within the province of the United States to engage in such an undertaking? A decision is about to be made in Paris. There is a supreme danger of the egotism of the victorious Powers leading them into the paths of the Holy Alliance, paths which follow to disruption not only, but to the setting of new forces into play which carry at their heart the possibility of fresh world-wide disturbances. It would seem that the Powers have enough to do in regulating their own affairs and in reconstructing their own countries without attempting to supervise the internal affairs of other States.

There are other phases-an infinite number of them-which are giving concern to the Senate in its

"I permit myself to say that the outlook in Europe would be one of utter despair without the League of Nations. . . . We shall have in future either a sincere effort to prevent war under the League of Nations or we shall be menaced by internal crises and civil wars. If our democracies see looming before them the possibility of other great wars, the result will be a social conflict and upheaval that may be worse than the international war itself.

"The basis of the whole peace is the League of Nations, and the covenant and the other terms are inextricably bound together. It therefore is not possible to separate the covenant from the rest of the treaty terms. If this were attempted by the legislative authority in America, and there was failure to ratify the terms as a whole, Germany would say-and truly saythat the treaty was not sanctioned by one of the parties, and she would proceed to evade its provisions. I allow myself to say that opposition in America arises in large measure, if not wholly, from a misinterpretation of the significances of the clauses of the covenant and lack of full understanding of the extent to which the treaty depends on the covenant for the working out of the terms.

"Perhaps we have not been very happy in wording this [Monroe Doctrine] provision, but I am sure I can speak for every one in

consideration of Article X. Some of them relate to the Polish, Saare Valley, Shantung and other settlements made by the Peace Conference. Do they conduce to future peace, and are they such as to justify the use of America's wealth and blood to perpetuate? These things are not discussed in an academic way, but as vital and supremely practical questions, concerning which the intimate counsel of President Wilson will be invited. At this time it appears that the answers which President Wilson shall give to the queries he will meet from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee will decide the fate of Article X, and of other proposed reservations, so far as the United States is concerned.

touched. Nobody had any thought of interfering with the Monroe Doctrine.

"I finish by saying that I fear that America has not yet an exact idea of the greatness of her position. You have taken such a position in the world that you cannot ignore its responsibilities." - Premier Veni zelos of Greece.

We women, the mothers of the race, have given everything, have suffered everything, have sacrificed everything, and we come to you now and say, "The time has come when we will no longer sit quietly by and bear and rear sons to die at the will of a few men. We will not endure it. We will not endure it. We demand either that you shall do something to prevent war or that we shall be permitted to try to do something ourselves."

Could there be any cowardice, could there be any justice, could there be any wrong, greater than to refuse to hear the voice of a woman expressing the will of women at the peace table of the world and then for men not to provide a way by which the women of the future shall not be robbed of their sons as the women of the past have been?-Dr. Anna Howard Shaw. Europe when I say that in the mind of no European statesman is there any reserve whatever on this subject. We all want to leave the American position absolutely un

M

R. ROOT'S proposal to amend the Covenant of the League of Nations is a greater menace to the safety of the League than open hostility to the whole project. No one can persist in the latter after making a careful, impartial study of the Covenant, but Mr. Root's suggestions have a certain plausibility. Their defects can be seen only by a minute study of their effect on the general plan for a League of Nations. Mr. Root proposes to eliminate Article X, while in his criticism of the first draft of the Covenant, he proposed that the obligation under this Article should continue for five years, and that it might be relinquished only after one year's notice. What has changed Mr. Root's mind?

