I esteem it a great privilege to have been born in this era; I esteem it a still greater privilege to be permitted to live in this day, when in the interest of permanent peace internationalism is to be realized.

In the language of a great modern thinker, I believe that in all things international which affect the welfare of the human family the peoples of the world should be like the closed hand and that in all things purely national that affect internal affairs the nations of the world should be as separate as the fingers.

We are fortunate indeed that we are living in this century, when, because of the things that are happening in Paris tonight, the day is drawing near when, in the language of Isaiah, that great prophet in Israel, "Swords are to be beaten into plowshares, spears into pruning hooks and war shall be no more." (Applause.)

Remarks by A. G. McFarland

MR. MCFARLAND: I wish to call your attention to a remark made by Senator Belshaw, that the Commonwealth Club could come to no decision on this question. The reason therefor is that, if you look over the list of speakers, sixteen out of seventeen are attorneys. The layman does not like to pit his oratory against such as we have been listening to this evening.

In the building of the Panama Canal the diameter of the earth. was decreased one thousand miles-possibly two to three thousand miles. Modern inventions, including wireless telegraphy, have probably reduced this diameter still more. As a result, what occurs in China today is known in San Francisco within a few hours-and in some places the day before.

Under such circumstances, what affects one part of the world affects the rest of the world. If a famine is imminent and China. needs food, some country, knowing it the next day, immediately sends supplies. What affects one nation affects other nations and some sort of a league is necessary. It is impossible for the United States to keep out of such a league and one vote is better than none. I believe that in Paris they will find the proper solution of the question.

Remarks by W. W. Beatty

MR. BEATTY: One of the most delightful things from a humorous standpoint is a paradox; and I cannot imagine anything more paradoxical in this day and generation than an American who stands on his feet and boasts about his Americanism and his love for America and in the same breath says he does not believe in a

league of nations. For the United States is today and has been since its inception a league of nations. It is at this moment a league of forty-eight sovereign nations; and the greater league now proposed is to be a league of forty-eight nations-accepting Dr. Jordan's figures-which will come together in a still larger organization. (Applause.)

The suggestion has been made that it would hardly be fitting in a world situation which might arise for the United States in one corner of the world to be called into war that would take place in another corner of the world between two nations with which we had nothing to do at the time, simply to preserve the peace of the world. And yet I call to your attention that in the world's war just closed thousands of young men from this one of the fortyeight states of the United States, California, went three thousand miles across the United States and four thousand miles across the Atlantic Ocean to take part in a war with which we Californians had nothing to do, and which probably would not have affected us on this western coast. In going they responded to the peremptory call of the great nation, which determined the fitness of their going in a body in which we were entitled to one vote in fortyeight-and of their going we approved and rejoiced.

In this nation that is composed of forty-eight nations we have representatives of practically every race under the sun which would be brought together by the greater league of nations which we are discussing tonight. We have been together over a hundred years, successfully co-operating, and we have been able to co-operate in the present emergency. On the roll of heroes who have left their lives in the trenches of France you will find the names of men from every race, every nation, every country on the face of the earth, who under the stars and stripes have given their lives to uphold the ideals of our forty-eight nations; sacrificing all that was dear to them to uphold the sovereignty and integrity. of one great international league which we call America, and which we are proud to love above our individual states.

Remarks by W. V. Stafford

MR. STAFFORD: I do not believe I have missed a word. It seems to me about all the difference of opinion lies altogether outside of the subject. I should say it is largely a matter of presidential personality versus senatorial dignity. I move you that it is the unanimous sense of those here present that, politics barred, we will all stand for a league of nations which will bring the world peace.

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 Jefferson— peace, 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.