shall contribute, and whether it is advisable to absolve smaller members of the league from making such contribution. The covenant-breaking state shall after restoration of peace be subject to perpetual disarmament and to the peaceful régime established for new states under point 8.

(20.) The peace treaty should further provide that if a dispute should arise among any members of the league as to the interpretation of the treaty or as to any question of international law or fact which if established would constitute a breach of any international obligation, the nature and measure of reparation to be made, and if such dispute cannot be settled by negotiation the members bind themselves to submit it to arbitration and to carry out any award or decision which may be rendered.

(21.) If on any ground it proves impracticable to refer such dispute to arbitration, either party to the dispute may apply to the council to take the matter into consideration. The council shall give notice of the application to the other party and shall make the necessary arrangements for hearing the dispute. The council shall ascertain the facts with regard to the dispute and make recommendations based on its merits and calculated to secure a just and lasting settlement. The other members of the league shall place at its disposal all information which bears on the dispute. The council shall do its utmost by mediation and conciliation to induce the disputants to agree to a peaceful settlement. Recommendations shall be addressed to the disputants, and shall not have the force of decisions. If either party threatens to go to war in spite of the recommendations, the council shall publish them. If the council fails to arrive at any recommendations, either the majority or minority in the council may publish statements of their respective recommendations, and such publication shall not be regarded as an unfriendly act by the disputants.

Provision is also made for inquiry and recommendations in disputes outside of the league with an economic and financial boycott, and even military and naval measures, to be used against the recalcitrant state if the league so desires.

The whole exposition of Gen. Smuts is described by Americans as one of the most statesmanlike papers ever written. It is really necessary to read the long discussion accompanying and elucidating the plan in order to do full justice to the con

tentions. While Gen. Smuts realizes that much is still to be desired in the way of international reform, his plan is prompted by the belief that it is as far as it is practical to go at present. He hopes for yearly changes in the direction of the end desired by all.

While no one is in a position to say authoritatively what the opinion of the American delegation is on the plan outlined above, it is known that the Americans think it is not sufficiently strong in its provisions for the prevention of war. A belief prevails among them that all disputes should be submitted to compulsory arbitration or inquiry, and that under no circumstances should the league consider an arbitrary recourse to hostilities. Every nation which went to war, it is said, should be in the position of defying the recommendations of the league, and that would justify the imposition of an economic and financial boycott and penalties.

The views prevalent in American quarters would not mean the yielding of sovereignty in any case, as the recommendations of the league of nations would be submitted to our Congress, which alone is constitutionally empowered to declare war. Our policy evidently would be one of permitting freedom of action to the American people at all times, but with a pledge that we submit the facts and recommendations of the league to the American Congress, together with the opinion of the executive branch of our Government.

All these ideals are being discussed, and while no agreement has yet been reached, the harmonization of differences is considered by the principal men in the various delegations to be progressing satisfactorily. Lord Robert Cecil is said to be at work on a plan of his own with points similar to those of Gen. Smuts as a basis. French writers and experts are understood to be sympathetic to the Smuts ideas also. Hence the importance of presenting to American readers the Smuts plan as an indication of the nature of the discussions now before the Peace Conference.

BOURGEOIS OUTLINES LEAGUE OF
NATIONS 1

Paris, January 13.—(Havas).—Leon Bourgeois, former Premier and the French authority on a League of Nations, said to-day that it had been agreed upon with the French Government that the French Association of a League of Nations would endeavor to reach an agreement as to procedure with similar associations, especially in Great Britain and the United States. The former Premier outlined the following plan:

“(1.) The issuance, before the beginning of peace negotiations, of a solemn declaration by the Allies fixing the fundamental rules of the organization of a League of Nations with the assurance of the immediate observance of the rules among themselves.

(2.) The peace treaty shall contain the obligation of compulsory arbitration and limitation of armaments.

