zest or enthusiasm. It will daily be a matter of pleasure with me to be brought into consultation with the statesmen of France and her allies in concerting the measures by which we may secure permanence for these happy relations of friendship and co-operation, and secure for the world at large such safety and freedom in its life as can be secured only by the constant association and co-operation of friends.

"I greet you not only with deep personal respect, but as the representative of the great people of France, and beg to bring you the greetings of another great people to whom the fortunes of France are of profound and lasting interest.

"I raise my glass to the health of the President of the French Republic and to Mme. Poincaré and the prosperity of France."

INTERALLIED CONFERENCES POSTPONED.-Plans for the reassembling of the Interallied Conference and the meetings of the Peace Congress are gradually being matured. It was the first intention to have the Interallied Conference meet to-morrow or Tuesday, but owing to the inability of Premier Lloyd George and Foreign Minister Balfour to be here because of the British elections and the approaching holidays, the formal session will not be resumed until after Jan. 1.

Meanwhile President Wilson will have an opportunity to confer with the Premiers and leading statesmen of the Allies and to visit the battlefields and perhaps Italy. King Victor Emmanuel, the Crown Prince and Premier Orlando arrived in Paris Thursday. They will dine with the President some time this week.

The merits of the questions and considerations to come before the conference thus far have developed only in their initial phases, discussions of them having been more or less informal. For the American delegates the chief object to be obtained during the next fortnight is a first-hand understanding of the views of the European statesmen and an opportunity to convey to them the American point of view.-N. Y. Times, 16/12.

FREEDOM OF THE SEAS

In press and public discussion during the period preceding the opening of the formal peace conference, the President's statement regarding freedom of the seas took precedence over other issues, as the clause most difficult of interpretation and most likely to involve differences of opinion among the allied powers. It will be recalled that clause 2 of the President's "Fourteen Points" of January 8, 1918, read as follows:

2. Absolute freedom of navigation upon the seas, outside territorial waters, alike in peace and in war, except as the seas may be closed in whole or in part by international action for the enforcement of international covenants.

The allied governments, in agreeing to the German request for an armistice, accepted the President's terms of peace, but made an exception of this clause, pointing out that the phrase freedom of the seas was open to various interpretations, some of which they could not accept." They therefore reserve to themselves complete freedom on this subject when they enter the peace conference." In later discussion it was generally agreed that in time of peace freedom of the seas" had already existed throughout the past century. It was further accepted that, should some form of a league of nations come into being, the power of blockade and interdiction of commerce would be employed by it as a most effective measure against nations violating the agreements of the league. If, however, such a league were not formed, doubt was expressed whether the maritime states would be wise to give up the safeguards of commerce warfare, which in the past had been the chief weapon of sea power. Following are quotations from various sources.

CHURCHILL SAYS BRITAIN WON'T LIMIT NAVY.-In a speech at Dundee on Dec. 5, Winston Churchill declared that British delegates at the peace conference would demand abolition of conscription throughout Europe, but that Great Britain would consent to no limitation of her naval defence. These views were afterward expanded as follows in an article in the Glasgow Sunday Post:

"Our safety from invasion, our daily bread, every means whereby we maintain our existence as an independent people; our unity as an empire or federation of commonwealths and dependencies-all these float from hour to hour upon our naval defence," Mr. Churchill writes.

"If that defence is neglected, weakened, or fettered," he continues, "we all shall be in continual danger of subjugation or starvation. We should be forced to live in continued anxiety. If that naval defence were overpowered or outmatched by any other navy, or probably by a combination of navies, we should hold, not merely our possessions, but our lives and liberties, only on sufferance.

"Where else in the whole world can such conditions be paralleled? We have the right to demand from all other nations, friends and foes alike, full recognition of those facts. We are also entitled to point out that this naval strength that we require and which we are determined to preserve has never been used in modern history in a selfish and aggressive manner, and that it has on four separate occasions in four separate centuriesagainst Philip II of Spain, Louis XIV, Napoleon, and the Kaisersuccessfully defended civilization from military tyranny, and particularly preserved the independence of the Low Countries.

In this greatest of all wars the British Navy shielded mighty America from all menace of serious danger, and when she resolved to act it was the British Navy that transported and escorted the greater proportion of her armies to the rescue and deliverance of France. Our record in a hundred years of unquestioned naval sway since Trafalgar proves the sobriety of our policy and the righteousness of our intentions. Almost the only ports in the world open freely to the commerce of all nations were those of our islands. Its possessions and our coaling stations were used freely and fully by the ships of all nations.

"We suppressed the slave trade. We put down piracy. We put it down again the other day. Even our coastwise traffic, so jealously guarded by every power in the world, was thrown open to all comers on even terms by that ancient people in whose keeping the world has been wisely ready to intrust the freedom of the seas.

