trying to prevent by creating them. I do not know any mathematical demonstration that is clearer than that. The danger is that these nations do not know their rights. They have the frailties of human nature, and it is an unaccustomed business for them. They are ambitious. Each one is dealing, without experience, with liberty and independence and self-development. Our liberty is liberty regulated by law. And when you say liberty regulated by law, you mean liberty regulated and limited by the rights of others so that all may enjoy the same liberty and equal rights. Just so nations must have independence limited and regulated by law -by international law; and we have got to devise and maintain the machinery that shall make it possible.

This treaty is going to be as long as the moral law. There never was a treaty so complicated as this will be. No matter what the character of the contract, even though drawn by the ablest lawyer who ever drew a contract, if it has many provisions, if it is complicated, it will need interpretation in application. But how interpret a contract authoritatively? That is a justiciable matter. That is what we have courts for; and it is impossible for this treaty to be executed unless you have a court, appointed by the same power that made the treaty, to interpret the treaty. It will be especially needed when the new events arise that are certain to arise in the lives of these new nations. If you know any way by which those questions can be satisfactorily decided other than by a court with authority to decide them, I shall be glad to hear of it. And there you have the first plank in the platform of the League to Enforce Peace.

Next, there will be questions of policy which do not come under the head of justiciable questions. You have got to have somebody representing the League to negotiate and ad

just compromises of that kind. This League that is meeting in Paris is a ponderous body. Premiers and Presidents cannot be there all the time. They have got to leave an agency there and that agency must represent the League in the matter of settling differences which arise between the nations they are creating and the nations out of which they are created. And so you have the second provision as to a commission of conciliation. These new nations are going to manifest all the faults and the weaknesses of children. It is inevitable. And the thing that makes children better and leads them on is discipline. You do not always have to use the broad hand, but it is helpful to have it in the family. Therefore we need a combined force, which can be counted on when needed, to convince these creations of this treaty, these governments, and these people, that there is a power having the means of enforcing the judgments and the compromises that will be reached under the court or the commission. This is the third or force plank of the League platform.

Then the Congress of Powers is bound to enlarge and, in a way, codify and make more definite the principles of international law, and this is the fourth plank of the platform of the League to Enforce Peace.

Now, having that League before us as a necessity, the question arises, shall we go on to the larger League? Shall we invite in the other nations of the world to form a league that shall assume the responsibility of this treaty and also endeavor to make war less probable in the world at large? Shall we introduce a league which shall work not only to keep peace in that sphere but also to keep peace between the very Powers that make this league, and between all the other Powers of the world? The question whether that

shall be done now or later is a question that can be determined on the ground. Even if it is not determined now, the step that is taken by creating this smaller league to achieve its purpose of maintaining peace, where peace is more doubtful and where the problems are so much more difficult than in a normal world at peace, will be a long step towards the possibility of a general League of Nations. Heretofore this has been an academic question. People have been interested in its discussion, but the war seemed remote and peace seemed remote. Now the question is live; it is before us; since the President will bring back with him this treaty with a provision for a league of nations in it.

If the President does come home with a treaty like this, then it behooves us all to unite in support of it; if there be difficulties in it, to suggest how the difficulties may be overcome; but to appreciate the purposes of that League, to appreciate the fact that the world is longing for it and the oppressed and suffering peoples of the Allies are longing for the machinery that shall prevent a recurrence of the dread disaster through which they have passed. We should look at it from a progressive standpoint, should realize that something has happened since the war began, that the assumption that everything which has occurred in the past is going to recur, that there is no hope of change, is the doctrine of pessimism and fatalism. This war has been fundamental in its character. It has shaken the foundations of society. And people who look forward, who look for better things, are not discouraged because something like that which is now proposed has been tried before and failed. They refuse to assume that it will therefore fail again. Progress is not made without some risk. We never enter into new experi

ments without realizing that there may be a failure. But is that a reason why we should not go forward? Eloquence is all right, platforms are all right, declarations of ideals are all right, provided they are accompanied by willingness to make sacrifices and run risks to accomplish the ideals. But they must not be treated as things of substance, their mere declaration an end in itself, imposing no obligations on those who have uttered them to go on and do the things they extol.

I have heard it said that this League of Nations takes away sovereignty. Now, if we say to a nation we are going to keep you within the bounds of international law by this organization, do we limit its independence any more than we limit our own independence under a system of laws that are enacted for the benefit of society and for our own benefit? Every time we make a treaty by which we bind ourselves to do anything we limit our sovereignty. Sovereignty is only a matter of definition and degree. The question is: how far are we willing to go in yielding that entire freedom of action and that license to wage war for aggressive and selfish purposes. We need not be frightened by a definition. We agree to arbitrate; we agree to abide the result of an arbitration. That limits our sovereignty, does it not? Well, is that so heinous? We have agreed not to put warships on our great lakes. That is a limitation of our sovereignty, is it not? If we were a jingo nation which insisted on doing everything it wanted to do, right or wrong, we ought to be able to put men of war on that water boundary; but we have agreed not to. Are we ashamed of that limitation on our sovereignty? Are we not on the contrary, proud of it? We know that England and the United States will never get into a war. Everybody knows that; we have got the habit of arbitrating. It took us fifty years to get it

and then we had each to lose a case. England lost the Alabama Claim and we lost that Fisheries Case. They said we had stolen five millions worth of fish and apparently they proved it. They got a judgment and we paid it just as they paid the judgment against them. Well, that limited our sovereignty. Was it so disgraceful? We learned to play the game. You can't go into an arbitration and play it on the theory of heads I win, tails you lose; that unless you do win you won't play. You have got to be good losers. When we go on and say that we are going to have this great court lay down the law and that we are going to enforce the judgment, of course that interferes with our freedom of action to the extent that we cannot escape execution of the judgment - exactly as a man's freedom is limited when he agrees to pay a thousand dollars and does not pay it and his creditor comes into court and gets a judgment under which an execution is levied on his property.

Now I am ready to answer any questions concerning the League that may occur to the audience.

A VOICE: I would like to have you state, if you will, what membership you would begin with, and what limitations, if any, you would impose upon it.

MR. TAFT: That is a very apt question. I think it is wise to begin with the Great Powers. When you organize a club and you want clubable members you make your selections with care. There are a lot of nations that are irresponsible. If you call them all into a convention at once, they will insist on having equal voice with the most responsible and powerful nations, and I am not in favor of that. I am in favor of a practical arrangement; and this peace creates the opportunity for it. These five nations are an initiating nucleus that is most valuable in creating a