would have a probate court growing out of the mandatory system of the League of Nations, a probate court that had to do with all the aspects of a backward child, if we are pleased to call him that. After all, any guardian who should come into court and say, "I was interested, of course, in taking care of the child, but I was also interested in lining my own pockets," would, I think, be thrown out of court, even the most corrupt one.

ADMINISTRATION OF THE LEAGUE

One day years ago when we all began to talk about the Philippines, Mr. Dooley said to Mr. Hennessey: "We are all talking about the Philippines now as if we had known them from infancy, but only last week I didn't know whether they were islands or canned goods." I think something of the same sort is true about this island, Yap-and that other island which is full of phosphates. England and her colonies has had this second island allocated to them by the supreme council but they still have to give an account of their stewardship to the League of Nations, which will be made public, and all the world will gradually know what their administration is. They have already nationalized the phosphates—perhaps we can not strictly call them nationalized when Australia and New Zealand also have a share in them, but such an arrangement certainly is a move forward. Now is it going much further to say that the island should be administered, at least so far as allocation of phosphates is concerned, having in mind the farmers who can not raise grain to feed this hungry world because their soil lacks certain constituents? Could we not say that there are beginnings in various directions, in all sorts of subtle ways, toward an administration of the so-called backward peoples of the earth

in the interest, first, that their possessions may be fairly distributed in the world-which is the way it will have to be put at present, I believe and secondarily for the people themselves. Perhaps it will not be very long until the Assembly-and the hope of the League of Nations seems to me to reside in the Assembly-will make some trenchant suggestions having to do with these matters.

I am myself in a very curious position in regard to the League of Nations. I used to go around making long speeches for it before there was any League of Nations at all and when one's mind could range for illustrations all over the world in a most marvelous fashion; and then the League of Nations was created and somehow my mouth was estopped, which was at least to the great advantage of my audiences. I never said a word against it, but I could not go about advocating it.

Then there was the meeting of the Assembly in Geneva, and suddenly all sorts of things cleared up. It seemed as if, after all, the nations of the earth could get together and discuss openly and freely and also kindly, for the most part, and even unselfishly, the genuine concerns of the world. The meeting of the Assembly was like the beginning of a new era, and perhaps this public discussion and this good will and this international intent was the beginning, after all, of a real League of Nations.

Of course, the Secretariat is doing wonderful things, and why not? It has been selected from the best men in all the nations, exactly as Colonel House picked the best men he could find and thus procured a wonderful Secretariat for the Peace Commission. But the crux of the situation will test the League as it did the Peace Commission, when something is brought before the Supreme Council which touches the

The position of the League of Nations toward mandates is a little peculiar. It has nothing to do with allocating territories under mandates, which was left to the Powers; but after the Powers had decided who was going to control what, then the League of Nations was to be a co-guarantor with them. Allocation and other essential details were worked at, up to the tenth of January, 1920, when the Treaty went into force.

DELAY OF THE POWERS

Immediately the League of Nations started to prepare for its coming duties. A mandate section was organized in skeleton. The League waited. The Powers sent in no draft mandates. Eventually, the League felt that it could wait no longer, and at San Sebastian on the fifth of August, 1920, a report was passed by the Council, in which the Powers were called upon, politely to be sure, but, nevertheless, very definitely, to produce their mandates. That request created an interesting situation, because the members of the Council were official representatives of the Powers who had the mandates; and so when the Council members passed a resolution like that they practically were talking to themselves as Powers; and it is an interesting circumstance that the Council, as an organ of the League, felt called upon thus to recall their countries to their duty under the treaty. The Powers replied in due course that they had not decided on the draft mandates, as yet, but promised to have them ready before long.

In sending the resolution of August to the Powers, the Council called the attention of the Powers to the fact that the Assembly of the League was going to meet in November and that the Assembly would be very eager to know what the contents of the mandates were

to be. At Brussels in October the Council was still without mandates, the Powers not having delivered them. At Geneva the Council asked the Assembly not to act immediately, in the hope that it would have draft mandates to lay before the Assembly. Eventually, however, the two bodies felt they could wait no longer, and the Assembly began work. The Assembly was very critical of the Council, but a careful reading of the proceedings rather indicates that the suppression of documents was not the Council's fault. The Council peppered the Powers to get the text of the mandates, and failed.

ASSEMBLY DEMANDS PUBLICITY

The Council, in the very last days of the Assembly, got the text of the socalled C mandates, the lowest class mandates, by which a territory is practically left within the national jurisdiction of a state. However, the Powers had stipulated that that text should not be published, so that the Assembly in making its report was unable to make any reference to its contents.

The Assembly passed a resolution,or rather, a recommendation, for the Assembly has nothing to do with the mandates in an executory way-the Assembly passed recommendations (1) that the permanent mandate commission should have one woman on it, (2) that the mandatory should not be allowed to use its power under the mandate to increase its military power, and (3) that future mandates should be published. Those, of course, were rather hailed as pious recommendations, but it was a notable fact that within about a month draft mandates began coming out, before they had been actually decided upon by the Powers.

