' 
 
 16H 7 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 OF 
 
 HON. PHILANDER CHASE KNOX 
 
 IN THE 
 
 UNITED STATES SENATE 
 
 MARCH 1, 1919 
 
 CONSTITUTION OF LEAGUE 
 OF NATIONS 
 
 WASHINGTON 
 
 GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 
 1919 
 
 107883—10347 
 
SPEECH 
 
 OF 
 
 HON. PHILANDER CHASE KNOX. 
 
 CONSTITUTION OF LEAGUE OF NATIONS. 
 
 Mr. KNOX. Mr. President, the Official Bulletin—printed 
 daily under the order of the President of the United 
 States—has published, under date of Friday, February 14, 
 1919, and under the title “ Text of covenant on league of 
 nations,” the report of the peace conference commission 
 on the league of nations. The document was read to the 
 plenary session by the President, chairman of this particu¬ 
 lar commission, who accompanied his reading with com¬ 
 ments. This document and the league plan which it out¬ 
 lines, in so far as they can be understood, may include so 
 much that is strange to our traditional foreign policy, con¬ 
 trary to our fundamental principles of international inter¬ 
 course and conduct, destructive of treaty rights, indis¬ 
 pensable to the safety of ourselves and other nations of this 
 hemisphere, and so much that would require—before and 
 in order that it could become operative—such basic changes 
 in our Constitution to enable us to make the necessary 
 surrender of high sovereign rights on which our great lib¬ 
 erties rest, that not only the Senate, which in due time 
 may be called upon to advise and consent to the ratifica¬ 
 tion of the plan, but the entire Congress and the whole 
 people of the United States must give thereto the fullest 
 
 and most mature, careful, and calm consideration. The 
 
 ( 2 ) 
 
 107883—19347 
 
3 
 
 submission of this plan for adopton will constitute for our 
 people far and away the greatest and most important mat¬ 
 ter placed before them since the Nation was founded. We 
 are now invited to assist in forming and become a part of 
 the united States of the world. 
 
 As I have alreadv stated, the document which we have 
 before us is, in its present form, merely the report of 
 a commission; it has been laid on the conference table 
 at plenary session, from which, as Mr. Clemenceau has 
 assured the members, it may be removed for debate, 
 amendment, and adoption or rejection. In view of these 
 facts, we might well forego its discussion until the con¬ 
 ference in plenary session has adopted it, except that the 
 report itself has acquired for this Nation a peculiar sig¬ 
 nificance by reason of the fact that the President presided 
 over the body which drafted it; that he participated in 
 the proceedings incident to the drafting; that as president 
 of the commission he read the report submitting it to the 
 plenary session of the conference; that he indorsed the 
 document and therebv committed himself as National 
 
 t/ 
 
 Executive to it; and that he has officially assured, in his 
 cable to the members of the Foreign Eolations Committees 
 of the two Houses of Congress, that there are good reasons 
 even for the verbiage of the document, crude as that is. 
 
 By way of clearing the ground and that no doubt may 
 exist as to my own personal attitude on war and the pacific 
 settlement of international disputes, I crave indulgence at 
 this point for a few words of explanation in order that 
 such negative conclusions as I may reach shall not be 
 charged to unfriendliness or bias. I may, in the first 
 place, observe that I am, and always have been, against 
 war and all its attendant woe, misery, horrors, and crime. 
 In common with all Christians, I can not and would not 
 
 107883—10347 ‘f 
 
i 
 
 do otherwise than condemn it in terms as extravagant as 
 language can frame. 
 
 Feeling thus, I shall at any and all times do my utmost 
 to bring into the world a reign of law, of order, and of 
 universal peace. No man dreams loftier or feels more 
 intensely than I on these matters. I realize, moreover, 
 that with nations as with individuals sacrifice brings 
 growth, moral and spiritual, and, further, that when all 
 is said and done the moral and the spiritual things are 
 all that are worth while in life, national and individual. 
 I am willing, therefore, personally to sacrifice, and to see 
 my country sacrifice, the utmost possible to the establish¬ 
 ment of peace and righteousness in the world. But my 
 country’s sacrifice counts for so much in the world that, 
 since mere sacrifice itself availeth little, I wish to make 
 sure before placing our national offering on the altar 
 that, when the fire is kindled and the offering is burned, 
 we shall have measurably and proportionately advanced 
 the cause of human liberty and happiness. It is in this 
 spirit that I approach the discussion of the present 
 project. 
 
 After the most mature deliberation it is possible for me 
 to give, I am convinced that you may place the case as 
 high as you will, yet you can not in the present state of 
 society spell out an attainable end which would justify 
 the destruction of our great country and Government— 
 the greatest democracy of all recorded time. Our liberties, 
 our free institutions, our civilization, traditions, and ideals 
 are all worth all we have ever given to get them and all 
 we could possibly give, even to the point of extermination, 
 to preserve them. Conjure in your mind, if you can, a 
 world without the Declaration of Independence, without 
 our Constitution and free institutions, without our proc- 
 
 .107883—19347 
 
lamations of emancipation of races and of nations, without 
 this Nation itself, which all these things have builded and 
 made mighty, and then tell me, I challenge you, what is in 
 that now put before us which would fill in terms of bless¬ 
 ing—not to ourselves but to the world—the gap caused by 
 their blotting out. The world has nothing more precious 
 for man to-day and for the myriad generations yet unborn 
 than our own great Government, institutions, and people—• 
 a people which, without the obligation of treaty or alliance, 
 without thought of gain, and with only the thought of pro¬ 
 tecting eternal right, put on the full accouterment of war 
 
 - 9 i- 
 
 and went to battle that the inalienable human rights of 
 life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness might still have 
 a dwelling place among men, “ that government of the 
 people, by the people, and for the people might not perish 
 from the earth.” 
 
