at hand or politically most concerned. The chance that we should often, if ever, be called upon to send troops or warships to Europe or Asia to repel local aggressions would be remote, since in practice they would have to be dealt with summarily by the nations more directly affected, precisely as, under the reservation of the Monroe Doctrine in Article XXI, we would be expected to deal with aggressions upon countries of the Western Hemisphere.

In considering whether we are unduly hampered by Article X "the real question," in the words of Sir Frederick Pollock, an eminent authority on the subject, "is whether the security for the common peace to be gained by the establishment of a common power is worth its price." When we became implicated in the European situation, we committed ourselves to the proposition that the price paid by our becoming a party to the guaranty of Article X was not out of proportion to the security we expected to enjoy in the future. It was in the interest of the people of this country that the United States should become a decisive factor in the world's affairs. We

cannot, with national honour, now escape a responsibility corresponding to our contribution to the winning of the war. That is imposed upon us by the dictates of international morality, and no nation can be said unduly to surrender its sovereignty by discharging such an obligation.

(Letter No. 5)

SOVEREIGNTY (Continued)

The chief purpose of the League is to preserve international peace. It is sought to accomplish this through the reduction of armament (Art. VIII), the suspension of war during the process of the settlement of disputes by arbitration or through mediation (Arts. XII, XIII and XV), and an economic boycott for a violation of the covenant (Art. XVI). In view of America's past efforts to avoid war by procuring the settlement of disputes by arbitration, even though they involve vital interests or national honour, it seems unnecessary to argue that such a comprehensive scheme for preserving the peace of the world as that worked out in the covenant does not involve an undue surrender of sovereignty. Furthermore, all of the obligations assumed for the beneficent purpose of the League have their counter

part in covenants contained in earlier treaties:

In 1817, by the Rush-Bagot treaty, this country and Great Britain agreed to limit their naval armament upon the lakes forming the boundary between this country and Canada.

By the Webster-Ashburton treaty, Great Britain and this country agreed in 1842 that they would maintain a naval force on the coast of Africa for the suppression of the slave trade.

By the Clayton-Bulwer treaty of 1850, between Great Britain and the United States, the two countries guaranteed the neutrality of any ship canal that might be built between the Atlantic and Pacific, and agreed among other things, that neither nation would ever "obtain or maintain for itself any exclusive control over the said ship canal," or "erect or maintain any fortification commanding the same or in the vicinity thereof, or occupy, or fortify, or colonize, or assume or exercise any dominion over Nicaragua, Costa Rica, the Mosquito coast, or any part of Central America," or "take advantage of any in

timacy, or use any alliance, connection, or influence that either may possess, with any State or Government through whose territory the said canal may pass, for the purpose of acquiring or holding, directly or indirectly, for the citizens or subjects of the one any rights or advantages in regard to commerce or navigation through the said canal which shall not be offered on the same terms to the citizens or subjects of the other." The treaty also provided that vessels of the two high contracting parties should be exempt in case of war between them, from blockade, detention or capture.

* * *

the

In 1846, by Article 35 of a treaty with Colombia, the United States guaranteed "positively and efficaciously perfect neutrality" of the Isthmus of Panama. In 1901, the Panama Canal treaty was made with Panama, by which it was provided that the canal could never be blockaded, and that no act of hostility could be committed within it. In 1903, this country by treaty guaranteed and agreed to maintain the independence of the Republic of Panama.

By a treaty with Honduras in 1864, the