course, covers the four great self-governing dominions of Great Britain. I have no fault to find with the arrangement. Canada, New Zealand, South Africa and Australia, are far more worthy and more valuable members of a League of Nations than some which I think will find their way into the body. But the fact remains that in the body of delegates England has five votes to one vote of any other country.

"The next paragraph says that no State should be admitted to the League unless it is able to give 'effective guarantees of its sincere intention to observe its international obligations.' I do not want to seem hypercritical, but I think that in a document of this kind we should know a little better what an effective guarantee of its sincere intention is.

"We now come to Article 8, which refers to disarmament, one of the most importtant questions in the constitution, with the purpose of which everybody must be in keenest sympathy.

"Its very importance makes it necessary in my opinion to express what is to be done with the utmost clearness. The reduction must be consistent with the 'enforcement by common action of international obligation.'

"There is an absolutely binding provision in the words 'and these limits when adopted shall not be exceeded without the permission of the Executive Council.' Adopted by whom? The natural inference is 'adopted by the several Governments.'

""The high contracting parties undertake in no way to conceal from each other the condition of such of their industries as are capable of being adapted to warlike purposes or the scale of their armaments.' An admirable proposition! There seems to be no method expressed here by which they can be compelled to give that information except by saying that if they do not do it they fail in a moral obligation.

"Article 9 says: 'A permanent commission shall be constituted to advise the League on the execution of the provisions of Article 8 and on military and naval questions generally.' A very useful body but constituted by whom? There is not one syllable to show. When you get into the

misty regions of inferences by individuals you must have some tribunal established like our Supreme Court, who can declare whether the inference is correct or not."

Referring to the undertakings of Article 10, called by Senator Lodge, "the most important article in the whole constitution," the speaker said:

"When one nation guarantees the political independence and territorial integrity of another you must maintain that guarantee in the last resort by the exercise of the force of the nation. If we were to guarantee the political independence and territorial integrity of Mexico or Guatemala or any of those States we should have to stand behind them with our armies and our fleets when the guarantee was invoked, and there is no escape from that obligation.

"It is no reply to the point about immigration to say that if you follow it through all the windings of the provisions here you will find it reaches a point where the League could do nothing about immigration into the United States unless it was unanimous and that it is very unlikely they would ever be unanimous. Granted; but the possibility is there.

"I do not think we should leave to the League any question as to immigration, because immigration lies at the very root of national character and economy."

By way of illustration of the practical working of the article that binds members of the League to have no resort to war until three months after the award of the arbitrators of the dispute, Senator Lodge supposed a conflict between the United States and Mexico, which "does not happen, we will say, to be a member of the League.

Under this article we have got to wait three months before we do anything. That, I think would be a little hard on the people who live on the border!

"I do not think it is hypercriticism to suggest that when a mandatary is to be selected to take charge of the fortunes of another State there should be some provision for the selection of the mandatary, and it should be made clear whether the nation so selected is bound.

"Finally the Senate will observe that there is no provision for withdrawal. An indissoluble treaty without the right of withdrawal is very unusual. If you leave a country-I am not speaking merely of the United States-tied hard and fast so that it cannot get out of this League without tearing everything to pieces by denouncing it or by abrogating it, you create a situation which in my mind does not promote the peace of nations, but the very reverse."

Approving Article 20 for securing and maintaining fair and humane conditions of labor for men, women and children, Senator Lodge took exception on the ground of vagueness to the article purposing to stabilize freedom of transit and equitable treatment of commerce, and on the ground of its encroaching on the treaty-making power of the Constitution of the United States to the article giving to the body of delegates the right of reconsideration of treaties threatening international conditions.

Urging the making of immediate peace with Germany, the restoration of Belgium, the payment of indemnities to France and the return to America of our soldiers, Senator Lodge concluded:

"We have in this country a Government of the people, for the people, and by the people, the freest and best Government in the world, and we are the great rampart today against the anarchy and disorder which have taken possession of Russia and

"We are assured by the ex-President that the United States could not furnish forces for an international army, to be ordered by the league into war, without a formal declaration of war by Congress and Congressional authority to use our forces for the purpose. Yet of what good is the league unless it can depend upon armed force to enforce its decrees, and what dependence can be placed on such a force if its formation is subject to the individual sanction of the member states of the league? Mr. Taft's statement is an admission of the manifest impotency of the league in accomplishing the purpose for which it is to be created." - Ex-Senator Johnathan Bourne, Jr., Republican Publicity Association.

are trying to invade every peaceful country in the world. For Lincoln's Government of the people, for the people, and by the people we are asked to substitute in the United States on many vital points Government of, for, and by other people.