 Holding our Government and its institutions in this 
 fervent reverence, and profoundly averse to war for its 
 own sake, I must for myself demand that any plan pro¬ 
 posed shall, to secure my support, meet these simple and 
 reasonable tests: 
 
 Do its provisions abolish war and make it hereafter im¬ 
 possible ? For I would be willing we should go far and risk 
 much to accomplish this. Do its provisions strike down 
 our Constitution or destroy our sovereignty or threaten 
 our national independence and life ? For if the plan pro¬ 
 posed does these things, then it must receive the condemna¬ 
 tion of every loyal citizen. And I tell you here in all sober¬ 
 ness that these matters must be approached by all of us in 
 a spirit of candid fairness, without cavil, bias, or partisan¬ 
 ship, for our fate and the fate of the world, if this matter 
 go certainly forward, waits upon our decision. And one 
 word further, let me say, if we are to go forward with 
 this plan it must be whole-heartedly and with absolute 
 
6 
 
 good faith. Neither we nor those who represent us in the 
 league bodies must trifle with our sacred plighted word. 
 For weal or for woe we must stand by our covenant. We 
 must never leave in our history the taint of the “ scrap of 
 paper. 9 ’ 
 
 Having thus made my explanation, I proceed to the plan 
 itself, which I shall discuss without heat or color and with 
 such judicial calm and fairness as I am able to bring to 
 my command. 
 
 Any definite and precise examination or criticism of the 
 covenant is made immeasurably difficult because of the 
 looseness of expression which characterizes the document 
 throughout; and, while I shall not take your time to dis¬ 
 cover mere matters of verbiage, there are two such matters 
 to which I invite your attention, because they relate to 
 matters more or less basic. The first is the language of 
 article 1, which provides that u the action of the high con¬ 
 tracting parties * * * shall be effected through the 
 
 instrumentality of meeting of a body of delegates.” This, 
 as a matter either of language or of logic, is sheer non¬ 
 sense, and yet this article purports to lay down one of the 
 fundamental precepts of the plan. One is tempted to 
 believe on casual reading that this is mere infelicity of 
 expression and that, after all, the meaning may be plain ; 
 but further study raises a serious doubt, because it is not 
 at all clear whether the document sets up one or two op¬ 
 erating entities for its enforcement, as the following ex¬ 
 tracts will show: 
 
 Article 1 prescribed that 4 4 the action of the high con¬ 
 tracting parties under the terms of this covenant shall be 
 effected through the instrumentality of meeting of a body 
 of delegates representing the high contracting parties,” 
 and not of the league. 
 
 107883—19347 
 
Article 11 declares that any war or threat of war is a 
 
 i/ 
 
 matter of concern to the league, and that “ the high con¬ 
 tracting parties reserve the right to take any action that 
 may be deemed wise and effectual to safeguard the peace 
 of nations.” Assuming the language is carefully chosen, 
 it is obvious that it is quite impossible for the league it¬ 
 self, which is the creature of the high contracting parties, 
 to reserve a right against the parties creating it, and yet 
 it is quite intelligible and accurate to say that the high 
 contracting parties who create the league reserve a right 
 as against the league itself. 
 
 Again, in the last paragraph of article 19 the high con¬ 
 tracting parties “ agree to establish” a mandatory com¬ 
 mission, which shall, inter alia, “ assist the league in in¬ 
 suring the observance of the terms of all mandates.” 
 
 Article 15 provides that in case a dispute “ between 
 States, members of the league,” has not been submitted 
 to arbitration under article 13, and possibly 12, then “ the 
 high contracting parties agree that they will refer the 
 matter to the executive council,” but “either party to 
 the dispute may give notice of the existence of the dispute 
 to the secretary general ” of the league. 
 
 Under article 18 “the high contracting parties agree 
 that the league shall be intrusted with general supervision 
 of the trade in arms and ammunitions,” and so forth. 
 It would be absurd here to substitute “ league ” for “ high 
 contracting parties,” so that the sentence would read, 
 “The league agrees that the league shall be intrusted,” 
 and so forth. 
 
 Again, in article 21, “ The high contracting parties 
 agree that provision shall be made through the instrumen¬ 
 tality of the league to secure and maintain freedom of 
 transit and equitable treatment for the commerce of all 
 
 107883—19347 
 
8 
 
 States members of the league.” Obviously here the high 
 contracting parties and the league can scarcely refer to 
 the same operating entity. 
 
 How important this matter of a possible double inter¬ 
 national entity is becomes at once apparent when it is 
 observed that the provisions of the supercovenant of 
 article 10 reads, “ The high contracting parties undertake 
 to respect and preserve as against external aggression the 
 territorial integrity and existing political independence 
 of all States members of the league . 9 9 
 
 I shall later comment upon other covenants of the high 
 contracting parties, when it will become increasingly ap¬ 
 parent how indispensable it becomes to have this point 
 cleared up, because if the high contracting parties do not 
 comprise every State that is a member of the league, then 
 the burden assumed by the high contracting parties, who¬ 
 ever they may be, possibly the “ big five,” is crushing in 
 its weight. 
 
 One other point closely akin to the" two foregoing should 
 be considered here. The text, as printed in the Official 
 Bulletin, is entitled 4 4 Covenant on the league of nations. ’ ’ 
 Now, the term 44 league of nations ” as applied to the 
 organization contemplated by this covenant is, if judged 
 by popular conception, a deceptive misnomer. The popu¬ 
 lar thought is that a league of nations means a league of 
 all the nations of the world. Such, however, is not the 
 league provided for in the document now before us, save 
 in remote contemplation, for under this proposed plan the 
 nations of the world are divided into three classes: 
 
 First, 44 Signatories” of the covenant; these are not 
 named, but it is assumed they will include and pos¬ 
 sibly be confined to the five great entente powers; that is 
 to say, the British Empire, France, Italy, Japan, and the 
 United States. 
 