The Assembly having ended, the Council undertook to get the mandate

commission appointed. While the Assembly was meeting, the Council had passed the C mandates for the lowest class of the territories under this sort of tutelage. The Council met again in February and March at Paris and there the system became as fully organized as it was possible to organize it at the time. At that meeting of the Council it was expected that the A mandates, for such territories as are semiindependent, such as Mesopotamia and Syria and Palestine, and the B mandates, for such lands as Togoland and the Cameroons and German East Africa, would be passed, and that the permanent mandatory commission would be appointed.

The A mandates first came to discussion at Paris. It happened, at that moment, that the Treaty of Sèvres, the treaty of peace with Turkey, which had been signed the previous August but had not been ratified by Turkey, was then under revision at London. It was therefore felt impossible to pass the draft A mandates at Paris before it was understood among the treaty powers what were to be the boundaries of the territories mandated; so that effort was given up.

Then the B mandates came under discussion. They were about to be passed when the Council received the first direct note it had received from the United States, a very brief sentence from the American Embassy at Paris, requesting it not to discuss mandates any further because there was a note coming from the United States. That was the note from the previous administration protesting on Mesopotamian oil and the allocation of Yap. As a consequence of that request, the Council did stop its work on the mandate question, and it undertook to consider the protest made by the United States. As a matter of fact, the League of Nations really had nothing to do with

the subject matter, because the decisions which it had repeated in its mandates had been decisions of the Allied Powers, which it could neither change nor modify, and an answer to that effect was forwarded to Washington. But those mandates were not passed.

PLANS FOR THE COMMISSION

The Council went on to organize a permanent mandatory commission, the business of which will be to examine the mandates, to receive the annual report on each mandated territory, and, generally speaking, to look after the welfare of the 13,000,000 inhabitants of the mandated territories. That commission had been the subject of much discussion. Originally it was proposed to have a commission of fifteen members, of whom eight should represent mandatories and were to be government representatives, and seven should represent, or be citizens of, non-mandatory countries.

In other words, there was a sharp distinction drawn between the mandatory state representatives, who were to act for their governments, and the other members of the commission, who were simply to be private individuals. That proposed organization was thoroughly discussed in the Council and somewhat in the Assembly, and eventually the system was considerably changed. Instead of giving the mandatories a majority, the system as finally decided upon gave the nonmandatory states a majority, and the membership of the commission was cut from fifteen to nine.

In the commission as finally decided upon, five members represent the nonmandatory states and four members represent the mandatory states. All of the members are appointed by the Council. They are selected for their personal merit and competence. They shall not hold any office which puts

them in a position of direct dependence on their governments while members of the commission. The labor organization has the right to have a member ex-officio on the commission when questions of labor are discussed. The mandatory powers will make to that commission an annual report, which will be brought to it through duly authorized representatives of the governments, who are permitted to be present at the meeting of the commission at which the report is under discussion. After the discussion has taken place, with any explanations from the mandatory that may be necessary, the representative of the mandatory must retire while the commission makes up its opinion. That opinion, once drawn up, is shown to the representative of the mandatory state, who is entitled to reply to it; both the criticism and the reply are then sent to the Council, which will decide any

matter at issue.

The Council is empowered to make any changes in the mandatory territories that it sees fit, almost without limit.

PROVIDES FOR GENERAL

CONFERENCES

Another interesting thing respecting the organization of the commission is this section from the regulations:

The commission, acting in concert with all the duly authorized representatives of the mandatory powers, shall hold a plenary meeting to consider all the reports as a whole and any general conclusions to be drawn from them. The commission may also utilize such a meeting of the representatives of the mandatory powers to lay before them any other matters connected with mandates, which, in their opinion, should be submitted by the Council to the mandatory powers and to the other states,

members of the League. This plenary meeting shall take place either before or after the presentation of the annual reports of the commission, as the commission may think fit.

In other words, provision is there made for practically an international conference at any time upon the general question of the mandatory system.

The commission was appointed at Paris, with the exception of one member. The missing member will undoubtedly be a Japanese. The commission as it stands at the present time is headed by Major Ormsby Gore, British in nationality; Monsieur Orts, a Belgian; Monsieur Heau, a Frenchman; Monsieur Van Rees, a Dutchman; Madame Anna Bugge-Wicksell, a well-known Swedish woman, wife of a professor of Stockholm; Monsieur Theolodi, an Italian; Senhor d'Andrade, a Portuguese; and W. Cameron Forbes, who is well known by reason of having served once as Governor General of the Philippines, and who is, I believe, being contemplated again for that post.

"Success will really depend upon how the committee and the Council work the machine," said Mr. Balfour in the course of the Assembly meeting in commission certainly give an earnest December. The personalities of the of its independence. To illustrate, Major Ormsby Gore is chairman of a mandates committee of the League of Nations Union, a propagandist organization. When the British Government published the draft B mandate for Tanganyika, he and his committee went over it and prepared a series of additions and emendations, which were published in order to enlist British public opinion in behalf of securing a revision of the mandate in a liberal

sense.