treaty after it is signed, and to keep in control of the situation the conservative forces which now dominate in the victorious countries. It is essentially a balance of power, and as such it does what every other balance of power in history has done-to wit, automatically organizes those left out of it into a coherent group with the one supreme object of overbalancing the balance.

If the primary object of the covenant had been to reorganize the world on the more friendly and democratic basis of a peace league— and without such a basis all the force in the world will not prevent war-the covenant would not have excluded from the list of members and nations to be invited to become members all the late enemy countries as well as Russia and Mexico.

Remember, the group excluded (it is reasonable to say permanently excluded, for it is clear from the covenant that even if they were invited later, they could only enter as subject States) comprises more than half the people of Europe.

Geographically the bulk of the excluded nations happens to be bunched together. Economically they are interdependent, and politically they are united by sharing in the great democratic movement that is growing with such immense vitality.

In all probability the majority of the Balkan States and Jugoslavia, hemmed in between the major extra-league nations, and united to them as they are by blood, will join the counteralliance. Whether China will cleave to the Allies, who sold her out in the secret treaty of February 16, 1917, regarding the Shantung Peninsula, and then politely invited her into the war as an ally-whether China, with 400,000,000 people and immeasurable resources, will remain in the victor-nation league as a subject nation or flop into the conquered-nation league as an equal, is a very big question indeed.

And Japan, disgruntled by the Allies' reluctance to deliver the Shantung Peninsula to her, as per secret treaty promises, will remain an unknown quantity that may at any moment throw its by no means negligible strength either way.

POSSIBILITY OF A COUNTERALLIANCE.

And Italy. As late as August, 1914, Europe was dominated by two great leagues, each striving to become a balance of power; the triple Entente consisting of England, France, and Russia, and the triple alliance consisting of Germany, Austria, and Italy. These leagues constituted the arcana of profound secret diplomacy; and were relied upon to keep the peace of the world. Russia's withdrawal from the triple Entente was precipitated by the Allies' refusal of Kerensky's demand for a repudiation of the secret treaties. Italy may fall away from her present partners of the Entente and go back to her former ones of the alliance, because the Allies will not observe the secret treaties. We are by no means certain that within a decade Italy, a republic, may not be aligned with the surrounding republics of Germany, Austria, Jugoslavia, and Russia.

Even back in 1814, the diplomats of Europe seem to have been wiser or less embittered than they are now. At the congress of Vienna, France was more or less in the position of Germany to-day. Napoleon had been defeated after well-nigh subjugating the civilized world; and yet, France was admitted to the league, largely through the

courageous foresight of Castlereagh, who did not hesitate to demand, not only the admission of France, but the admission of " a strong France."

On the same principle perhaps that led Wilson to invite Bryan into the Cabinet, Castlereagh wanted no angry giants poking holes in his league from the outside.

That Wilson, when he first went to Europe, was deeply impressed with the necessity of a league framed on the model of the congress of Vienna, is shown by his speech at Manchester on December 30, 1918:

If the future had nothing for us but a new attempt to keep the world at a right poise by a balance of power the United States would take no interest, because she will join no combination of power which is not a combination of all of us. She is not interested merely in the peace of Europe, but in the peace of

the world.

But, although such a definitely inclusive league was not a part of his original 14 points, Mr. Wilson has abandoned it nevertheless, whether from expediency or habit. And it remains for the people of the United States to recall Mr. Wilson to his position, and to insist that they enter a true league of nations instead of a medieval balance of power disguised under a league's label.

The people of the United States know absolutely nothing of the league of nations. Ninety per cent of them have not read the covenant, and never will. If they did read it but once, with a pretty careful analysis, they would understand some of its amazing implications. But they will not; and they are captivated by the phrase "league of nations." And in my opinion, unless Lenin should issue a statement calling attention to the fact that the extra-league nations will be obliged at once to organize a counterleague should the present plan go through they will accept it hurriedly and half asleep and regret it awake and at leisure.

URGES ALL TO STUDY DRAFT.