 107883—19347 
 
9 
 
 Second. “ States not signatory to the covenant but 
 named in the protocol attached to the covenant ”; no in¬ 
 formation is given as to who these States are, though 
 surely they will include such entente powers, if any, as 
 are not signatories as well as certain other States neutral 
 in the conflict now closing; and 
 
 Third. Those States which are neither signatories nor 
 
 % 
 
 protocol States and which must, to he admitted to the 
 
 league, he prepared to give certain effective guaranties as 
 
 to their intention to be hound bv their international ohli- 
 
 •/ 
 
 gations. These latter are outcast States and presumably 
 include the central powers and their allies in the war. 
 
 Thus a league of nations in the sense of all the nations 
 is not created by this document, nor are the States mem¬ 
 bers of the league treated as equals, as is apparent, and 
 will be more fully shown when it is considered that the 
 governing body of the proposed league, namely, the execu¬ 
 tive council, is made up of representatives of only nine 
 States. 
 
 But the term league is a misnomer in another and really 
 vital matter. For a league connotes a confederation, and 
 a confederation implies a right in the several parties to 
 withdraw at their will. But there is no right of secession 
 within the four corners of this covenant. On the other 
 hand, the association here provided for is a union in the 
 full sense of that term as applied to our own political 
 institutions. Once in this union and we remain there no 
 matter how onerous its gigantic burdens may become. No 
 matter how great the distaste and revulsion our people 
 may have for it, we must remain members until either we 
 persuade all the States represented in the executive coun¬ 
 cil and three-fourths of those represented in the body of 
 delegates to bid us depart in peace or until the league 
 
 10T8S3—19347-2 
 
10 
 
 crumbles of its own weight or is destroyed by its enemies 
 or until we fight our way out against the British Empire, 
 France, Italy, Japan, and all the lesser States they are 
 able to persuade to join the league. 
 
 It is well that all discussions of this project should be 
 had with the foregoing preliminary matters in mind. 
 
 In proceeding with my analysis it will be convenient to 
 examine first the machinery set up by this document for 
 carrying out its covenants, noting the powers and duties 
 of the respective parts, and then to consider the broad 
 matters of substance. The document before us establishes 
 six operative league bodies as follows: 
 
 Body of delegates. 
 
 Executive council. 
 
 Military naval commission. 
 
 Mandatory commission. 
 
 Bureau of labor. 
 
 Permanent secretariat. 
 
 1. BODY OF DELEGATES. 
 
 The body of delegates is to be made up of representatives 
 of the “ high contracting parties,” each party to have not 
 more than three delegates but to have only one vote. 
 
 The specific jurisdiction given to the body of delegates 
 in the instrument bestows roughly three broad powers— 
 first, to entertain reports made by any of the “ high con¬ 
 tracting parties ” of “ circumstances affecting interna¬ 
 tional intercourse which threaten to disturb international 
 peace or the good understanding between nations upon 
 which peace depends”; second, to take jurisdiction of a 
 dispute not settled by arbitration which is referred to it 
 by either party thereto or by the executive council providing 
 this reference is made within 14 days after the dispute is 
 
 j 
 
 107883—19341 
 
11 
 
 submitted to the executive council, in respect of which ref¬ 
 erence the body of delegates has the same actions and powers 
 concerning the dispute as would the executive council if it 
 continued to entertain jurisdiction; and third, to advise 
 the reconsideration by members of the league of those 
 treaties which have become ina23plicable and of interna¬ 
 tional conditions the continuance of which may endanger 
 the j^eace of the world. The body of delegates is also ulti¬ 
 mately to choose the four other States not named in the 
 document, who shall be represented on the executive coun¬ 
 cil, and is also to vote on the admission to the league of cer¬ 
 tain outcast States to be noted later. 
 
 But the document contains no provisions whatever 
 regarding the appointment, removal, compensation, or 
 tenure of these representatives who are to exercise these 
 powers. Neither is there any provision covering the or¬ 
 ganization of the body or how it shall vote or function, 
 nor what number of States or delegates constitute a 
 quorum for doing business, whether distinctions shall be 
 made as to the number necessary to transact different 
 kinds of business, beyond the 23rovision of article 4, which 
 puts matters of procedure and the appointment of com¬ 
 mittees into the hands of a “ majority of the States re2)- 
 resented at the meeting.” 
 
 2. EXECUTIVE COUNCIL. 
 
 The executive council is to be made iqi of represent¬ 
 atives of the British Empire, France, Italy, Japan, and 
 the United States, and of four other States to be selected 
 “ by the body of delegates on such principles and in such 
 manner as they think fit,” that is nine States in all. 
 
 The jurisdiction of this superbody, thus made up of 
 re 2 )resentatives of nine out of the half hundred States, 
 
 107883—10347 
 
12 
 
 more or less, which compose the world, is stated to be 
 4 4 any matter within the sphere of action of the league 
 or affecting the peace of the world.” But in addition to 
 this general grant of jurisdiction certain specific powers 
 are bestowed, the more important of which may be stated 
 in general terms as follows: 
 
 Making plans for the disarmament of the world, de¬ 
 termining what is fair and reasonable military equipment 
 and armament for each nation, and deciding regarding 
 any increase in armament of any power; formulating plans 
 to cure the evils of private manufacture of munitions of 
 war; devising means for fulfilling the obligations to pre¬ 
 serve—if necessary by armed force—the territorial in¬ 
 tegrity and existing political independence of ail States 
 members of the league against external aggression; sitting 
 in judgment on and making recommendations regarding 
 any dispute whatsoever arising between the high contract¬ 
 ing parties; proposing steps for the enforcement of 
 arbitral awards; formulating plans for establishing a 
 permanent court of international justice; proposing meas¬ 
 ures necessary to give effect to their own recommenda¬ 
 tions; recommending what effective military or naval 
 forces each member of the league shall contribute to pro¬ 
 tect the covenants of the league, seemingly, not only against 
 league but nonleague members, that is, as a practical mat¬ 
 ter, the power to declare war; determining the conditions 
 upon which nonmembers may assume the obligations of the 
 league for the iDurpose of any particular dispute and ex¬ 
 amining and making recommendations concerning any 
 dispute which may arise between members of the league 
 and nonmembers or among nonmembers themselves; 
 taking such action and making such recommendations as 
 will prevent hostilities between two nonmember disputing 
 
