THE PRESIDENT: Just before going-we have six minutes left, we want to give three minutes to Dr. Jordan and three minutes to Mr. Shortridge, simply, particularly to Mr. Shortridge, as a matter of personal privilege.

Remarks by David Starr Jordan

DR. JORDAN: I have nothing to add. One thing I wanted to add was said by Mr. Beatty.

I wish to correct one matter of fact: We have no right to expand the Monroe doctrine and call it the Monroe doctrine. And especially we have no right to quote the Lodge resolution, based on statements absolutely absurd, which Mr. Taft refused to sign, and which he said himself in a letter, "I, too, am a part of the United States government, and so this is null and void." Otherwise, I have enjoyed it. This is not a debate. I simply had a better chance to express myself than half a dozen others who agreed with me perfectly.

Remarks by Samuel M. Shortridge

MR. SHORTRIDGE: My words may carry little weight, but let me read to you what was said lately by a great American: "The genius of our institutions, the needs of our people in their home life, and the attention which is demanded for the settlement and development of the resources of our vast territory dictate the scrupulous avoidance of any departure from that foreign policy commended by the history, the traditions and the prosperity of our republic. It is the policy of independence favored by our position and defended by our known love of justice and by our own power. It is the policy of peace suitable to our interests. It is the policy of Monroe and of Washington and Jeffersonpeace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none." Those are the words of a great American, a great statesman-Grover Cleveland. (Applause.)

And history will record that as late as February 1st, 1916, an eminent American now abroad said this: "There are actually men in America who are preaching war, who are preaching the duty of the United States to do what it never would before-seek entanglements in the controversies which have arisen on the other side of the water, abandon its habitual and traditional policy, and deliberately engage in the conflict which is now engulfing the rest of the world. I do not know what the standard of citizenship of these gentlemen may be. I only know that I, for one, cannot subscribe to those sentiments." And who said this? He who "kept us out of war"-Woodrow Wilson.

THE PRESIDENT: The hour of adjournment has arrived. The Club will stand adjourned for one month.

APPENDIX

Additional Statements

Members of the Section on International Relations filed statements in writing to permit others to secure the floor in the discussion under the five-minute rule. Their contributions are published as follows:

Statement by C. E. Grunsky

MR. GRUNSKY: Ever since there has been organized government the will of the stronger country has been imposed on its weaker neighbor whenever it appeared wise and profitable to the stronger to exercise its superior power. When the weaker has resisted, war has been the result. War has never and probably never will settle the disputes which lead to war on the basis of justice. The nation whose military forces go down to defeat has no voice in the settlement. It has no option other than to accept the terms which are imposed by the victor. War is, therefore, morally wrong just as it would be wrong to let the individual settle the disputes with his neighbor by physical force. In this latter case the evil that would result is so obvious that society has long agreed to submit to police control, regardless of cost and regardless of the inconvenience that may occasionally result from having to submit to regulations and laws that may seem unreasonable. Such police control is costing San Francisco, for example, about $2,000,000 per annum. Perhaps this is more than it ought to cost but, however this may be, we must have the police protection in order that each may get full benefit and enjoyment of his family, friends and property.

The need for such control and regulation is least in the sparsely settled areas. It is greatest where population is dense and where, due to higher civilization, the requirements of the individual are highest. The aggregation of individuals which we have come to regard as a state or country, is entitled to and should get the same protection which is everywhere in organized society accorded to the individual. This protection can only come through an association of the individual countries, in a common union, based on the fundamental purpose to preserve peace. Such an association must be endowed with the power which is requisite to prevent any nation or country from going to war for the purpose of righting a fancied wrong or to take from a weaker nation a commercial or some other advantage. Anything short of this is a treaty arrangement to be respected and lived up to, so long as there is believed to be an advantage in doing so. No treaty has ever yet been made which, according to the unwritten code of the past, could not be broken and too frequently has been broken when either party thereto,

under full consideration of consequences, and believing that there was sufficient ultimate gain, was ready to find a pretext. No covenant, binding nations together, can be really and dependably efficient in the matter of preventing wars, if action thereunder is made contingent upon the independent action of the participants. The avowed purpose of an association of nations should be, as stated, to keep the countries at peace with each other. I hold it, therefore, to be fundamental for the success of a world union that all countries of the world be considered members and that delegates from any country shall have equal rights with delegates from any other. Such an association should, at the outset, have no concern whatever with the domestic affairs of the participating or of any other country. Each should be allowed to develop its own resources in its own way. The association's functions should be restricted to the police power and it should only be concerned with boundaries as these may temporarily be recognized, as for example, as they may exist when the Peace Conference finishes its labors. But once recognized, there should never thereafter be a boundary change without the consent of the parties directly concerned.

