"This is the only proposition with substance to it. It is, in fact, the real intent and purpose of the authors of the League of Peace. To such a tribunal, armed with such tremendous powers, it is proposed to submit all international questions.

"It is, therefore, perfectly clear:

"(a) That by entering such a league, we surrender to European potentates and powers a part of our sovereignity.

"(b) We violate our Constitution by surrendering to foreign nations the power reserved to Congress to declare war and to

make peace.

"(c) We take from the American people the right of selfgovernment and compel them to submit the fate of their country to the decision of tribunals composed of aliens representing foreign Governments and peoples.

Foreign War Service

"(d) We compel our citizens to serve in foreign wars by the orders of the representatives of foreign governments.

"(e) We bind ourselves to assist in the creation of an international standing army, which to be effective must be strong enough to overwhelm any nation, including America, and which will, in all probability, be commanded by a foreign general.

"How can any man advocate so monstrous a proposition? Who dares take from the American people the right to control America? Who would transfer the fate of the only real republic on earth to the arbitrament of foreign despots, presidents, soviets, or Bolshevists?"

1

LOWELL DISCUSSES LEAGUE OF NATIONS 1

President A. Lawrence Lowell of Harvard University, speaking before the Society of Arts and Sciences at the Hotel Biltmore Sunday night, urged the formation of a League of Nations in order that justice might be attained in the world, his

1 Report of speech by A. Lawrence Lowell, President of Harvard University, before the Society of Arts and Sciences, New York, December 29, 1918. Reprinted from the New York Times, December 31, 1918.

remarks forming part of a debate that aroused much interest and further discussion yesterday.

"There are one or two difficulties which confront us when we consider the formation of a League of Nations," he said. "People ask, 'Of what nations shall such a league consist?' The organization which I belonged to for three and a half years has taken great pains not to answer that question, believing that the answer would depend largely upon the issue of this warand I believe that the war has settled that issue.

"A perfect League of Nations, in a perfect world, would undoubtedly be one where all mankind was organized into free nations and all were bound together in a great league of humanity. But one does not begin with perfection. One begins with the existing things, and it is surely obvious today that the only nations that can initiate a League of Nations are the nations that have won this war. They may let in others whenever they prove themselves trustworthy, and we hope that many nations will prove themselves trustworthy, but it is not necessary to go too far at once.

"Now I want to take up two or three objections very commonly suggested to a league of nations. One is that 'Washington never did so in his day.' Now, what did George Washington do in his day? He tried to prevent war. For, mind you, before the adoption of the Constitution, we were very close to war between many of the States, and doubtless war would have come. He tried to prevent war by welding those States together in such a way that they would not fight with one another. That was as far as it was wise for him to go.

"We were drawn into a war which began between Russia and Germany. We are nearer nowadays, and there is scarcely any part of the world so remote as the two ends of those thirteen Colonies were. Let me say this: Washington was a great man, because he looked the facts of his day in the face, and we are only worthy to be his descendants if we look the facts of our day in the face.

"The second objection which is raised is this: It will interfere with our sovereignty. It has nothing whatever to do with our sovereignty. People say Congress has not the power to declare war or refuse to declare war. Congress's power to declare war or not to is not in any way affected. We simply agree

that in certain conditions we will declare war, but Congress is not bound to do it. It does not interfere with Congress in the least. It does morally bind Congress to declare war, yes, certainly, every treaty morally binds the country to do something.

"More treaties, each of them binding the country to do or not to do certain things, have been made in the last fifty years than in all the history of the world before. Why? Because countries have found it was worth while to bind themselves if others were so bound also.

"Now, there is a third objection that I want to take up which is always brought forward. How about the big and little nations? Is it seriously supposed that any one is going to allow nations in a league of nations-to allow nations like Guatemala, for instance-to have the same votes as the United States? It is easy enough, in a consideration like that, to say it is absurd and throw it down. But no sensible person would believe that was to be done for one moment.

"We are told again that our men will have to go and fight in every broil in Europe. But, surely, the object of the League of Nations is to prevent broils in Europe. If the league will not prevent them then it is a failure. But does any one doubt that a league made of the great nations of the earth can stop any broils in Europe? The object of such a league is to prevent war. Of course, if the league will not prevent war then it is a failure. But it will.