 107883—19347 
 
13 
 
 States who have declined to accept the obligations of 
 membership in the league for the purpose of dispute; 
 and defining in a special act or charter “ the degree of 
 authority, control, or administration to be exercised by 
 the mandatory State over the colony or territory placed 
 under its protection.’’ 
 
 Obviously, as already suggested, this is the real govern¬ 
 ing body of the league, yet such essential matters as what 
 shall be the number of representatives from each State, 
 who shall fix the number, shall the States be represented 
 by an equal number of representatives, what shall be the 
 manner of organization and voting, are not stated in 
 the document. Neither does the document provide for the 
 appointment, removal, compensation, or tenure of these 
 representatives, though the document provides that pro¬ 
 cedure at the meetings of the council, including the ap¬ 
 pointment of committees to investigate particular mat¬ 
 ters, is to be regulated by the council “ and may be de¬ 
 cided by a majority of the States represented at the meet¬ 
 ing.” Who shall call the meetings, except the first, how 
 many States or representatives shall constitute a quorum, 
 what, if any, matters would require more than a majority 
 vote, and all other vital matters connected with the de¬ 
 liberations of this world-ruling body are entirely unpro¬ 
 vided for. And yet, this is the body which is hereafter to 
 determine whether we, the people of the United States, 
 shall go to war, and what our participation therein shall be. 
 
 Nor are these all the defects of the instrument in respect 
 of the operations of the executive council. There are ab¬ 
 solutely no principles, rules, or regulations laid down in 
 covenant by which this world-governing body is to be 
 guided. It makes its own principles, rules, and regula¬ 
 tions; it hales before it every power, whether league mem- 
 107883—19347 
 
14 
 
 beror not,whom it believes has violated any such principle, 
 rule, or regulation; it sits as a court to determine whether 
 any violation has actually occurred; it passes judgment 
 upon a violation when found; and it determines the means 
 which shall be used in enforcing its judgments or recom¬ 
 mendations, the league being bound to furnish the means 
 so determined upon. 
 
 I am not unmindful of the fact that by the “ covenant- 
 preamble ” international cooperation’ and international 
 peace and security are to be promoted, inter alia, “ by the 
 firm establishment of the understandings of international 
 law as the actual rule of conduct among govern¬ 
 ments.” But this provision merely accentuates the diffi¬ 
 culty, for there is no universally recognized body of inter¬ 
 national law and no provision is made in the instrument 
 for even an attempt to secure one. Indeed there are many 
 great and fundamental differences of opinion as to what is 
 the rule or principle of international law on many grave 
 questions, and even the customs of nations, not generally 
 regarded as having yet ripened into international law, are 
 greatly at variance. Thus the executive council in reality 
 stands in a position, as already stated, to make its own law, 
 rules, and regulations. To sum up, the executive council is 
 legislature, court, and in a large part, executive, all in one. 
 A body clothed with powers such as this is an anachronism. 
 It belongs not to the enlightened age of the twentieth cen¬ 
 tury but to the days of the Medes and Persians. A union 
 more abhorrent to our traditions, to our free institutions, 
 to the trend of all civilized government, could not be de¬ 
 vised. 
 
 3. MILITARY NAVAL COMMISSION. ’ 
 
 • \ "\ 
 
 The permanent military naval commission provided for 
 in article 9 is to “ advise the league on the execution of the 
 
 *07883—19347 
 
15 
 
 provisions of article 8—which relate to disarmament—and 
 on military and naval questions generally. ” That is to 
 say, it is the great general staff of the league, and seem¬ 
 ingly is to be laden with the entire military responsibility 
 thereof in whatever military activities the league may 
 undertake. The document submitted contains absolutely 
 no intimations as to the composition of the commission, 
 the number of members, the method of appointment, the 
 States from which they shall be appointed, their removal, 
 their compensation, or their tenure. Neither are there any 
 rules, beyond the most general, laid down for their guid¬ 
 ance and control. 
 
 4. MANDATORY COMMISSION. 
 
 The mandatory commission is to be established by the 
 high contracting parties, and it “ is -to receive and examine 
 annual reports of the mandatory powers and to assist the 
 league in issuing the observance of the terms of all man¬ 
 dates.” The same indefiniteness exists as to the organiza¬ 
 tion and operations of this commission that exists with 
 reference to the military naval commission. 
 
 5. BUREAU OF LABOR. 
 
 The high contracting parties agree to establish “ as part 
 of the organization of the league a permanent bureau of 
 labor,’’ which is set up to carry out the undertaking of the 
 high contracting parties that they “ will endeavor to se¬ 
 cure and maintain fair and humane conditions of labor for 
 men, women, and children, both in their own countries and 
 in all countries to which their commercial and industrial 
 relations ” extend. Here again are no details as to the 
 composition, organization, appointment, removal, compen¬ 
 sation, or tenure of the members of this bureau. 
 