"Pause and consider well before you take this fateful step. I do not say that agreements may not be made among the nations which stand for ordered freedom and civilization, which will do much to secure and preserve the peace of the world, but no such agreement has yet been presented to us. We must beware of the dangers which beset our path. We must not lose by an improvident attempt to reach eternal peace all that we have won by war and sacrifice. We must build no bridges across the chasm which now separates American freedom and order from Russian anarchy and destruction. We must see to it that the democracy of the United States, which has prospered so mightily in the past, is not drawn by any hasty error or by any glittering delusions, through specious devices of supernational government, within the toils of international socialism and anarchy.

"I wish nothing but good to all the race of men. I hope and pray that peace, unbroken peace, may reign everywhere on earth. But America and the American people are first in my heart now and always."

"Why cannot we write a code of international law which you and I can thoroughly understand and which every nation on earth can understand? A code which sets forth the principles of international conduct that will say 'this you may do and that you may not do.' Can't there come out of the crisis of this world's history a thing of this kind? Can't there be set down a set of principles clear in language such as Lincoln used? Then, after you have your code then have your League of Nations enforce the principles. Then we won't have to surrender any of our sovereignty; then we don't have to give up our Monroe Doctrine; then we don't have to engage in any intrigues and frictions that must invariably occur in a league such as is now proposed."-Senator Wadsworth of New York.

were

During my administration I attempted to secure treaties of universal arbitration between this country and France and England, by which all issues depending for their settlement upon legal principles were to be submitted to an international court for final decision. These treaties emasculated by the Senate, yielding to the spirit which proceeds, unconsciously doubtless, but truly, from the conviction that the only thing that will secure to a nation the justice it wishes to secure is force; that agreements between nations to settle controversies justly and peaceably should never be given any weight in national policy; that in dealing between civilized nations we must assume that each nation is conspiring to deprive us of our independence and our prosperity; that there is no impartial tribunal to which we can entrust the decision of any question vitally affecting our interests or our honor, and that we can afford to make no agreement from which we may not immediately withdraw, and whose temporary operation to our detriment may not be expressly a ground for ending it. This is the doctrine of despair. It leads necessarily to the conclusion that our only recourse to avoid war is competitive armament, with its dreadful burdens

and its constant temptation to the war it seeks to avoid.

The first important covenant with reference to peace and war in the Constitution of the league is that looking to a reduction of armament by all nations. The Executive Council, consisting of representatives of the United States, the British Empire, France, Italy, Japan, and of four other nations to be selected by the body of delegates, is to consider how much the armaments of the nations should be reduced, having regard to the safety of each of the nations and their obligations under the league. Having reached a conclusion as to the proportionate limits of each nation's armament, it submits its conclusion to each nation, which may or may not agree to the limit thus recommended; but when an agreement is reached it covenants to keep within that limit until, by application to the Executive Council, the limit may be raised. In other words, each nation agrees to its own limitation. Having so agreed it must keep within it.

The importance of providing for a reduction of armament every one recognizes. It is affirmed in the newly proposed Senate resolution. Can we not trust our Congress to fix a limitation safe for the country and to stick to it? If we can't, no country can. Yet all the rest are anxious to do this and they are far more exposed than we.

The character of this obligation is affected by the time during which the covenants of the league remain binding. There is no stipulation as to how long this is. In my judgment there should be a period of ten years or a permission for any member of the league to withdraw from the

covenant by giving a reasonable notice of one or two years of its intention to do so.

The members of the league and the nonmembers are required, the former by their covenant, the latter by an enforced obligation, to submit all differences between them not capable of being settled by negotiation to arbitration before a tribunal composed as the parties may agree. They are required to covenant to abide the award. Should either party deem the question one not proper for arbitration then it is to be taken up by the Executive Council of the league. The Executive Council mediates between the parties and secures a voluntary settlement of the question if possible; if it fails, it makes a report. If the report is unanimous, the Executive Council is to recommend what shall be done to carry into effect its recommendation. If there is a dissenting vote, then the majority report is published, and the minority report, if desired, and no further action is taken. If either party or the Executive Council itself desires, the mediating function is to be discharged by the body of delegates in which every member of the league has one vote. There is no direction as to what shall be done with reference to the recommendation of proper measures to be taken, and the whole matter is then left for such further action as the members of the league agree upon. There is no covenant by the defeated party that it will comply with the unanimous report of the Executive Council or the Body of the league.

a

And right here I wish to take up the objection made to the league that under this machinery we might be compelled to receive immigrants contrary to our national desire from Japan or China. We could and would refuse to submit the issue to arbitration. It would then go to to mediation. In my judgment the Council as mediating body should not take jurisdiction to consider such a difference. Immigration by international law is a domestic question completely within the control of the government into which immigration is sought, unless the question of immigration is the subject of treaty stipulation between two countries. If, however, it be said that

there is no limitation in the covenant of the differences to be mediated, clearly we would run no risk of receiving from the large body of delegates of all the members of the league a unanimous report recommending a settlement by which Japanese immigrants shall be admitted to our shores or Japanese applicants be admitted to our citizenship, contrary to our protest. But were it made, we are under no covenant to obey such recommendation. If it could be imagined that all of the other nations of the world would thus unite their military forces to compel us to receive Japanese immigrants under the covenant, why would they not do so without the covenant?