It has been stated times over many that Article X is the central purpose of the League, but it will be necessary to state and restate the meaning of this until the confusion

is cleared away. It does not seem possible that intelligent people would find it difficult to understand the words embodied in this article: "The members of the league undertake to respect and preserve as against external aggression the territorial integrity and existing political independence of all members of the League. In case of any such aggression or in case of any threat or dan

ger of such aggression, the Council shall advise upon the means by which this obligation shall be fulfilled." Article X condemns aggression, or in other words, it condemns conquest. Conquest is condemned for the first time in history, and by joint agreement of twenty-seven states and selfgoverning dominions, besides having the consent of representatives of thirteen neutral states. Conquest is thus declared illegal and a penalty is attached for a breach of the law. This would be a strong deterrent to any nation which might be tempted to commit aggression. If Germany had known that practically the whole world would have turned against her if she persisted in her policy of aggression, we should have been spared the horrors of the past five years. I cannot think that even Germany would have been so stupid as to plunge herself into certain ruin. The central purpose of Article X, then, is to prevent war.

There is nothing ambiguous about Article X; it means what it says. External aggression does not refer to internal revolution. External never means internal. The members of the League undertake to do something "as against external aggression." Ireland can become a republic in spite of Article X. This article is not a guarantee against internal revolutions and civil war.

Some people still persist in saying that this article preserves the status quo, and I believe they say it in all good faith. The article says that the members of the League "undertake to respect and preserve as against external aggression the territorial integrity and existing political independence of all members of the League." There is nothing in this article that prevents territorial changes. They may take place in various ways. In the past, territorial changes have been made by purchase or exchange, and of course this method may be followed in the future. The only method which is prohibited is external aggression. This article simply condemns the stealing of territory by force. Does anyone favor that? Moreover, Article XIII provides distinctly for territorial changes which involve the boundaries made by the present treaty. If any of these should become the subject matter of a dispute, they must, according to Article XIII, be submitted to arbitration. Paragraph 1 and 2 of Article XIII stipulate this:

"The members of the league agree that whenever any dispute shall arise between them which they recognize to be suitable for submission to arbitration and which cannot be satisfactorily settled by diplomacy, they will submit the whole subject matter to arbitration.

"Disputes as to the interpretation of a treaty, as to any question of international law, as to the existence of any fact which, if established, would constitute a breach of any international obligation, or as to the extent and nature of the reparation to be made for any such breach, are declared to be among those which are generally suitable for submission to arbitration."

Existing at the time of aggression.

EDITOR.

These boundary disputes would involve the "interpretation of a treaty" and must therefore be submitted to arbitration; and the members of the League agree that they will carry out in full good faith any such award. The status quo is, therefore, not guaranteed; on the contrary, special provision is made for change. The whole Covenant recognizes the necessity of change.

If this article were eliminated, many of the other articles must also be eliminated. This is particularly true of Article VIII, which provides for the reduction of armaments. The pledge to reduce "national armaments to the lowest point consistent with national safety and the enforcement by common action of international obligations" would constitute a futile promise without the security against aggression as stated in Article X; for what nation would dare to reduce its means of safety if aggression were formally legalized? And this would practically be the case if the nations were now to repudiate the decisions taken by their delegates at Paris.

That will never be done. Through the Covenant of the League of Nations, the peoples of the world have caught a glimpse of the meaning of freedom and security, and they will never relinquish this hope-least of all the people of the United States.

The elimination of any article in the Covenant is equivalent to the rejection of the Treaty, unless this amendment is adopted by all the parties that enter into the treaty, Germany included. The Treaty may, of course, be accepted with reservations

explaining the language of certain clauses. Mr. Root proposes two reservations. The first, concerning Article I, paragraph 3, opens the way to confusion and instability. This paragraph reads as follows: "Any member of the league may, after two years' notice of its intention so to do, withdraw from the league, provided that all its international obligations and all its obliagtions under this covenant shall have been fulfilled at the time of its withdrawal." Mr. Root proposes that the non-fulfillment of international obligations or obligations under the Covenant shall not prevent a member of the League from withdrawing after having given two years' notice. A state may, according to Mr. Root's plan, give notice of withdrawal and then proceed to violate its covenants, for example, Article VIII. It could equip itself with armaments far in excess of the limits mutually agreed upon by the members of the League, thereby constituting itself a direct menace to its neighbors; and then after two years would be free to use these armaments at will, no longer being under League obligations.

