there have been instances in which Chinese have been executed without trial and that torture has often been applied to obtain evidence.51 Rev. G. G. Warren, an experienced missionary in that country, tells of several instances in the Province of Hunan in which torture has been used as in the former days.52 And Rodney Gilbert, in an article on Russians under Chinese Jurisdiction, has set forth a number of instances of cases arising since the withdrawal of recognition from the Russian Government in which the enlightened criminal procedure above described has not been adhered to.53

It must be admitted that some of the evidence on this point comes from persons who are interested in the maintenance of extraterritoriality in China, and their statements must be taken with due allowance for partisanship. Nevertheless there is sufficient testimony of this sort to raise a serious question as to whether the Chinese administration of justice is, or will be in the near future, of such a quality to warrant the relinquishment of extraterritorial rights. The burden of proof is upon China. When that country is able to show affirmatively that the new system of laws has been established and is working satisfactorily and normally, then the United States should be willing and anxious to abide by her treaty promise and, in conjunction with the other powers concerned, relinquish our exceptional jurisdiction.

51In the issue of Jan. 5, 1920, quoted in the article, "Has Extraterritoriality Outlived Its Usefulness,” American Bar Association Journal, Vol. VI, p. 224.

526The Foreigners' Safeguard in China," North-China Herald, April 2, 1921, p. 45. 53 North-China Herald, April 16, 1921, and April 23, 1921. See also North-China Herald, Vol. 115, pp. 131, 449, 826; Vol. 118, p. 426; Vol. 122, p. 678.

EDITORIAL COMMENT

THE SECOND ASSEMBLY OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS

Convened on September 5, and adjourned on October 5, the Second Assembly of the League of Nations was in session exactly one calendar month. Thirty-nine nations were represented when the session opened; three were added during the first few days; and three others, Esthonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, were admitted during the session. Thus, forty-five representatives of the fifty-one members of the League, were present. Argentina, Honduras, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Peru, and Salvador were not represented.

Dr. Wellington Koo, as Acting President of the Council, delivered the opening address, summarizing the achievements of the League since the last session, and was warmly applauded by the Assembly, the two hundred journalists, and the invited spectators in the galleries. At the afternoon session Jonkheer van Karnebeek, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands, was elected President, and made an address in which he emphasized the substitution of law for armed force in international affairs.

On the following day, six committees were appointed, dealing with (1) Constitutional and Legal Questions; (2) Transit, Health, and Economic Matters; (3) Reduction of Armaments and Blockade; (4) Finances and Internal Organization of the League; (5) Humanitarian and Social Questions; (6) Political Questions. Thus organized, the Assembly was able at the end of the second day to take up the work of its agenda.

The first few days of the session were devoted to the discussion of the Report of the Council in a general debate, in which seventeen different nations were represented. The discussion developed very wide differences of opinion, but was characterized by much frankness of expression and in general by a spirit of toleration. The broad interval between the Council, ruled by the will and interests of the Great Powers, and the Assembly, composed largely of small States, was made evident in the course of the debate, which developed evidence of the sensitiveness of the Council to the criticisms of Members of the Assembly. This was conspicuously manifested in the rebuke administered by the First British Delegate, Mr. Balfour, to the sentiments expressed by Mr. Branting, the First Delegate of Sweden, who expressed the conviction that the Council had not risen to the height of its opportunity. It was evident throughout the meeting that the reservation to itself by the Council of exclusive authority to make certain deci

sions is not agreeable to the representatives of the smaller States, the influence of which, even in its aggregate, where it would be reasonable that it should count, does not have its due effect. As time goes on, there promises to be an urgent endeavor to determine whether four Great Powers, one of them Asiatic and three European, shall be able with the assent of one of the temporary Members of the Council to lay down the law to the Assembly, composed of over fifty States, yet unable to share in important decisions affecting their interests.

The one great triumph of the meeting of 1921 was the success of the plan for the election of a Permanent Court of International Justice. It had been feared that, since the Council and the Assembly were to vote separately in the election of candidates, already nominated by the Hague Tribunal, it might require many days to complete the election. To the gratification of all the result was accomplished without long delay and without friction between the two electoral bodies, although their ballots differed somewhat persistently. The Committee of Mediation provided for in the Court Statute was necessary to break a deadlock, but its good offices were adequate, and fifteen eminent men were chosen to constitute the Court. Among the nine judges who obtained an absolute majority in both bodies was our fellow-countryman, the Honorable John Bassett Moore.

Regret was expressed by representatives of other countries that the American members of the Hague Tribunal had not participated in the nomination of candidates, and that the United States was not represented in the electoral bodies. It was understood that this abstention not only reaffirmed the decision of the United States not to become a Member of the League but that it went far toward emphasizing the fact that the Court, although representing so many States, is not, and is not likely to be, recognized as an international tribunal in the full sense, since representation in it is, by the Statute of the Court, primarily confined to members of the League, with permission to outsiders to appeal to the Court only on conditions to be laid down by the Council. It is, therefore, open to the observation that it is not a universal court but the private court of the League.

