"Daylight diplomacy, with democratic control of foreign policy.

"Legislation whereby American delegates to the end-of-the-war conference shall be elected directly by the people.

"Furthermore, that America's championship of the principle of reduced armaments may appeal to the rest of the world as disinterested and sincere, we ask you to oppose legislation committing this country to the adoption of universal military training."

The European programs for a league of nations are many and only a few may be touched upon. In France, in spite of M. Clemenceau's declaration that he had not relinquished the idea of special alliances, the fighting Premier appointed M. Leon Bourgeois, Senator and former Premier of France, to draw up a plan for an association of nations for world peace to co-operate with the Allies. It differs little in the fundamental thought from the American idea.

The framework of a League, in M. Bourgeois' mind, must accomplish three purposes:

"First, it must provide that arbitration be obligatory.

"Second, it must limit armaments.

"Third, it must create penalties for refractory nations." And these penalties would be four in character: diplomatic, judicial, economic and military.

"Most troubles," declared M. Bourgeois, "could be settled by diplomatic and judicial measures alone. And certainly, if economic pressure were brought to bear, the sword need never be drawn in nine cases out of ten."

In England, General Smuts of the British Cabinet, contributed a fine, statesmanlike paper on the functions and machinery of a world league, showing the extent to which it might hope for British backing. Lord Robert Cecil, England's official representative to further the support of a World League, has contributed invaluable work to the cause and, incidentally, has upheld President Wilson's idea that the force of moral opinion must be stronger to prevent war than an organized international police force. "Public opinion would be sufficient to insure at least that any future war would be reduced to single disputes, that is, that there would never be another war like the last war. If we had had a conference on the reply of Serbia to Austria, in 1914, and had not allowed these countries to fight for a set period, there would have been no war. If the situation had been known to the world no nation could have forced its people to fight." (The italics are mine.)

For the most comprehensive program with practical technicalties for a World Court and the most completely formulated program of international organization, we must also turn to England. It is to be found in the report of the Research Depart

ment of the Fabian Society of London, the draft being made by Mr. L. S. Woolf, with an introduction by Bernard Shaw, published under the title of "International Government."

It will be noted by the student of these articles by Mr. Woolf that they do not propose to prevent war by forbidding sovereign states the right to declare war. War can no more be prohibited than murder may be prohibited. It may only be delayed, made punishable and increasingly disadvantageous. On the other hand, war delayed by arbitration has been found to be almost invariably war indefinitely deferred. In the last one hundred years over two hundred cases have been arbitrated, not one of which has led to war. This was the strength of Mr. Bryan's famous "Thirty Treaties." The signatories promised to wait for one year before declaring war, the disputed question being taken over by arbitration the rule of "when angry, count one hundred" being applied to nations as to individuals. It will be seen also that this Fabian program answers some of the questions that have troubled American Senators. Would Bulgaria have the right to dictate to the United States? Would America be willing to have trouble with Mexico submitted to a World Court? Would Montenegro vote equally with Great Britain? The Council sitting for America would pass upon American questions; the Council sitting for Europe would pass upon European decisions; and the Council for

the Balkans would settle Balkan affairs. Only as regarded questions that effect nations as a whole would the Council as a whole be called upon.

This program is especially worthy of study since any ultimate covenant for world federation must eventually follow in principle some such practical outline.

1

CHAPTER VII.

OUTLINES OF THE PARIS COVENANT.

HE Amended Covenant of the Paris League embodies the following main points in

its outlines. The League is to have a body of delegates, called an Assembly, an Executive Council and a Secretariat.

The Assembly meets at stated intervals at the capital of the League (Geneva) or wherever called. Each State has one vote but may send three representatives. The first meeting is to be called by the President of the United States.

States not in the League may be admitted by a vote of two-thirds of the States represented in the Body of Delegates, but must be self-governing and must give guarantees of observance of international obligations and conformity to the rules concerning armaments. Any member of the League may, after two years notice of its intentions so to do, withdraw from the League.

The Executive Council consists of representatives of five Great Powers and four others, the delegates selecting the four States whose representatives sit with the Great Powers in the Executive Council.