the same qualities and serve the same purpose. It might read: "We, the signatories, agree that, if peace should be anywhere threatened, we will together inquire into the cause of aggression; and if we find that the Law of Nations has been anywhere violated, we will by mediation together use our best endeavors to avoid strife. If war is begun, we will together consider what measures we should take in common. And we mutually agree to submit any difference we may have with one another or with other nations to a like mediation. To this end we continue our close association of intimate counsel, and will receive into our understanding other governments when circumstances may render it proper to do so."

To many minds this may seem too attenuated, too much dependent upon good will and a common purpose. To that I have only to say this. Without good will and without a community of purpose there is no agreement and there is no sure keeping of engagements among men. Underlying all human endeavor and coöperation, the strong

MIA OL

est motive is a love of freedom. Unless they are forced to yield to some type of imperialism-personal, national, or multiformwhich they will never cease to resent, men who believe that there is no true government that is not founded upon the consent of the governed, will not consider themselves bound, even by the authority of the law, if they discover that by its mandates they are no longer free.

IV

THE CORPORATE CHARACTER OF THE

LEAGUE OF NATIONS

If language is to have any exact meaning, it cannot be pretended that a League of Nations can be identified with the entire Society of States. Sovereign States, under the Law of Nations as it exists, are equal before the law, regardless of their military power, physical magnitude, or economic importance. They are to be treated under International Law as legal persons, possessing rights inherent in their sovereignty, which all civilized nations are bound to respect.

The work in which the Conference at Paris has been engaged is not, properly speaking, the formation of a universal Society of States, such as that contemplated by International Law, but the creation of a

predominant group within this more general association.1

In the minds of those who are the most active in commending this League, there is apparently no very precise conception of its real nature. They have spoken alternately of a "Treaty," of a "Covenant," and of a "Constitution," without making any distinction between them, or seeming to realize that this is a matter of the least importance. To them it is an agreement to end war; and they appeal for support on this ground, with little regard to the obligations involved or the ultimate consequences which may follow from accepting them.

When it is pointed out that participation in this League, in the form proposed, might prove disadvantageous to the United States, some of its advocates reply, "After all, it is only a treaty, and a treaty can be abrogated at any time."

This assumption is based on the statement in the Constitution of the United States,

'The original and the final forms of the "Covenant" are printed in full at the end of this volume.

that "All treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land." Being a law, it is contended, a treaty may be nullified by any subsequent law which contradicts its provisions or prevents the execution of them; and such a law it is always within the power of Congress to enact.

If this were the nature of treaties made by the United States of America with other nations, it would be difficult to find any others that would care to enter into treaty relations with the United States. By asserting it, we should put ourselves on a lower level of ignominy and dishonor than that which Germany has occupied, and which we have denounced with bitter scorn; for we should be, in effect, declaring that we regard a solemn compact as "a scrap of paper," not because of changed circumstances or national necessities, but because it was intended that it might be nullified even before it was signed.

A treaty, even the least important, is something more than a law; it is a contract.