tion from the standpoint of the Marxian Communists, who now go under the name of Bolshevists.

The paper on the Tobacco Trust decisions resulted from the trial and finally the argument in the Supreme Court of certain questions under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the Federal Constitution concerning unlawful searches and the right of an individual to be free from being compelled to incriminate himself. The rule laid down by the Supreme Court in the Hale and McAlister cases as a result of this litigation, enabled the government to obtain evidence upon which most of the prosecutions under the Anti-Trust Law were ultimately commenced and carried to completion.

I have not thought that any publication that I might make would be complete without some adequate reference to the activities of the bar of this country in contributing to the enforcement of the Selective Service Law during the war. Credit has been accorded to the lawyers of the country in formal communications from government officials. But I do not believe that the members of the legal profession of the entire country have received their due meed of praise for the extent and value of the service they performed in the creation of our army of four millions of men, without unnecessary impairment of the industrial efficiency of the country, or undue disturbance of social and family life. That task was of infinite difficulty. No other nation of the world was ever confronted with such a complicated undertaking. The credit due to General Crowder and the office of the Provost Marshal General for the genius which was displayed in conceiving the plan of the Selective Service Law has never been sufficiently accentuated. The manner in which the law was executed was no less remarkable. And it is equally certain that unless the services of the entire American

bar had been placed at the disposition of the Government in advising registrants concerning their rights and obligations, and in aiding them in the preparation of the complicated questionnaires, through which the system was put into effect, confusion would have ruled from the outset. Both the President and the Provost Marshal General early perceived that an opportunity was afforded to the legal profession as a class to render a highly patriotic service, and they immediately appealed to them to put themselves at the disposition of the governmental officers. This was done promptly and effectively; and it is no more than due to the profession at large that publicity should be again given to the fact.

The chapter on the League of Nations, as well as the contributions to "The Covenanter" printed as a part of this volume, were the result of an early study of the Covenant of the League before the discussion became affected by the extraordinary bitterness with which both advocates and opponents of the League ultimately attempted to buttress their contentions. Vigor of assertion came to assume more importance to some speakers than the soundness of their reasons. Arguments of the most tenuous character were put forth with ill-timed vigor and gross exaggeration. Debaters did not consider whether their objections would ever have any practical importance. The controversy had many points of similarity to the discussion which raged in the state conventions which considered our Federal Constitution in 1788 and 1789.

Objections to our Constitution, asserted by its diehard opponents to be of the most vital importance, were based upon forebodings as to perils then thought to be certain to ensue; but most of them have never since had any importance except to illustrate how the

bitterness of controversy may stimulate the play of the imagination. In the debate concerning the League of Nations, most fantastic arguments and meticulous criticisms have assumed for the moment substantial importance, and responsible statesmen have not hesitated to indulge in the most extravagant flights of fancy, such, for instance, as that the League of Nations will result in the domination of the world by the colored races, or by the Pope! It is indeed unfortunate that the adoption of a measure of such vast importance to the entire world, should have been imperilled by a degeneration into a bitter argument upon what is largely a matter of form; and the fault in this respect has not been by any means on one side alone. I cannot, of course, attempt here to discuss the merits of the controversy, but I am tempted to advert to a single point. I have always thought that the discussion concerning Article X had assumed an importance far beyond what it deserved. In view of the other articles of the Covenant, that Article is largely a provision for an emergency, and a remote one. It is hardly conceivable, or to put it less strongly, only in a very rare case would it happen, that there would be an external aggression by one country upon the territorial integrity or political independence of another, without some antecedent inciting cause. Now, if such cause existed as a matter in dispute, it must be presumed that under the machinery provided for in Articles XII, XIII, XV and XVI, it would have been submitted to arbitration or mediation, hostilities being withheld in the meantime, and that for a failure to comply with the provisions of those articles the economic boycott provided for in Article XVI would have gone into effect. Only, therefore, in the case of a nation failing to observe the covenants contained in the

Articles referred to, and thus giving to all the other member nations under the provisions of Article XVI a cause of war, can it be supposed that the provision of Article X would come into operation. That Article is necessary for such an exigent situation, but that such a situation will ever arise is extremely improbable. And yet, about the provisions of that Article more than of any other has the controversy raged.

I have included in this collection an appreciation of John L. Cadwalader,—a figure of distinction in the cultural life of New York City. He possessed a unique personality. He was a gentleman of the old school, and yet in his keen perception of recent developments, social, political and professional, he was a modern of moderns. If there be American aristocrats he was one by birth and association, but he had an ill-concealed contempt for those who claimed social or other distinction except for worth.

In epistolary literature Mr. Cadwalader might have rivaled Horace Walpole, with less vitriol; in public life he would have been a great diplomatist, looking at world affairs through an international medium to which wide travel and his experience early in life as Assistant Secretary of State accustomed him. He loved art in its various forms and satisfied his craving by surrounding himself with beautiful things which by his will he gave to the public. But little that he wrote was preserved and he hated the histrionic display of politics; he was content to forego the fame which his talents and his character would have assured him.

In conversation Mr. Cadwalader had a pungent wit and a delicate vein of satire, directed frequently at manners in modern society offending against good taste or sound morals. He was eminent in his profession. In subtlety in giving point to legal docu

ments he exceeded any lawyer of my acquaintance. He was a distinguished figure in the city of his residence, and I am glad to give permanent form to an address which was delivered upon the occasion of the presentation to Mr. Cadwalader's native city of Trenton of a building for the public library for which he had made provision before his death.

H. W. T.