"A man cannot be an orderly citizen in a disorderly community, and the trouble with us in the present day is that certain nations are trying to be orderly and decent in a disorderly condition of the world. The nations of the world are in just the same situation that you would have been in in a frontier town of the olden days, when it was necessary for you to carry a pistol. There is only one way to stop it, and that is to make the world an orderly one.

"And I want to ask you, are the resources of civilization exhausted? Is this sort of thing bound to repeat itself every little while? Are the most civilized races in the world going to try to exterminate each other with ever-increasing ferocity and ever-increasing ingenuity of weapons? Is the manhood of the next century to be devoted to seeing how much more wicked we can be?

"Are we to develop the one horror that did not take place in this war, but was talked of, and that is dropping poison bombs from airplanes on undefended citizens? Or, is it possible, is it inconceivable, is it folly, to say that the world can be brought to a state of peace and orderliness in which scraps between the nations occur no more than scraps among the inhabitants of the town of New York? Is that part of dreams, of fancy? And if that can take place, shall we stand by and say, 'Civilize if you can, but don't trouble us?'"

THE CORNERSTONE OF PEACE1

The American Economist submits that, notwithstanding the lofty aims of Mr. Wilson, the variety of interpretations placed upon the proposal for a League of Nations, and the manifest confusion of thought in the proposal itself, affords abundant ground for serious reflection.

It is said that the league and the clear definitions of its objects "is in a sense the most essential part of the peace settlement itself"; and at the same time that "it cannot be formed now."

It is said that the league must not remain in abeyance until the work of reconstruction begins, for it must form the most essential part of the peace settlement itself.

It is said that the proposed league has nothing to do with the economic system "which," as the London Times says, "each future member of the league may have devised to suit itself"; whereas Mr. Wilson said:

Fourth, and more specifically, there can be no special, selfish economic combinations within the league and no employment of any form of economic boycott or exclusion except as the power of economic penalty by exclusion from the markets of the world may be vested in the League of Nations itself as a means of discipline and control.

It is said that the League of Nations at first must exclude Germany; and yet according to Mr. Wilson the league must be the most essential part of the peace settlement itself, and Germany, of course, is to participate in the peace settlement.

It is said that the league must forever exclude economic weapons except as a means of discipline and control; and yet the

1 American Economist. p. 222. October 18, 1918.

English papers declare that England must not surrender her economic weapons. For example, the London Times says:

It is true enough that our own Free Trade system was probably initiated in the first instance in the sanguine hope that the whole world would follow the example. It found us, as a matter of fact, at the very crisis of our fortunes, without a single imitator among the great nations of the earth, very largely dependent upon our enemies for supplies, and permeated with hostile agents. That position is now being redeemed under the stress of war. We shall not lightly return hereafter to our old helpless tolerance.

It would appear that a League of Nations as the cornerstone of peace, wherein each nation would surrender a large portion if not all of its nationality, and enter into a realm of internationalism founded on free trade, and a world federation founded on brotherhood alone, is a dream that cannot be realized at least at this stage of world development.

Washington's immortal warning against "entangling alliances" is swept aside with the declaration that "only special and limited alliances entangle; and we recognize and accept the duty of a new day in which we are permitted to hope for a general alliance which will avoid entanglements and clear the air of the world for common understandings and the maintenance of common rights."

It seems reasonable to suppose that if Washington meant only "special and limited alliances," he would have said so. But he meant what he said, and warned his country against all entangling alliances, special and general, limited and unlimited. Furthermore, if special and limited alliances entangle some, why will not general and unlimited alliances entangle more? An evil made general does not become a virtue.

If to the one stern problem of establishing and securing a peace of justice and righteousness are added the countless and contradictory visions and emotions and dreams of theorists; if to the one serious question of securing America's peace and safety-her industrial and economic safety-are added visions of international brotherhood and cosmic beautitudes through a League of Nations, there will be no peace.

Washington was right; and no sophistry, no clever rhetoric can sweep aside his warning. America's dangers are greater to-day than ever. Lifted by a world war to a dazzling place of supremacy and power; her coffers filled with gold; her profits