ments are to be. When mandates for administering backward regions are assigned, the mandatory is free to accept or reject the mandate. When the use of force is required, each State of the League will decide for itself whether or not it will observe the recommendation of the central organ of the League that force be used. True, among the positive agreements which may not be ignored, are two of major importance, namely, the agreement to institute a boycott against a member of the League which resorts to war in violation of its covenants and the agreement to "afford passage through their territory to the forces" engaged in disciplining the recalcitrant. These provisions abolish neutrality in the case of an aggressive war; but it is a condition which arises not by reason of any command of the central organs of the League but by reason of the act of the recalcitrant itself in waging war illegally.

The power of the League rests, not on a super-government, but on the covenants of the members to coöperate voluntarily by boycott and by the use of force, to punish aggression.

Combatting the views of persons who object to the element of force in the League program, Mr. Taft declares his respect for the motives of the advocates of non-resistance but doubts whether nations are as yet proof against the "temptations to cupidity, cruelty and injustice" manifested in men, and whether, on that account, an international police is not as requisite as the constabulary which "protects the innocent and the just against the criminal and unjust" within the State.

Mr. Bryan, in the written debate with Mr. Taft, urges that the use of force invites violence, and cites the laying aside of weapons by private persons as having made for the

peacefulness of society. Mr. Taft replies that the instance is not well chosen, because "men gave up weapons when they could rely on the police, exercising the force of the community, to protect them against violence. . . . Would Mr. Bryan dispense with the police in city, state and nation?" "There is no means of suppressing lawless violence except lawful force."

Mr. Bryan's view that a popular referendum should be taken before a nation may declare war is met by the supposition that the people of one country to a dispute might well vote for war while that of the other country voted against it. "Shall another vote be taken? In which country? Or shall it be in both?" We may add that when the national legislature had gone so far as to submit the question of peace or war by referendum to the people, what likelihood is there that the prospective enemy would await the decision before striking? Picture any of the great European countries referring to popular vote the question of war against a neighbor. How long would the latter delay warlike action? The debate offers an interesting comparison, throughout, of the minds of the two participants.

The assertion, made in certain quarters, that the League plan has little value because nations will disregard the obligations of the pact is met by the admission that nations are sometimes utterly immoral and shamelessly break treaties on the plea of necessity but that we cannot, on that account, abandon treaty-making" any more than we can give up commercial contracts because men sometimes dishonor themselves by breaking them." Moreover, flying in the face of an organized world opinion and combined world power involves very different consequences from those which followed breach of treaty under the old order.

The fear that judgments of an international tribunal will affect adversely the interests of the United States is dismissed in these words: "If the judgment against her is just she ought to obey it. If it is not, why assume that it will be rendered at all, or, that if rendered all nations would join in world war to enforce it? Indeed, may not our imagination, if we let it run riot, as easily conceive such a union of the military forces of the world against the United States without a league and its machinery as with them?" No inconsistency is recognized between intense love of country, which is regarded as helpful and right, and universal brotherhood. "The relation of one to the other should be as love of home and family is to love of country." They strengthen each other.

A league, such as is now planned, is viewed as a necessary and natural outgrowth of the treaty foreshadowed by the demands of the Allies. In fact the proposed treaty is impossible of fulfillment without the aid of some such organization. Even though drawn "by the ablest lawyers who ever drew a contract " its numerous provisions will call for authoritative interpretation. What instrument is there better fitted than a court to interpret a contract authoritatively? Next, there are sure to be conflicts which are not justiciable among the nations. What better institution for settling such questions than a tribunal of inquiry and conciliation? Unruliness on the part of backward countries, or of those children among the nations to whom reference has already been made, will call for the use of force to con-. fine and restrain it. "You do not always have to use the broad hand but it is helpful to have it in the family." That was the third plank in the platform of the League to Enforce Peace. Lastly, we cannot escape the task of de

veloping and defining international law, and that is the fourth plank.

As the discussion proceeded Mr. Taft was led to change, in the direction of enlarging, his view of the length to which nations might be expected to go in conferring powers on a central organization. Of the desirability of sanction for all the pronouncements of the League there was never a question. The problem was to avoid wrecking the project by demanding more than the nations would be willing to concede at this time.

It will be observed, for example, that in the earliest. speeches, intention to enforce the judgment of an international court is denied; whereas, later on and with Mr. Taft's approval, the platform of the League to Enforce Peace moved up to that demand. At the same time Mr. Taft has stood, from the beginning, for the power to hale a nation into court. The framers of the Paris Covenant were manifestly unwilling to confer both powers conjointly on an international tribunal. They neglected to confer on the League the power to hale offenders before a tribunal or court in matters suitable for arbitration justiciable matters are included in the term but, having once submitted the matter, the disputants are bound to respect the judgment or award. On the other hand, disputants in the field of extra-legal matters, including conflicts of political policy, may be haled before a tribunal- the Council or a committee thereof while the recommendation arrived at by the tribunal is not enforcible. Mr. Taft is of the opinion that there is still a way, through the instrumentality of the Council, to bring a nation into the Court of International Justice under the Covenant. Certainly it is not unreason

able to expect further development of the powers of its tribunals, as well as of the general powers of the League, as time may disclose the need for them.

So, too, the earlier position that the League should operate only on its own members was abandoned by Mr. Taft and his associates in favor of insistence on resort to inquiry in the hope of peaceful settlement before even nations outside the League were suffered to go to war. This is the attitude of the Paris Covenant. The messages printed at the end of the volume reveal the part played by Mr. Taft in securing modification of the covenant originally reported to the Paris Conference (February 14, 1919). His suggestions were made with a view to meeting the objections raised against the instrument by members of the United States Senate. The attitude of the latter, after the objections voiced had been largely met by these modifications, indicates the true nature of much of the opposition, namely, desire to destroy the Covenant itself—a fearful responsibility in view of future consequences to the welfare of mankind.

In addition to meeting, with his usual touch of kindly humor and convincing reasoning, the arguments advanced against the League project, Mr. Taft discloses in these papers a deep conviction that a League of Nations is necessary and that within it lie boundless possibilities for good.

Some one has said that the man whom we are inclined to regard as wise is the man with whose views we happen to agree. Be that as it may, in reviewing Mr. Taft's utterances one is struck with the extent to which the things he has advocated are the things that have been realized or are still regarded as desirable. His basket of discarded no