Or, two or three members may give similar notice of withdrawal, and form a secret alliance, in direct violation of Article XX which stipulates that the members of the League will solemnly undertake not to enter into any engagements inconsistent with the terms of the Covenant. These members may simultaneously build up armaments so that at the end of two years they would be able to form a formidable alliance outside the League.

A State may even be free to withdraw from the League without paying its bills under Mr. Root's plan. According to paragraph 5, Article VI, each member of the League shares in the expenses of the Secretariat, and certainly a State ought not to be free from this or any other obligation which it has promised, merely by withdrawing from the League.

In the defense of "purely American questions," Mr. Root says: "Inasmuch as in agreeing to become a member of the League of Nations the United States of America is moved by no interest or wish to intrude upon or interfere with the political policy or international administration of any foreign state and by no existing or anticipated dangers in affairs of the American continents, but accedes to the wish of the European states that it shall join its power to theirs for the preservation of general peace, the Senate consents to the ratification of said treaty, excepting Article X aforesaid, with the understanding that nothing therein contained shall be construed to imply a relinquishment by the United States of America of its traditional attitude toward purely American questions, or to require the submission of its policy regarding questions which it deems to be purely American questions to the decision or recommendation of other powers.

"This reservation and these expressions of understanding," wrote Mr. Root, "are in accordance with long-established precedent in the making of treaties. When included in the instrument of ratification they

will not require a reopening of negotiations, but if none of the other signatories expressly objects to the ratification with such limitations, the treaty stands as limited between the United States and the other powers." But these contentions are already included in the "instrument of ratification." They are found in Article XXI and in Article XV, paragraph 7, and they are stated much stronger than Mr. Root states them. Article XXI says: "Nothing in this Covenant shall be deemed to affect the validity of international engagements such as treaties of arbitration or regional understandings like the the Monroe Doctrine for securing the maintenance of peace."

Whether "regional understandings" is the best term to apply to the Monroe Doctrine is a minor matter, but Mr. Root does not mention the Monroe Doctrine. It is not necessary to describe it; every statesman knows what the Monroe Doctrine means. The important point is that the Monroe Doctrine is mentioned as a Doctrine, and is for the first time recognized by the world as an international rule. Looking at the Covenant from the purely American point of view, it is a great achievement for the United States.

Mr. Root's anxiety concerning a possible interference in the internal affairs of the United States, such as tariff, immigration, etc., is wholly allayed by Article XV, paragraph 7: "If the dispute between the parties is claimed by one of them, and is found by the Council to arise out of a matter which by international law is solely within the domestic juris

diction of that party, the Council shall so report, and shall make no recommendation as to its settlement."

Everybody should know, however, that in the series of treaties ratified by the Senate in 1913-1914, with twenty-one states the parties agreed "that all disputes between them of every nature whatsoever, which diplomacy shall fail to adjust, shall be submitted for investigation and report to port to an international commission," and they further agreed "not to declare war or begin hostilities over any such question during such investigation and report." "Disputes of every nature whatsoever" include the Monroe Doctrine, which is thereby subject to "the decision or recommendation of other powers," which Mr. Root is trying to avoid.

Mr. Root has, therefore, proposed one amendment which cannot be accepted without a rejection of the Treaty; and two reservations, one of which would be positively harmful while the other fails to do what he really wants done.

The treaty should be accepted as it is. The Covenant of the League of Nations marks an historic pledge of mutual confidence and proclaims a resolve to achieve peace for the world. The Preamble is a magna charta of freedom and equality. It should be committed to memory and should sink into the hearts of all of us: "In order to promote international cooperation and to achieve international peace and security by the acceptance of obligations not to resort to war, by the prescription of open, just and honorable relations