These articles compelling submission of differences either to arbitration or mediation are not complete machinery for settlement by peaceable means of all issues arising between nations. But they are a substantial step forward. They are an unambitious plan to settle as many questions as possible by arbitration or mediation. They illustrate the spirit of those who drafted this covenant and their sensible desire not to attempt more till after actual experi

ence.

The next covenant is that the nations shall not begin war until three months after the arbitration award or the recommendation of compromise, and not then if the defendant nation against whom the award or recommendation has been made shall comply with it. This is the great restraint of war imposed by the covenant upon members of the league and non-members. It is said that this would prevent our resistance to a border raid of Mexico or selfdefence against any invasion. This is a most extreme construction. If a nation refuses submission at all, as it does when it begins an attack, the nation attacked is released instanter from its obligation to submit and is restored to the complete power of self-defence. Had this objection not been raised in the Senate one would not have deemed it necessary to answer so unwarranted a suggestion.

If the defendant nation does not comply with the award or unanimous report, then the plaintiff nation can begin war and carry

out such complete remedy as the circumstances enable it to do. But if the defendant nation does comply with the award or unanimous report, then the plaintiff nation must be content with such compliance. It runs the risk of not getting all that it thought it ought to have or might have by war, but as it is asking affirmative relief it must be seeking some less vital interest than its political independence or territorial integrity, and the limitation is not one which can be dangerous to its sovereignty.

The third covenant, the penalizing covenant, is that if a nation begins war, in violation of its covenant, then ipso facto that is an act of war against every member of the league and the members of the league are required definitely and distinctly to levy a boycott on the covenant-breaking nation and to cut off from it all commercial, trade, financial, personal and official relations between them and their citizens and it and its citizens. Indeed, the boycott is compound or secondary in that it is directed against any non-members of the league continuing to deal with the outlaw nation. This is an obligation operative at once on each member of the league. With us the Executive Council would report the violation of the covenant to the President and that would be reported to Congress, and Congress would then, by reason of the covenant of the league, be under an honorable legal and moral obligation to levy an embargo and prevent all intercourse of every kind between this nation and the covenant-breaking nation.

The extent of this penalty and its heavy withering effect when the hostile action includes all members of the league, as well as all non-members, may be easily appreciated. The prospect of such an isolation would be likely to frighten any member of the league from a reckless violation of its covenant to begin war. It is inconceivable that any small nation, dependent as it must be on larger nations for its trade and sustenance, indeed for its food and raw material, would for a moment court such a destructive ostracism as this would be.

Other covenants of the penalizing article impose on the members of the league the duty of sharing the expense of a boycott with any nation upon which it has fallen with uneven weight and of supporting such a nation in its resistence to any special measures directed against it by the outlaw nation. But there is no specific requirement as to the character of the support beyond the obligation of the boycott, the contribution of expenses and the obligation of each member of the league to permit the passage through its territory of forces of other members of the league cooperating with military forces against the outlaw nation.

If, however, the boycott does not prove sufficient, then the Executive Council is to recommend the number of the military and naval forces to be contributed by the members of the league to protect the coveThere nants of the league in such a case.

is no specific covenant by which they agree to furnish any amount of force, or, indeed, any force at all, to a league army. The use of the word "recommend" in describing the function of the Executive Council shows that the question whether such forces shall be contributed and what shall be their amount must ultimately address itself to the members of the league for their decision and action. There is this radical and important difference, therefore, between the obligation to lay a boycott and the obligation to furnish military force, and doubtless this distinction was insisted upon and reached by a compromise. The term "recommendation" cannot be interpreted to impose any imperative obligation on those to whom the recommendation is directed.

By Article X, the high contracting parties undertake to respect and preserve against external aggression the political independence and the territorial integrity of every member of the league, and when these are attacked or threatened the Executive Council is to advise as to the proper means to fulfil this obligation. The same acts or series of acts which make Article X applicable will be a breach of the covenant which creates an outlaw nation under Article XVI, so that all nations must begin