was waged on the declared issue of misgovernment of the indigenous population by the vanquished state. A civilized state which in a war with another civilized state fought on issues of any other kind shall have seized and occupied the colonies or dependencies of its opponent inhabited by backward peoples should not be permitted to receive benefits from its military seizure and occupation of these backward regions by turning them over to the League and receiving them back as its mandatary. To permit a conqueror state to be eligible for a mandate in such a case must necessarily tend toward the perpetuation of the old rule, so prolific of war, that backward regions are pawns in the game. At the Berlin African Conference of 1885, the United States earnestly urged the establishment by the conference of a rule of ineligibility such as is here suggested as respects Middle Africa.

Second, that a state which has an extensive domestic territory or an extensive external domain should be ineligible for a mandate. To permit a member-state of the League which has a domestic territory far exceeding in extent the average territory of the member-states, or which already holds and governs as its colonies, protectorates, or dependencies so large a part of the world as to give it a monopoly in fact of the economic life of the world and a virtual world dominion, to be eligible to accept a mandate of the League for the tutelage of additional regions would tend to increase the opportunities of such a state for world-monopoly and world-dominion and would also tend to enable the state to control the League for its own benefit. The "mandatary system" is capable of being used so as to have a very considerable effect in bringing about an equalization between the memberstates of the League and should undoubtedly be used,

so far as practicable, to effect this very desirable result.

Third, that a member-state of any kind of a federal unity existing within the League should be ineligible for a mandate. To permit a state which is a member of a federal state, or of a federal empire, or federal commonwealth, to be eligible for a mandate of the League would either place such a state in opposition to the federal state, empire, or commonwealth of which it is a member, or if the composite state assented, would enable the composite state indirectly to obtain the mandate for itself.

It should also be provided in the Covenant, as an additional and general safeguard to the whole "mandatary system," that the selection of mandataries of the League should be made only in times of peace, through a judicial proceeding, in which the qualifications of every state will be weighed on its merits; in which the tribunal charged with making the selection will be prohibited from considering any claim based on conquest, military occupation, or other right of war; and in which there will be taken into consideration and brought into harmony all the various interests involved -those of the backward peoples, those of the League, those of the states eligible for mandates and willing to act, and, above all, the general interests of civilization and humanity. The League, in the exercise of its "trusteeship" in behalf of "civilization" for backward peoples, stands in the world in a position analogous to that which the chancellor or the probate judge holds in the state when he is sitting to determine the matter of appointment of a curator for a person not of sound mind, or of a guardian for an infant, in order that, for the benefit of the backward person himself, of his relatives, of the state, and of the civilized world generally,

a tutorial and corrective influence may be exercised, so as to restore the unsound mind to a normal state of soundness or to develop the immature mind to a sound maturity. Such proceedings are in all systems of law regarded as of the highest importance to the sound life of the community and are surrounded by all conceivable safeguards. The principles of the private law concerning curatorship and guardianship form a proper source from which to derive the principles and practices of the "mandatory system" by analogy, so that it shall fit into the general plan of the League and enable the League to effectuate its object.

However novel the "mandatary system" may appear to those unfamiliar with international law and colonial science, it contains no novelty for publicists. Its adoption was an inevitable next step in a long course of evolution beginning with the action of the Congress of Vienna in 1814. At that Congress it was resolved that all the eight members of the Congress, whether possessing colonies in Africa or not, were entitled to participate in the consideration of measures for cooperative action in abolishing the African slave trade, because, as they held, the subject of the relations of civilized states with backward peoples was one affecting public morals and humanity, which was to be determined by all the powers collectively. From this action, the necessary conclusion, which was soon made, was, that the backward peoples of the world are, by the law of nations, under a curatorship or guardianship of all civilized states, collectively and individually. This latter principle was applied, or at least was purported to be applied, at various times during the century preceding the Great War, in the dealings of the Concert of Europe with Turkey, Greece, Egypt, the Balkan States and Morocco; in the dealings of the Concert of Europe

and the United States with Japan and China; and especially in the dealings of the Concert of Europe, the United States and the Oriental Powers with Middle Africa at the Berlin African Conference in 1885 and the Brussels African Conference in 1890. The League of Nations, as the trustee in behalf of civilization, in favor of backward peoples, is the natural successor of these various "concerts" of civilized states which from time to time-with little success, it must be admittedhave attempted to represent "civilization" and bring about a cooperative relationship between the civilized and the backward peoples. Condominion of backward peoples by two or more states was proved to be impossible in the case of Egypt and the Samoan Islands; and, for a quarter of a century preceding the Great War, it had been recognized that the best method of tutelage of backward peoples was for all the civilized states collectively to assent to some one civilized state placing itself in care of each backward people, and for them all collectively, acting by way of "concert" to hold that state responsible as their mandatary to perform the trusteeship of civilization for the tutelage of the backward peoples. From acting by way of "concert" to acting as now proposed, by way of "league" was but a short step, and one which was sooner or later certain to be taken.

The question of the desirability of a state accepting a mandate of the League under the Covenant in its present form, has been much discussed. This is really a question whether the general safeguards of the League which are now provided by the Covenant, are adequate to prevent perversion; and whether, even if they are so on paper, the League is likely to be perverted in fact, and the Covenant made an instrument of world monopoly and world domination by one state or by a

group of states. Under the Covenant in its present form the whole power of the League is concentrated in the Council and Assembly-virtually in the Council. These organs of the League have power not only to advise concerning international cooperation in peaceful activities, but also to advise and superintend the coercion of a member-state by the other states so as to compel it to desist from alleged anti-cooperative action and make reparation therefor. The peace powers and the war powers of the League are thus in the same hands. A state which, on account of its geographical position or for other reasons is in danger of having this war-power of the League turned against it on grounds deemed adequate by these organs of the League acting at their discretion, might well decline to accept a mandate of the League or any other international responsibility likely to weaken its defensive power. It would seem that the Council and Assembly of the League should be confined to advising the memberstates concerning peaceful cooperative action, and that when it appears to be necessary to coerce a state for anti-cooperative action, this question should be determined by an extraordinary judicial assembly of the other states summoned in a predetermined manner, and that this same extraordinary assembly should, in case it decides adversely to the state charged with anti-cooperative action, advise and control the necessary joint constabulary and corrective measures taken by the states thus allied against the state adjudged to be an international wrongdoer. Assuming that the Covenant will, at the time it goes into effect, be adequate to institute a League which will in other regards accomplish the declared object of promoting international cooperation and achieving international peace and security, it would seem that the "mandatary system" would