We are sincere advocates of a League of Nations. Every influence Britain can bring to bear will be used to make such a league a powerful reality. This fine conception of President Wilson has been warmly welcomed by British democracies all over the world. We shall strive to faithfully and loyally carry it into being and keep it in active benefit and existence. But we must state quite frankly that a League of Nations cannot be for us a substitute for the British Navy in any period that we can foresee."

BRITISH PRESS ON FREEDOM OF SEAS.-The London Times reports Mr. Macpherson, the Under-Secretary for War, as saying:

"We are an island. Our one security is our navy. We can never submit to anything that can weaken this one security."

Archibald Hurd, the naval critic of the London Daily Telegraph, thinks that freedom of the seas is another way of saying "abolish the right of blockade," and he argues that

'In war, as recent events have shown, effective freedom of the seas, as of the world, demands maintenance of ancient sea rights which have repeatedly proved to be the salvation of civilization. Philip II of Spain,

Napoleon, and the Kaiser were defeated, and the American Union was saved thereby in the Civil War. Abolition of the blockade and of contraband would reduce the value of sea-power 75 per cent, because it would enable great continental armies to be sustained almost indefinitely. The sea controls the land, and so-called freedom of the seas means military autocracy by land."

Another prominent naval expert, Mr. A, H. Pollen, of the London Pall Mall Gazette, agrees, and remarks:

Germany was defeated largely because, at last, she was effectively besieged by sea. Had neutrals been free to supply her, the war might have continued another year. Had all supplies, especially from America, been stopped from the first, it would have been over long ago. Noncombatant trading with Germany has cost Europe and America millions of lives and fifty billion dollars. If this is freedom of the seas, it has been a costly luxury."

The Manchester Guardian is the only English paper that professes to know the President's mind on this subject, and it tells us:

By freedom of the seas he did not mean that naval fortresses such as Gibraltar or fleets should be interfered with, but that in peace or war there should be freedom of neutral navigation except when action was taken by the League of Nations. Submarine action, it was argued, had changed the whole question of blockade, and the two island kingdoms had more to gain by this freedom of the seas than countries with land borders." In the course of an exhaustive article the London Spectator makes this flat statement:

"When the time arrives for presenting to Germany the final terms of peace for her acceptance or rejection, it will be of the utmost importance that all the associated powers should speak with one voice. To this end it is essential that each power should frankly state its own point of view wherever that, either in substance or in fact, differs from views expressed by other members of the great partnership. In the affairs of nations, as of individuals, frankness combined with courtesy is an essential element of good fellowship. For this reason it is most desirable that the newspaper press and the public men of Great Britain should make clear without delay that in no circumstances can an island power, which is also the center of a sea-linked empire, consent to what is called 'the freedom of the seas' if that term carries the meaning which has usually been attached to it in this country."

The reason for this definite rejection is then given:

"Let us see, then, what would be the consequences of the 'freedom of the seas,' that we have always repudiated. President Wilson demands 'absolute freedom of navigation upon the seas outside territorial waters alike in peace and in war.' Now, in peace there already is absolute freedom of navigation. Therefore what President Wilson must mean is in war as well as in peace.' That is the real issue. The President of the United States apparently proposes that when two nations are at war they shall only fight on land, or within their own territorial waters. No reason is advanced for this limitation of the area of warfare. War at sea is in no respect more cruel than war on land: in some respects it is less cruel. "The idea underlying this proposal is that the seas outside territorial waters are the common possession of the whole world, and what is common to all should not be used as a battle-field by some. That is certainly an attractive idea, but will it bear examination? The sea is not merely a vacant space: it is also a highway. The effect of President Wilson's proposal, strictly interpreted, would be that a belligerent could use the sea as a safe highway for his troops up to the threemile line, which is the boundary of territorial waters. The Germans, for example, would be at liberty to organize a gigantic fleet of transports loaded with men and munitions, and these transports might move up

and down the coasts of England and Scotland seeking a safe landingplace, and as long as they kept outside the three-mile limit they would be immune from attack."

Most of the comment in the Paris papers emphasizes the fact that President Wilson has not yet defined what he means by freedom of the seas, but most of the French journals agree with the Matin when it says: "If this doctrine means any diminution of the power of the British Navy, France will reject it."

Both the Temps and the Journal des Débats point out how anxious Germany would be to disarm the western nations, especially England, on the sea, if she could only do so.-Literary Digest, 14/12.

BRITISH NAVAL POLICY JUSTIFIED. The supremacy of her fleet is the "Monroe Doctrine" of the British Empire; indeed the maintenance of this supremacy is even more vital to her security than is the maintenance of the Monroe Doctrine to the security of the United States. A violation of the Monroe Doctrine would not necessarily imperil our existence as a nation; whereas it is well understood that a defeat of the British fleet would sound the death-knell of the whole British Empire.