It is in the hope that some few people will be stimulated to making a first-hand study of the covenant that I have written this article. For if Americans do permit themselves to be rushed off their feet into indorsement of the present league without full understanding of its obligations, and without forcing a reconsideration (there is, in fact, no hurry about the league as, in spite of what we are told, it can, better than not, be passed on separate from the peace treaty) they will have committed perhaps the most humiliating and costly folly of history.

For by doing so they will at once have made inevitable the swift realization of the Russo-German-Austrian league, already in embryo which, weak though it be to-day, may to-morrow appear distinctly strong, stronger perhaps, better integrated certainly, as rich in population and natural wealth available for war, and undobutedly more closely united politically than the league of nations which we are now invited to enter.

When I see the thoughtlessness with which the American people propose to take this step, whose obligations they do not even dimly see; when I remember that the covenant we are about to sign contains no regenerative or hopeful impulse, but only the purposes of men

shaken by suffering, fear, and hatred, purposes which can not further democracy or peace, I feel as if this country were walking blindfold along a narrow path with abysses on either side-with the fatuous serenity of sleepwalkers.

The following are notes on some articles of the covenant-space only permits dealing briefly with a few of the more important points; The preamble. The preamble of the proposed covenant states that one of the principal objects of the league is the "maintenance of justice and a scrupulous respect for all treaty obligations." The words "all treaty obligations" presumably apply to secret as well as open treaties. Consequently, if the present covenant were adopted, all treaties now in existence, whether secret or open, would be inferentially guaranteed as binding.

As we already know of treaties, as for instance, the so-called secret treaties negotiated during the war, which are undemocratic, imperialistic, and war-breeding, we can not contemplate without alarm a covenant which, in its opening lines, proposes to give force to such treaties. Besides, everyone who is familiar with the history of the three and a half decades of European diplomacy preceding the wardecades in which the dealings of foreign offices are characterized by as conservative critic as Sir Gilbert Murray as "the relations of so many bands of outlaws"-is aware that there are probably other secret treaties, as yet undisclosed, which would also be approved by the proposed league's preamble.

Suppose we should now sign the proposed covenant. In the first place, we would be inclosed in a network of unknown international obligations. In the second, we would find one nation after another, not only insisting on rights confirmed to them under known treaties, of whose meaning the general public is quite as ignorant as the Senate of the United States, but unearthing other "rights" under other agreements that are to-day kept under cover, for the reason that they are of such an aggressive and perilous character that the governments which made them have not dared to let the world guess their contents. The fact that article 18 says "no such treaty or international engagement shall be binding until so registered" (i. e. with the secretariat) does not alter the case, for the word "such" refers only to treaties entered into "henceforth.”

Proposed correction. (a) The preamble should omit language seeming to guarantee secret treaties or any treaties not publicly ratified; (b) article 18 should be amended so as to read: "No existing or future treaty or international engagement shall be binding unless registered with the secretariat; (c) the foreign offices of nations members of the league should be democratized, so that any citizen of such nations should have access to their archives.

Article 1 provides that any nation may become a member of the league provided it gives "effective guarantees of its sincere intention to observe its international obligations."

What are effective guarantees and what are international obligations? Heretofore, effective guarantees have, in diplomatic parlance, meant almost anything from territorial annexations down. As to "international obligations," do they mean the network of secret treaties that already cover the disputed areas of Africa and Asia? Or do they mean debts owed to nations who are members of the council?

AMERICA AT A DISADVANTAGE.

Proposed correction. (a) There should be an inclusive and exclusive definition of effective guarantees and international obligations; (b) it should be provided that all questions as to international obligations and effective guarantees should be decided by an open international court, whose members should be chosen by the assembly (which has representatives from all the nations that are league members.)

Articles 2, 3, 4, and 5. Under these articles, the league is governed by an executive council consisting of representatives of the big five, who select four more members. The council can not be further increased, except by unanimous vote of the council. The big five will effectively control the league and the United States will be a single western power associated with and outvoted by eastern nations. We would be in a vulnerable position, holding a lone hand against players having common interests and a rapport developed by centuries of intensive diplomatic dealings.