 107883—19347 
 
16 
 
 Read in the light of the provision of article 21, which 
 requires that the high contracting parties shall make pro¬ 
 vision through the instrumentality of the league “ to se¬ 
 cure and maintain * * * equitable treatment for 
 
 the commerce of all States members of the league,” the 
 question arises as to whether or not it is the intent of these 
 provisions to put the labor of all countries upon an equality, 
 and if this be the intent and purpose of the document, then 
 the labor of this country may well consider, inasmuch as 
 France has already given notice that it will be impossible 
 for French labor to be put on an equality with American 
 labor in hours of work, whether American labor is to be 
 brought to the level of French labor in this regard, in 
 order that there may be equitable treatment of the com¬ 
 merce of the two countries. 
 
 6. PERMANENT SECRETARIAT. 
 
 Finally, there is the permanent secretariat which appar¬ 
 ently is to perform the ordinary secretarial duties both 
 for the body of delegates and for the executive council. 
 
 The duties of the secretariat are, in addition to the sec¬ 
 retarial services necessary for the body of delegates and 
 the executive council, to receive from “parties” in dis¬ 
 pute, statements of their cases, with all relevant facts and 
 papers and to register and publish all treaties hereafter 
 entered into by regular members. 
 
 This is the machinery of the league. The mere nar¬ 
 ration I have made shows great gaps in indispensable pro¬ 
 visions and procedure. I assume I need make no argu¬ 
 ment to establish that before we become parties to any 
 such plan as herein proposed, we must know something, 
 must have some assurance on these vitally important mat¬ 
 ters now unprovided for. Nor can it be properly said 
 
 107883—19347 
 
17 
 
 that these are mere details which have no place in a great 
 document, for all are of the kind which are provided for 
 in our own Constitution, which certainly is entitled to 
 rank fully with this covenant as to novelty of plan and 
 provision and as to importance and far-reaching conse¬ 
 quences. 
 
 Referring again to the possible distinction between the 
 high contracting parties and the league, and the fact that 
 seemingly the document provides for these two inter¬ 
 national entities, each with its own rights, duties, and 
 obligations, it is most important to note the nature of the 
 covenants which under this document are to be entered 
 into by the high contracting parties—and we must re¬ 
 member that what the high contracting parties covenant 
 we covenant; their obligations are our obligations—and 
 by the league, respectively. The proceeding may prove 
 tedious, but it appears to me necessary that these cove¬ 
 nants be fresh in our minds for the discussion with which 
 I intend to follow them. In listing the more important 
 of them I shall follow the order in which they occur in 
 the document, without attempting to correlate those of 
 like nature. Those of the high contracting parties are 
 as follows: 
 
 The high contracting parties agree, in connection with 
 the program for disarmament, not to conceal from one 
 another the condition of their industries capable of being 
 adapted to warlike purposes; to give a full and frank in¬ 
 terchange of information as to their military and naval 
 programs; and not to -exceed the armament limits pro¬ 
 posed by the executive council and adopted by themselves 
 except with the consent of the council. 
 
 The super coven ant of article 10 obligates these parties, 
 including ourselves, to respect and to preserve against 
 
 1078S3—19347-3 
 
,18 
 
 external aggression the territorial integrity and existing 
 political independence of all league members. It is to be 
 noted that this guaranty runs not alone to the existing 
 territory of nations, but to any territorial exent to which 
 they may hereafter attain. If, for example, any of the 
 German colonies shall ultimately be incorporated into the 
 territory of any of the parties, this guaranty will run to 
 this extension. It should be here further observed that 
 if there is a difference between the high contracting 
 parties and the league, then it is high contracting parties, 
 including ourselves, and not the whole league, which guar¬ 
 antee not only their own territorial integrity and inde¬ 
 pendence but the territorial integrity and political inde¬ 
 pendence of every other member of the league. 
 
 By article 12 the parties agree not to resort to war 
 against any high contracting party over any dispute what¬ 
 soever until the matter has been submitted to arbitration or 
 subjected to inquiry before the executive council, and not 
 then until three months after a decision by either; and, 
 further, not to resort to war in any event against any 
 member of the league which complies with the award of 
 arbitration. It may be remarked in passing two things 
 are obvious: First, that this does not prevent but merely 
 delays war by the high contracting parties, except that, 
 second, if a member of the league obtaining the judgment 
 before the arbitration tribunal or the council accepts the 
 benefit of the judgment—as, of course, the winning party 
 would all but universally do—then the losing party shall 
 not under such circumstances go to war against the 
 winning party. 
 
 Article 13 contains a narrower covenant to arbitrate 
 difficulties with an undertaking to carry out the award 
 in good faith. 
 
 107SS3—19347 
 
19 
 
 By article 15 the high contracting parties agree to refer 
 to the executive council any dispute not submitted to arbi¬ 
 tration and likely to lead to rupture which may arise be¬ 
 tween States members of the league; “ the parties 77 agree 
 to communicate to the secretary general “ statements of 
 their case, 77 with all relevant facts and papers, which the 
 executive council shall forthwith direct to be published, 
 and, further, that they will not go to war 6i with any 
 party 77 which complies with any recommendation of the 
 executive council which is unanimously concurred in by 
 all members of the council except the parties to dispute. 
 Seemingly they may go to war over a recommendation of 
 the council which is not unanimously concurred in by all 
 members of the council, except the parties in dispute. 
 Finally, this article stipulates that the high contracting 
 parties agree that if any party refuses to comply with any 
 such recommendations so made the council shall pro]oose 
 measures necessary to give effect to their decision. 
 
 Under article 16 it is agreed that if any of the high con¬ 
 tracting parties breaks or disregards its covenants under 
 article 12—the article in which the parties bind themselves 
 not to go to war except under certain conditions—that 
 then the parties shall subject the offenders to a severance 
 of trade and financial relations and of intercourse between 
 nationals of the offending State or States, and to the pre¬ 
 vention of all financial, commercial, or personal inter¬ 
 course between the nationals of offending States and the 
 nationals of all other States. Moreover, the high contract¬ 
 ing parties bind themselves mutually to support one 
 another, first, in the financial and economic measures 
 which may be taken under article 16 “ in order to minimize 
 the loss and inconvenience 77 resulting from the measures 
 outlined in this article, and, second, in resisting any special 
 
 1078S3—19347 
 
20 
 
 measures aimed at one of their number by a covenant- 
 
 A/ 
 
 breaking State. 
 
