involved will be exerted to avoid war-influences that are powerful for peace.

When the dispute is referred to the Assembly the same rules apply, except that a recommendation is effective if supported by the representatives of all the states with seats upon the Council and a majority of the rest. Only one other provision of this Article remains to be considered. To obviate the fears of many Americans that such matters as immigration and tariffs might, as subjects of dispute, be brought before the Council and the authority of the nation over them be impaired, a clause was inserted, that if either party claims, and the Council finds, that the matter in dispute is one "which by international law is solely within the jurisdiction of that party, the Council shall so report and make no recommendation as to its settlement." This clause inserted for that express purpose would seem to cover the point completely. Nevertheless it is objected that the Council may differ in opinion from the United States and thus our legislative rights may be restricted. To such an objection there are two answers. In the

first place, the desire of other countries to preserve their internal independence is as strong as our own. It is inconceivable that the other states represented on the Council should unanimously decide that the tariff, or any other internal matter that we claim to regulate for ourselves, is not a domestic affair and it is only unanimously that an effective judgment against us could be given. In regard to the most sensitive point of all, that of immigration, if England were to vote that it was not under domestic control, it might break up the League, but, in view of the feeling in Canada, South Africa and Australia, it would certainly disrupt the British Empire. The second answer is that one cannot make a contract and insist that the interpretation of it shall always be in one's own hands. The clause is perfectly definite, its object is perfectly understood; and if we can trust none of the other principal members of the League to act honestly, fairly and reasonably let us make no league with them, and leave the world in the state of mutual suspicion, distrust and suppressed hostility that is a discredit to civilization and a curse to mankind.

(Letter No. 17)

ARTICLE XVI

The world war has brought home the need of having behind international obligations a sanction that shall make them a binding force, instead of engagements which a faithless nation can break with impunity. Without Articles X and XVI the League would be no more than an agreement on the part of the members that they would do right, with no compulsion for those that broke their word. These Articles make it a real association to maintain and enforce peace.

The two Articles must be read together. To a large extent they cover the same ground, and provide for the same contingency, Article XVI declaring in part how the obligations of Article X are to be carried out; and yet they do not wholly coincide. Cases may arise which bring one of them into effect, but do not touch the other. If, for example, an

arbitral award, let us say on a question of ill treatment of citizens, is made in favour of one nation with which the other fails to comply, the first may, to compel compliance, attack the second without incurring the penalties of Article XVI, because in so doing it is not resorting to war in disregard of its covenants. But the first nation would not be at liberty to destroy the independence or annex the territory of the second. That would entail the obligation of Article X. On the other hand, a war begun without submission to arbitration or inquiry would be a violation of Article XVI, but not of Article X if it did not involve the integrity or independence of the country attacked. This was true of our war in 1812; and on the same principle President Roosevelt took the ground that hostilities by European nations to collect claims against Venezuela did not violate the Monroe Doctrine if no annexation of territory or destruction of independence was contemplated.

Article XVI declares that if any member of the League should resort to war in disregard of its covenants "it shall ipso facto be deemed to have committed an act of war against all

other members of the League, which hereby undertake immediately to subject it" to a boycott and blockade, and to do certain other things. Now it must be observed that this sanction is automatic on the part of the members of the League. In case of a resort to war contrary to the Covenant, they undertake jointly and severally to subject the offending nation to the prescribed penalty immediately-not if and when directed by the Council. That body has no power to order or to release the obligation which is assumed as a mutual guarantee. If France, for example, should be attacked by Germany she would have a right to call upon us, and all the other members of the League, to sever all trade and intercourse with Germany, and we should be bound by the Covenant to do whatsoever the Council might think. The obligation is absolute, and the Council has nothing to do with the matter, except to recommend what, if any, military and naval forces the members of the League shall severally contribute.

The members of the League agree that an attack made in disregard of the Covenant