"Third. Immediately after the signing of peace a universal conference shall be called to fix the details of a league of nations. The conference would look into the rights of each nation, and would consider what should be done to a state resisting the decisions of the league. It would also take measures concerning any state not belonging to the league and which caused trouble by violence. The project foresees, in order to compel the submission of such a state or states, the constitution of an armed force exercising international control and the establishment of diplomatic. juridical, and economic measures tending to isolate the rebellious state and compelling it to depend upon its own resources."

Germany, M. Bourgeois added, would have to undergo not only a political revolution, but a moral one. "Her very soul has to be changed," he said. In addition, Germany must give guarantees of a military character, make reparations, and punish those who have violated all laws of humanity. Until that is accomplished, Germany must be compelled to observe all the rules of international control to which other nations will have agreed voluntarily.

1 From the New York Evening Post, January 13, 1919.

LEAGUE OF NATIONS OUTLINED BY LANE1

An address on the League of Nations made yesterday by Franklin K. Lane, Secretary of the Interior, at a luncheon of the Merchants' Association at the Hotel Astor, took on especial significance to the business men because it went into considerable detail as to what the American conception of such a league should be. Secretary Lane was careful to say that he had no knowledge "of the propositions that are made in Paris." The Chairman was Lewis E. Pierson, First Vice President of the association.

After pursuing the line of argument that war does not pay, Secretary Lane explained that a League of Nations might organize two bodies-a council to formulate a body of international law and a court to decide on violations of compact between the nations.

"Now, international law is filmy, gauzy, founded upon precedent and without certainty, decision, or definiteness," he said. "Suppose that council had the power to take into its own hands an effort, first to inquire as to what the trouble between nations may be; second, to make an effort at conciliation; third, to bring about arbitration if possible; fourth, to call upon the nations to encompass the delinquent and make its social and economic life impossible, and fifth, as a last resort, to bring about war.

"Now, the first thing that council would do would be to declare upon paper just what the rules are that govern as between those nations which entered into that compact. First, the nations would agree upon, not the machinery, but the principleswhat the law is. Then there would be established a court that could decide whether there had been a violation of the compact that had been entered into by all the nations. That would not bind us if we went into it to accept anything except that which was brought back and which we approved of.

"First, then, a council which would declare what the rules of the game were, and we do not know what the rules are now; second, the court, that could enforce those rules. That is not unreasonable, that is not visionary, that is not a dream.

"And how are they to be enforced?

"First, by the pressure of the nations of the world-and don't

1 From the New York Times, January 17, 1919.

belittle that. In these days of newspapers and telegraphs, of merchants' associations, of all the thousand organizations—and there are 864,000 different organizations in the United States today-in these days of organizations, when opinion can be quickly crystallized, opinion is not to be flouted as a matter of coercion.

"Then as a body the inquiry could be made and the facts ascertained upon which that opinion could act; then if arbitration were brought about the parties to that arbitration would be bound to submit, in the first instance, all of their questions to arbitration which did not involve national independence, did not involve their integrity. They would be bound to submit those questions to the public of the world, and before that public they would be judged. And we have an effort that can be made this side of the war. Take any country that you please in your mind and let me picture what might happen to it:

"We could put a circle around that country, cut off every postal combination so that no letters could go in or out, cut off every bill of exchange, cut off every export, if you please; cut off every ship, cut the railroad lines at the border, cut off all diplomatic communication, isolate that nation; and there is not a nation that ever has made war that I know of that could stand such a circle of iron brought around it by the combined effort of the nations of the world; and if that nation, in violation of its pact, does attack one of the nations within this league or this council, this association, then we must adopt the motto of the Three Musketeers, 'One for all and all for one.' But there is not one case in a million in which that resort would be forced upon us.

"I do not know what may come out of Paris. I have no knowledge of the propositions that are made in Paris. But I do know that we are bound to champion the idea of a League of Nations, of an association, as the President put it—a general association of nations must be formed under specific covenants for the purpose of affording mutual guarantees of political independence and territorial integrity to great and small nations alike. I have heard it said that under any such league or any such council of nations, any such effort at international cooperation, the Monroe Doctrine would be scattered to the winds. I want to ask you to read that line of the President's, and see if it is not the very incarnation of the Monroe Doctrine itself."