participated was a war to destroy imperialism, and to establish the self-determination of free nations under law, which should be the expression of their consent, a plan which merely establishes a composite imperialism, the arbitrary power of a single group of nations, would be not a victory for freedom, but its defeat.

The contention that this Covenant creates an imperium does not rest alone on its attitude toward States outside the League. Under Article XXII the Council undertakes to govern, through its appointed agents, vast areas and numerous populations. It may govern well, or it may govern ill, but it assumes the right to govern.

Whence does the Council derive its right to issue mandates, "according to the stage of the development of the people, the geographic situation of the territory, its economic conditions, and other similar circumstances"? It is true, as it is alleged, that the wishes of these communities, in the case of the Turkish Empire, must be a principal consideration in the selection of the manda

tory Power; but in the case of those in Africa or in the South Pacific, although certain rights of the population are recognized, and "equal opportunities for the trade and commerce of other members of the League," but not of others, are secured, they fall completely under the sovereignty of the League. Full sovereignty is surrendered to it, and it becomes, as a corporation, a sovereign Power. Or is it possible that this sovereignty is some time in the future to be reclaimed by the separate conquerors? For the present, at least, this sovereignty is so complete that, as the Covenant provides, "The degree of authority, control, or administration to be exercised by the mandatary shall, if not previously agreed upon by the members of the League, be explicitly defined in each case by the Council." 3 Can it be held, in the light of this, that the League, which is perpetual, is not in law a new sovereign and imperial Power? Or must this transfer of power be classed as a wholly lawless proceeding?

The original text says, “in a special Act or Charter."

We must, no doubt, admit that there are "backward peoples," as they are called. Confessedly, they present a difficult problem to solve. It may be that this is, on the whole, the best solution of it; but the questions of duty and of responsibility arising out of it are very serious, especially for a people bred to consider and respect the love of freedom. We have been forced to accept the "white man's burden" in the Philippines and elsewhere, but we have never rejoiced in the necessity, and we have never approached our task in an imperial spirit, although we cannot deny that the attempt to rule a subject race involves the exercise of an imperium.

It is, no doubt, better for us as a people that we should never again undertake an imperial partnership. We had a woeful experience in the Samoan Islands, and we were glad to get out of it without involving ourselves, as we came near doing, in a scene of continuous bloodshed brought on by intrigue. As President Cleveland said of our experiment, in a message to Congress: "This incident and the events leading up to it sig

nally illustrate the impolicy of entangling alliances with foreign Powers." If any one wishes to know what the responsibilities of a mandatary under the Executive Council of the League might involve, let him read the pathetic story of the disappointment of the Samoans in their civil wars and their descent from the promise of autonomy to the complete deprivation of their rights, as related by Willis Fletcher Johnson in his history of "America's Foreign Relations." "The United States," he writes, in closing the chapter on this subject, "began by abandoning two of its most important principles of foreign policy-that the United States should refrain from intervention in the domestic affairs of other nations, unless in the necessitous emergency of its own self-protection, and that it should avoid entangling alliances with other and particularly European Powers. . . . It was guilty of savage cruelties which would have been regarded as monstrous in the least civilized of the Samoans themselves. It was guilty of bad faith to Samoans who trusted it. It failed to win

for its iniquitous policy the poor vindication of efficiency and success, confessing at the end that it was a wretched failure. And it finally abandoned that policy not because it was wrong, but because it was too costly and troublesome to continue."

And now the Samoans have again been made victims of international strife. Relying upon this infamous precedent of the triple protectorate over Samoa, a distinguished advocate of the League, in order to show that this treaty is within the constitutional power of the United States, cites this Samoan example, saying: "The three signatory nations undertook a guardianship of the islands similar to that which is contemplated in the proposed Covenant of the League with reference to backward countries!"

But, it appears, we are not now to stop with simple islanders. Among our suggested allotments in this program of joint imperialism, in which our participation is expected to justify the perpetuation of the whole colonial system, are Constantinople,