 In article 17 the parties agree that in disputes between 
 members of the league and nonmembers thereof, or in dis¬ 
 putes entirely among nonmembers, the involved nonmem¬ 
 bers shall be invited “to accept the obligations of member¬ 
 ship in the league for the purpose of such dispute ” upon 
 conditions fixed by the executive council. If this invita¬ 
 tion be accepted, the preceding provisions shall be applied 
 
 \ 
 
 with modifications deemed necessary by the league. If 
 tlie power so invited refuses to accejrt the obligations of 
 membership in the league for the purposes of such dispute, 
 and if such power takes against a league member any 
 action which, if taken by such a member, would constitute 
 a breach of article 12—that is the article which contains 
 the covenant against a resort to war—then the provisions 
 of article 16—the article which contains the sanction by 
 which observance of article 12 is to be compelled—shall be 
 applicable as against the unwilling State. With reference 
 both to this article and to article 16, it should be recalled 
 that it is the duty of the executive council in case the pre¬ 
 scribed peaceful means of coercion do not suffice to bring 
 the offending State to terms, “ to recommend what effec¬ 
 tive military or naval forces the members of the league 
 shall severally contribute to the armed forces to be used to 
 protect the covenants of the league/ ’ 
 
 By article 20 the high contracting parties undertake to 
 endeavor to secure and maintain fair and humane condi¬ 
 tions of labor in member States and among nonmember 
 States and agree to establish as part of the organization 
 of the league a permanent bureau of labor—a somewhat 
 drastic potential interference, not merely with our Federal 
 but with our State powers as well. 
 
 107883—19347 
 
21 
 
 In article 21 the high contracting parties agree that pro¬ 
 vision shall he made through the league to secure and main¬ 
 tain freedom of transit and equitable treatment for the 
 commerce of all members, with special arrangements in 
 regard to the necessities of regions devastated in the 
 oresent war. 
 
 JL 
 
 Under article 23 the high contracting parties agree that 
 every treaty hereafter entered into shall be registered with 
 the secretary-general, and that no such treaty shall be 
 binding until so registered. 
 
 And by article 25, probably the third most important 
 in the entire document, the high contracting parties agree 
 that this covenant shall abrogate all obligations inter se 
 which are inconsistent with the terms thereof, and that 
 they will not enter into any other engagements which are 
 
 thus inconsistent. In case any powers make, after enter- 
 
 % 
 
 ing .the league, inconsistent obligations, they must take 
 immediate steps to procure release from such obligations. 
 In passing I raise this as a question of no little impor¬ 
 tance ; Since the covenants of the league guarantee terri¬ 
 torial integrity and political independence of league mem¬ 
 bers, then a similar covenant between any two members 
 of the league would probably be considered an inconsistent 
 obligation; and if this be true, I invite the attention of the 
 Senate to the possible abrogation of the Platt amendment 
 treatv between ourselves and Cuba—a treaty heretofore 
 regarded as indispensable to our national welfare and 
 safety—in case both Cuba and the United States become 
 members of the league. 
 
 The foregoing are the most important covenants which 
 run in the name of the high contracting parties. 
 
 I wish now to direct your attention to the powers which 
 run in the name of the league as such, and to renew my 
 
 107883—19347 
 
22 
 
 invitation that you consider well the differences between 
 
 ts 
 
 the two sets of covenants and powers, and to my question 
 as to whether the plan contemplates two international en¬ 
 tities, namely, the high contracting parties and the league. 
 
 By article 7 the league is to prescribe conditions of 
 entry into it of the outcast States; bv article 17 the league 
 is to be intrusted with the general supervision of trade 
 in arms and ammunition in countries where a control of 
 the traffic of such is necessary to the common interest; by 
 article 19 the league, assisted by the mandatory commis¬ 
 sion, is to insure an observance of all mandates; and by 
 article 21 the league is to be the instrument through which 
 the high contracting parties shall secure and maintain 
 freedom of transit and equitable treatment of commerce 
 of all members, together with special arrangements with 
 regard to the necessities of regions devastated in the 
 present war. 
 
 These are the sum total of the powers and obligations 
 which in this covenant run to the league as such. How 
 great the undertakings of the high contracting parties, 
 how meager the obligations of the league itself is evident 
 from this enumeration. 
 
 Nowhere is it more important to determine whether the 
 high contracting parties are operating as an international 
 entity than in the construction of article 11, which reads: 
 
 Any war or threat of war, whether immediately 
 affecting any of the high contracting parties or not, 
 is hereby declared a matter of concern to the league, 
 and the high contracting parties reserve the right 
 to take any action that may be deemed wise and 
 effectual to safeguard the peace of nations. 
 
 It is obvious that if the reservation of the right to take 
 action under this article is to the high contracting parties 
 
 1078S3—19347 
 
23 
 
 as an entity, that they thereby have assumed jurisdiction 
 of the world; whereas if the reservation of the right of the 
 high contracting parties to take action is a reservation 
 of the right to the nations as individuals, the whole propo¬ 
 sition is a rope of sand. 
 
 And in considering all this it must be remembered that 
 once we enter this league and assume these obligations, we 
 can not secure any modification thereof except with the 
 consent of all the States whose representatives compose the 
 executive council and of three-fourths of the States whose 
 representatives compose the body of delegates. What a 
 magnificent field we would thus create for grandiose inter¬ 
 national political manipulation by ambitious men and 
 groups! 
 