Under such a plan there would have to be a congress to lay down international law, foreseeing the difficulties of the future and laying down a course of procedure when these difficulties arise. The congress should be composed of delegates from all nations, one division of which. should be preferably on the basis of one from each nation, one additional for the first ten million population and one additional for each fifty million people in excess of ten million.

The congress should have the power to call for funds from the individual countries, preferably at the outset in proportion to the foreign commerce of each and to provide for the establishment and maintenance of an international army and navy. It should make provision for the acquisition of territory for use as naval bases, army stations and the like, and should prescribe and limit the duties of an executive department.

There would also have to be provision made for a judicial body to interpret the international laws and to settle, so far as this can be done without the use of force, all international differences. Coupled with the development of such a super government, with limited sovereignty, there should be gradual disarmament to be provided for as may be determined by the congress.

Let the future, thereupon, determine whether it would be wise or not to control or regulate commerce between nations or to interfere with any of the domestic affairs of the countries in the association.

Such a "United World" would be a step in advance of what has thus far received serious consideration and it would yet fall far short of the proposed covenant in restricting the powers of the government thus to be created to a single purpose.

And yet, the world needs a League of Nations and it needs it at once. I am, therefore, while deploring its defects, in favor of the present draft of a covenant or in favor of any other reasonable programme, feeling sure that there will be opportunity to so modify any covenant now adopted that our own United States' interests will ever be fully safeguarded and protected.

Statement by Charles F. Craig

MR. CRAIG: The League of Nations as proposed at Paris falls a little short of being a real league. It lacks the strength that a league ought to have if it proposes to endure. The danger of the present programme lies in the tendency to construct a league out of a "big five" or "big four" group of states, with power to dictate to or overrule the numerically superior but potentially inferior states. The world's peace cannot be based permanently upon an alliance, such as the scheme offered seems to create in reality. Alliances always lead to war, always dissolve, and are always destroyed, because they are constructed upon a principle of force or power, which being inherently wrong in itself, ultimately leads to wrong.

A weak league of nations cannot survive. A league that will vest control in a powerful group, will fall. A league that is not composed of all civilized nations of the earth, endowed with supreme sovereignty over all international matters arising among the states, will not have long life. The proposed league is inefficient, because it lacks the sovereignty to enforce its commands as the "supreme law of the land" among all the states of the earth. If a number of powerful states should refuse to come into the league, it would be a lop-sided proposition, utterly without ability to accomplish the great aim sought, to maintain the world's peace. There is nothing especially attractive about the programme to invite the unanimous acceptance of states not parties to the convention or the peace conference. The trouble with the scheme is that it has been created in an atmosphere of war, instead of in an atmosphere of peace. After the passions of the warring nations have subsided, we may be able to build a league out of our experiences that will really answer the purpose. The present plan will not do so, but as it will serve to point the way to something better in the future, it should be our policy to support it with all our strength now, that the hopes of men for a lasting peace may not be forever blasted.

Statement by Augustin C. Keane

MR. KEANE: Some such covenant as that for the League of Nations is imperative if the states at war against Germany and her allies are to make a joint peace. Ordinarily we call ourselves "The Allies" as against the "Central Powers," but we overlook the fact that the United States is not an ally of Great Britain, France, Italy or any other power. We are associated belligerents. On the other hand, Great Britain, France and Italy have mutual treaties of alliance. In the war they are an organic unit and can make a joint peace with the defeated enemy. The United States has no bond or relation with any one of them more tangible than sympathy in a common ideal. If the United States is not to make a separate peace, it should have some protection against the secret treaties binding France, Italy and Great Britain-something to supplant the secret treaties. Hence the necessity for a League of Nations. Seen from this angle, then, the covenant is not a tenuous bit of idealism but a practical factor to serve as a safeguard where idealistic sympathy may be poor protection. The League of Nations makes possible the otherwise impractical joint peace of the Allies with the Central Powers.

The covenant is to be part of the peace treaty. It will be put in operation by the procedure of executing, ratifying and promulgating the treaty. The constitution of the League of Nations will therefore be a treaty compact and function as such, with no more. force and all the frailty of any treaty.

In view of the pretentiousness of the title "a constitution" and the modesty of the fact "a treaty," it becomes proper to determine whether the United States can properly execute and be a party to such a treaty. The treaty making power is referred to only in very general terms in the constitution of the United States-the Supreme Court has, however, declared the treaty power to extend to all proper subjects of negotiation between the United States and the governments of other nations. The subjects covered by the covenant of the League of Nations are specified in its preamble to be "international co-operation," "international peace and security," and "the acecptance of obligations not to resort to war." Hence, the league constitution is in effect a treaty of arbitration and of defensive alliance.

That arbitration is a proper subject for international negotiation cannot be questioned.

Whether an offensive or defensive alliance may be a proper one for the United States with any other power is specifically