Unlike the United States, which is entirely self-supporting and geographically a unit, the British Empire consists of an island, no larger than some of our smaller states, which is the seat of the Imperial Government and the heat of the system, with numerous outlying colonies and dominions scattered throughout the world. If the mother country be considered as the heart of the system, the trade routes of the world are its arteries.

Only so long as these arteries are unobstructed can the empire function. If Great Britain were 1lockaded and the trade routes of the world were controlled by an enemy, the mother country would be starved into submission in a few months' time, and the whole empire would fall like a house of cards. Hence she has laid it down that her fleet must always be of sufficient strength to preserve intact the great trade routes of the high seas. To insure this, she has made it her policy to maintain a navy equal in strength to that of any other two navies combined.

This policy is purely protective and has been accepted as such by every naval power except the one which recently aimed at the domination of the world. And in pursuance of her policy of preserving the freedom of the seas, she has followed a liberal course. Her ports have been open to the ships of all the world upon equal terms with those of her own merchant marine. She has charted the seven seas; and these charts, representing an outlay of millions of dollars, have been at the service of the whole mercantile world. Her markets have been open, without any restrictions, to the goods of her competitors in trade, including those of her greatest rival, Germany. She charges the same harbor dues and the pilot dues are the same.

In guarding the trade routes to her far-flung empire, she has, incidentally, preserved the freedom of the seas for the whole maritime world. Her record is clean and consistent; for tree trade and free seas have been the indispensable corollary, the one of the other.-Scientific American, 14/12.

MR. ROOSEVELT ON ANGLO-AMERICAN PEACE. In a letter, dated Dec. 5, to Col. George Haven Putnam, Mr. Roosevelt said in part:

I regard the British Navy as probably the most potent instrumentality for peace in the world. I do not believe we should try to build a navy in rivalry to it, but I do believe we should have the second navy in the world. Moreover, I am now prepared to say what five years ago I would not have said. I think the time has come when the United States and the British Empire can agree to a universal arbitration treaty. In other words, I believe that the time has come when we should say that under no circumstances shall there ever be a resort to war between the United States and

the British Empire, and that no question can ever arise between them that cannot be settled in judicial fashion, in some such manner as questions between states of our own Union would be settled.

It is wicked not to try to live up to high ideals and to better the condition of the world. It is folly, and maybe worse than folly, not to recognize the actual facts of existence while striving thus to realize our ideals. There are many countries not yet at a level of advancement which permits real reciprocity of relations with them, and many other countries so completely unlike our own that at present no such agreement would be possible with them. But the slow march forward of the generations has brought the English speaking peoples to a point where such an agreement is entirely feasible; and it is eminently desirable among ourselves.

A LEAGUE OF NATIONS

MR. BALFOUR DECLARES LEAGUE ESSENTIAL.-In an interview to press representatives on Dec. 6, Foreign Secretary Balfour expressed himself as follows in favor of an international league:

The Foreign Secretary said he believed the question of a League of Nations was the most important work imposed on the conference.

"The prominence Mr. Wilson has given the subject is a valuable contribution to civilization," he declared. "I think a league of nations a vital necessity if this war is to produce all the good we expect to come out of it. The United States would have to bear a large share in the work it involves. It should be something more than a mere instrument to prevent war. The world is more complicated than we are inclined to think. It would be folly to imagine it possible to constitute a world with states endowed with equal powers and rights.

"But I wish to say emphatically that in my opinion to devise in concert workable machinery for them is one of the highest functions the conference can deal with."

Referring to President Wilson's phrase, "make the world safe for democracy," Mr. Balfour said:

"I do not think the world can be made safe for democracy merely by multiplying the number of democratic states.

"I believe a league of nations will be required to superintend and control not only the criminal ambitions of great autocracies, but to prevent any rash and inconsiderable countries from going to war. It is impossible to talk about democracy except for countries which have reached a relatively advanced stage of civilization. A league could be trustee for those less developed. Holding this view, I regard a league of nations the greatest work of the conference."-N. Y. Times, 7/12.

SIR ROBERT CECIL ADVOCATES LEAGUE.-Addressing a body of American editors on Dec. 2, Lord Robert Cecil said:

We talk lightly of a league of nations, some of us, and I am not sure that all those who talk about it have really considered what it means. We have to reconcile two principles, both entitled to our warmest support— national sovereignty and international cooperation. Believe me, only those who have tried in detail to reconcile those principles know the difficulties that there are. But that we ought to try, that we ought to set up some system of that kind, that we ought to establish it as a guarantee for our descendants against the evils we have been through, no one who is neither a lunatic nor an imbecile can doubt. We have to do something, and let us approach the task in the right spirit. Let us cast aside as far as we can selfish aims, selfish ambitions, and selfish aspirations, and approach this task in that spirit and with those desires, and I doubt not we may bring it to a successful conclusion.-N. Y. Nation, 14/12.