 With this analysis before us, we are now in a position to 
 consider the application of the rules by which, in my judg¬ 
 ment, this proposal must be tested: 
 
 First, Do its provisions abolish war and make it here¬ 
 after impossible % There is not an important article in the 
 document which does not specifically answer that question 
 “ No.” And, further, the scheme provided therein holds 
 out a higher promise—nay, assurance—of a' future world¬ 
 wide war, greater than any which has gone before, than 
 any other document in the history of recorded time. 
 
 I have already pointed out that the covenant provides 
 for three sorts of States; first, u signatories ” of the cove¬ 
 nant; second, protocol States; and, third, outcast States, 
 which I take it are the central powers and their allies. 
 
 Now, it is unnecessary to labor an argument to show 
 that the inevitable result of outlawing the central States 
 will be to drive them more closely together for mutual self¬ 
 protection, and that this in turn will make the formation 
 of a second league of nations almost an assured certainty. 
 
 107883—103-17 
 
 V 
 
24 
 
 It may well be that tills second league will not at the out¬ 
 set be constituted wfltli all the formalities which mark the 
 one we have under consideration, but in all human prob¬ 
 ability such a league will be somehow formed, by informal 
 understanding or otherwise, and when so formed will bid 
 for the adherence to it of neutral States. We would thus 
 Lave in no distant future two great leagues of nations, 
 which will become two great camps, each preparing for 
 a new and greater life and death struggle. Our only 
 escape from this result, under this plan, would be through 
 the exercise of such a tyrannical despotism over the 
 peoples of the central powers as we, with all our traditions 
 and ideals, must not become a party to, for it would be 
 violative of all of those human rights for which our 
 fathers fought and which our own Constitution guarantees. 
 Moreover, to keep peoples in such a state of subjection as 
 would be necessary to obviate the result above pointed out, 
 would require such an expenditure of effort, treasure, and 
 blood as never would be permanently tolerated by our 
 people. Thus the plan proposed, instead of being a plan 
 by which the permanent peace of the. world w r ould be 
 assured, becomes a plan under which a constant warfare 
 or a potential great world-wide conflagration becomes an 
 assured fact. 
 
 In other words, this plan, as the prescriptions of the 
 document demonstrate, is in effect merely an offensive and 
 defensive alliance between certain picked powers as be¬ 
 tween themselves, and a coalition among them as against 
 the balance of the world, and this coalition is formed with 
 an avowed and published purpose to impose upon the 
 stranger powers the will of the coalition, not merely in 
 
 matters relating to the prevention of war but in all other 
 
 matters in which the conduct of the stranger powers 
 
 10TSS3—19347 
 
 f 
 
J 
 
 25 
 
 affects tlie members of the coalition. This is tyranny, 
 nothing more, nothing less. Has history ever answered 
 an attempt to do this thing save in one way, and has that 
 way ever spelled anything but disaster for the coalition? 
 Is such a proposal not monstrous, and, if so, can it have 
 our support? Must our every effort not be to avoid so 
 dividing the world into two warring camps ? In what re¬ 
 spect will the situation so formed differ from that created 
 by the centuries-old doctrine of balance of power, save 
 only that now, for the first uphappy time in our history, 
 we are to be placed in one side of the balance ? 
 
 “ But,” it is said, “ this is all merely potential, it may 
 not happen, and therefore the league should not for that 
 be condemned.” 
 
 Grant this, for the sake of argument: What then ? 
 
 In the first place, the league plan still regards war as 
 legal and as possible in the following more obvious cases: 
 
 First. Under article 12, if two of the high contracting 
 parties have a dispute which is submitted to arbitration 
 and with the award of which neither party is satisfied, 
 they may properly go to war after an interval of three 
 months from the date of the award. 
 
 Second. Under the same article, if there is a like dis¬ 
 pute between like parties, and the matter is submitted to 
 the executive council, which makes a recommendation 
 which neither party is willing to accept, then the parties 
 may after three months properly go to war. 
 
 Third. Under article 15 if a dispute goes either to the 
 executive council or the body of delegates, and either body 
 gives a decision unanimous, except as to the parties in dis¬ 
 pute, and this decision is unacceptable to both parties to 
 the dispute, then they may legally go to war. 
 
 Fourth. It would seem, under the same article, that if 
 neither the executive council nor the body of delegates can 
 
 107883—19347 
 
26 
 
 reach a decision which is unanimous except for the parties 
 to the dispute, that then the parties thereto may legally 
 go to war. 
 
 Fifth. All conflicts between States not members of the 
 league would under the covenant appear to be legal under 
 the covenant, though the league declares its right and in¬ 
 tention to interfere in them if it desires. 
 
 Sixth. The high contracting parties may take a hand in 
 any war under the stipulations of article 11, that “ any 
 war or threat of war, whether immediately affecting any 
 of the high contracting parties or not, is hereby declared 
 a matter of concern to the league, and the high contracting 
 parties reserve the right to take any action that may be 
 deemed wise and effectual to safeguard the peace of na¬ 
 tions.’ ’ 
 
 Seventh. Under the provisions of articles 17, 12, and 
 16, disputes between States members of the league and 
 States not members of the league may lead to legal w r ars 
 either between the two States themselves or between the 
 disputants—one or both—and the league, or the high con¬ 
 tracting parties. 
 
 In all of these cases the covenant recognizes the legality 
 of a state of war. But the covenant goes way beyond this 
 and provides for and requires that in certain far-reaching 
 controversies the parties must go to war. Without attempt¬ 
 ing to spell out from this instrument the full number of 
 cases in which war is mandatory, I confine myself to three: 
 
 First. By this document we, as one of the high contract¬ 
 ing parties, obligate ourselves to preserve by force of arms, 
 if necessary, the territorial integrity and poltical independ¬ 
 ence of all States members of the league. 
 