* * *

Proposed correction. (a) The league should be organized democratically; (b) the delegates to the assembly (including all league members) should elect the council; (c) the decisions of the council should be subject to overrule by a two-thirds vote of the assembly. Articles 8 and 9. There is no definite disarmament policy in the covenant. "The council shall formulate plans" for reduction, says article 8. But after these plans are adopted, no increase of armament can be made except with " concurrence of the council." This gives the council an immense power-the power of letting one party to a dispute increase armament, while it prevents the other from doing so.

Proposed correction. (a) Questions of armament should be decided by the assembly; (b) it should be stated that armaments should not be used for collection of international debts or indorsement of commercial and financial treaties. The enforcement of debts and commercial and financial treaties should be accomplished by economic reprisals alone after an award of a court of arbitration.

Article 10. "The members of the league undertake to respect and preserve, as against external aggression, the territorial integrity and existing political independence of all members of the league."

ARTICLE 10-GREATEST DANGER.

This, from an American point of view, is one of the most, if not the most, objectionable of the articles of the proposed constitution. To-day we do not know, and we perhaps will not for years know, what the "territorial integrity" which we are bound to defend consists in. The peace conference has not brought to light all the secret treaties nor explained all the ones it has disclosed.

As I write, it is likely that the diplomats who represent the republic, the two monarchies and the Mikado by divine right, with whom we are associated, are about to produce a peace treaty which we already know will be so selfishly and short-sightedly drawn as to shock coming generations with its sheer impracticability and folly. To defend the new territorial integrities established by this peace treaty will be America's duty if we enter the league.

The war and the brutality of the German Government have stirred up passions so violent and brought to the fore men of such an exuberant contempt for democratic principles, that the new international boundary lines will not only be unjust, but quite impossible of maintenance without recourse to wars. As was written years ago of the Vienna congress of 1814:

Self-interest is the key to this welter of bargains and agreements. Not that these titled brokers neglected to attempt to convince Europe of the nobility of their endeavors. Great phrases, such as "reconstruction of the social order," "the regeneration of the political situation of Europe,” a “durable peace based upon a just division of power," were used by the diplomats of Vienna in order to reassure the peoples of Europe, and to lend an air of dignity and elevation to this august assembly, but the peoples were not deceived. They saw the unedifying scramble of the conquerors for the spoils of victory.

* *

For years the monarchs of Europe had denounced Napoleon for respecting neither the rights of princes nor those of peoples. They now paid him the flattery of hearty imitation.

The words quoted from article 10, against external aggression," will not protect us from obligation to interfere in revolutions. For it will be claimed, as it is now as to Ireland, Egypt, India, Korea, and Hungary, that the revolutionary movement in question is stimulated from without and therefore external in essence.

Are we to guarantee the territorial integrity of Italy if, in defiance. of the principles of nationality and self-determination, she gets Dalmatia, which, according to the census of 1910, has 480,000 Slavs as against 60,000 Italians? Are we to guarantee the territorial integrity of Japan if, in defiance of self-determination, she is given outright, as per secret treaty of 1917, the German islands north of the Equator, while England takes those south? Are we to guarantee the secret division of Arabia between France and England and that of European Turkey between Italy, France, and England, both as per secret treaties?

Proposed correction. (a) That article 10 be omitted in whole until we know what we have to guarantee; (b) that, in the meantime, an article expressly protecting the right of revolution be inserted in its place.

Article 11. In this article disputes between nations not members of the league are declared within the league's jurisdiction. Under article 11, coupled with article 16, the council may take sides in wars between nations nonmembers of the league, and apply, as per article 16, a policy of complete blockade, i. e., national starvation, to whichever country the league desires to destroy or cripple.

Proposed correction. Omit the words "whether immediately affecting any of the members of the league or not," and substitute the words "immediately affecting the members of the league.”

Articles 12, 13, 14, and 15. There is no provision for compulsory arbitration, for article 15 provides that, if a dispute arises which is not subjected to arbitration, it will be submitted to the council.

MR. TAFT CHALLENGED.

Article 15 provides that a nation may not go to war if all the members of the council "other than the representatives of one or more of the parties to the dispute " vote against it.