The failure to accept the full jurisdiction of the Court, without the consent of both parties, even in justiciable cases, does not advance judicial resort beyond individual option, and thus, although a tribunal is created, it is accessible only as between those nations who mutually agree in each case to submit to its judgments. Happily, eighteen States have now accepted complete jurisdiction in all justiciable cases.

Turning now to some of the more vital matters discussed by the Assembly, but without attempting an exhaustive treatment of the conclusions reached, one of the most important was the reduction of armaments. The fact that the cost of military establishments in Europe is now, notwithstanding the conventional disarmament of Germany, more than three

times what it was before the Great War, rendered the problem a pressing one. The idea of budgetary control, together with the prohibition of the manufacture and traffic in arms, was the subject of an elaborate report and of discussion. The conclusion reached was that, "valuable and important as the proposals are which have been discussed, it is nevertheless true that they do not touch the kernel of the question. If they were all carried out, only preliminary steps would have been taken toward the limitation of armaments."

It is provided in Article 8 of the Covenant that the Council shall "formulate schemes" for the reduction of armaments, and it was brought to the attention of the Assembly that no such scheme had been formulated. It was natural, therefore, that the Council should be urged to perform this duty, and this is in substance the recommendation made.

The recommendation presents, and appears to have been felt to offer, only a faint hope of results. The truth is, that the reasons for armament are conditions over which the Council has little control, unless it decides to resort to force, which it is disinclined to do. The dictation of the Council on the subject of armament would be resented, and the exhortations it might make to diminish it would have greater influence if they were reinforced by example, which thus far has not been made impressive. It lies with the States which are armed against one another themselves, by their mutual conciliation of their interests and assurances of peaceful purposes, to remove the causes of armament. Unfortunately, the difficulty of this procedure is increased by the fact that the boundaries of many of the States and the economic consequences of these divisions were imposed by the Supreme Council of the Allies at Paris, and were not adjusted by mutual agreement between the States themselves. Not until this latter method is resorted to and the community of interest between them is made the basis of understanding by their own acts, will the reduction of land armament have any prospect of achievement.

The conclusion reached in the Assembly was that "there seems to be no reason why the Council, in performance of the duty imposed upon them by the Covenant, should not lay down the general lines of a policy for the limitation of armaments.” The important matter, however, is not the general lines of policy but the actual acceptance of definite apportionments by the different armed powers, now so numerous and independent. They would be likely to accept the policy "in principle," and then debate regarding their apportionment before the Council, stating their reasons why they could not accept it. Such a procedure would, of course, lead to nothing. They would insist, and not without reason, upon being the final judges of what armed defense they need.

The truth of this statement seems to have been finally grasped by the Committee of the League, which says in its Report, referring to the United States: "The naval strength of this Power makes any scheme of naval

disarmament impossible without her support, and it is for this reason, among others, that the Committee warmly welcomes the forthcoming Conference at Washington, and trusts that it may be fruitful in securing a large measure of reduction of armaments."

Generalizing this statement, it is evident that no strong country will permit its armament to be reduced by dictation. It will reduce its armament only by its own consent. If, therefore, the European nations will themselves propose to one another a reduction in their own armaments, following the example of Washington, in a manner to reduce the existing means for national defense proportionately, there is no reason why immense reductions could not be immediately made; and, if accompanied by reciprocal economic arrangements between them, the remedy for the impoverishment of Europe would be found to be in its own hands.

Such a procedure would imply a change in the method of the League of Nations. It would involve the substitution of cooperation and mutual agreement for coercion and the enforcement of obligations.

Such a change of method was foreshadowed in nearly every report and in the general trend of discussion throughout the whole session of the Assembly. This was particularly noticeable in the matter of proposed amendments to the Covenant.

A preliminary question regarding amendments produced a hesitation to proceed in a radical manner, since some members of the Assembly believed that unanimity was required, while others objected that this would make amendment almost impossible. As the Covenant itself makes no provision as to the method of submitting amendments to the nations for their ratification, and a division of opinion was evident and might lead to extensive controversy, it was unanimously decided that provision should be made for future amendment by a three-fourths majority of the Assembly and that no amendment should be made at the time without the assent of three-fourths of the members.

No amendments of vital importance were, in fact, definitively adopted, but several were rejected. The Canadian proposal to eliminate Article 10 from the Covenant was postponed till the next meeting. The Argentine proposal that "all sovereign States recognized by the Community of Nations be admitted to join the League of Nations in such a manner that if they do not become Members of the League this can only be the result of a decision on their part," was considered at length; but, in the absence of the Argentine Delegation, a decision was deferred. The Colombian proposal that unanimity be not required for Assembly decisions regarding articles of the Covenant was withdrawn.

The Czecho-Slovak amendment regarding the approval of special agreements between a limited number of members of the League was not adopted, it being apprehended that some agreements of this kind might