitution might be favored by you?

MR. SHORTRIDGE: I can draw one which will be entirely satisfactory to me. (Laughter.)

MR. BRENNER: From my intimate knowledge of Mr. Shortridge and his ability, I have not the slightest doubt that he could. I think I would blindly endorse any constitution that he would write. (Laugh