 Second. If any of the high contracting parties breaks or 
 disregards its covenants under article 12—the covenant 
 
 J07SS3—19347 
 
27 
 
 dealing with resort to arms—then, as a member of the 
 league, we must fly to arms to protect the covenants. 
 
 Third. If any nonmember of the league, either accept¬ 
 ing or not accepting the obligations of membership in the 
 league for the purposes of the dispute, acts in such way as 
 would constitute a violation of article 12, if the State were 
 a member of the league, then we must go to war to protect 
 the covenants of the league. 
 
 And in all these three cases, whether or not we partici¬ 
 pate and the amount of our participation in belligerent 
 operations is determined not by ourselves but by the execu¬ 
 tive council in which we have seemingly, at most, but one 
 voice out of nine, no matter what we think of the merits of 
 the controversy, no matter how we view the wisdom of a 
 war over the cause, we are bound by this covenant to go 
 to war when and in the manner the executive council de¬ 
 termines. Thus it is seen that in this alleged instrument of 
 peace war is legalized in seven cases and made compulsory 
 in three. 
 
 And in this connection, as bearing upon our financial 
 and economic burdens outside those connected with carry¬ 
 ing on our share of the war, I ask your consideration of 
 the last paragraph of article 16, by which 4 4 the high con¬ 
 tracting parties agree further that they will mutually 
 support one another in the financial and economic meas¬ 
 ures which may be taken under this article, in order to 
 minimize the loss and inconvenience resulting from the 
 above measures.” What our contributions will be under 
 this, how much our citizens must be ground down by taxes 
 to take care of wild and extravagant expenditures which 
 we did not and would not initiate and over which we 
 would have no control, only an all-wise Providence can 
 foresee. 
 
 107883—19347 
 
28 
 
 Tims the proposed covenant, instead of abolishing war, 
 actually sanctions, breeds, and commands it. Moreover, it 
 absolutely requires that every future war shall be a poten¬ 
 tial world war, and that we shall be an active participant 
 in every such war. We are thus thrust fully into the 
 terrible cauldron of European politics, and every out¬ 
 break in the Balkans—even domestic, if it threaten inter¬ 
 national war—will call for some expenditure of treasure, 
 for some shedding of American blood, for some loss of 
 American life. It is idle to say and fatuous to hope or 
 believe these outbreaks will not occur, for ambitious men 
 do not hesitate to waste life in order to punish an enemy 
 or gain a goal. 
 
 The plan, therefore, fails to meet the first test. 
 
 We come now to the second question I proposed—Do 
 the provisions of the proposed covenant strike down the 
 precepts of the Constitution? A mere listing of some of 
 the more conspicuous provisions of each show that it does. 
 
 Under the Constitution the Congress of the United 
 States lias the exclusive power to declare war. The pro¬ 
 posed covenant puts the power of declaring war in the 
 hands of the executive council, in which, it is true, we have 
 a voice but not the constitutional voice. Thus, whether 
 Congress wishes or not, whether the people wish or not, 
 we may be forced into war, with all its sacrifices of life, 
 in a cause in which we have no real concern and with 
 which we may be out of sympathy, under the penalty that 
 if we do not go to war we shall, by breaking a covenant 
 of the league, bring war upon ourselves by the balance of 
 the world. 
 
 Under the Constitution the Congress of the United 
 
 States has the exclusive power to raise and support armies 
 
 and to provide and maintain a Navy. The covenant pro- 
 107883—10347 
 
29 
 
 vides that the executive council shall formulate plans 
 limiting the size of our Army and Navy, that the council 
 shall then u determine for the consideration and action 
 of the several Governments what military equipment and 
 armament is fair and reasonable in proportion to the scale 
 of forces laid down in the program of disarmament, and 
 these limits when adopted shall not be exceeded without 
 the permission of the executive council.’’ 
 
 If we act in good faith under this agreement we shall, 
 of course, adopt the armament limits, which, as a member 
 of the executive council, we shall have assisted in formu¬ 
 lating. Thereafter, no matter what our necessity or what 
 its urgency, no matter what Congress or the people them¬ 
 selves may think the situation requires, we can not raise 
 a single man beyond our limit save and except it be ap¬ 
 proved by the executive council in which we are one of 
 nine participating States. If war were abolished this 
 might be tolerable, but with war legalized even between 
 members of the league and actually commanded in certain 
 contingencies this may spell for us overwhelming disaster. 
 
 Under the Constitution, a treaty becomes effective upon 
 its ratification, following the advice and consent thereto 
 of the Senate. Under the covenant no treaty becomes 
 binding until it has been registered with the secretary- 
 general of the league. 
 
 It seems reasonably certain, moreover, that situations 
 calling for unconstitutional action by this Government 
 might arise under the provisions of article 16 relating to 
 financial and economic measures of support and article 20 
 relating to freedom of transit and equitable treatment for 
 commerce, because under these provisions the league might 
 demand the making of laws which in the sound discretion 
 of Congress ought not to be made and yet Congress might 
 
 107883—19347 
 
30 
 
 find itself under the compelling force of war with the 
 entire league to enact such legislation. And next to the 
 powers of war, no powers are more far-reaching or vital 
 than those which control the financial and economic life 
 of the Nation. 
 
 One other matter demanding consideration, the question 
 of mandates, may be appropriately dealt with here. The 
 provisions of the covenant relating to this subject are so 
 loosely drawn, purposely or otherwise, that one can not 
 tell just how the mandatory States are to be selected. It 
 is true that, with reference to the communities formerly be¬ 
 longing to the Turkish Empire, it is stated that the wishes 
 of the communities must be a principal consideration in the 
 selection of the mandatory power, but this provision is 
 not made as to any of the other colonies or territories for 
 which provision is to be made, and this notwithstanding 
 the principle of self-determination adopted, as have been 
 reported in the press, by all the powers now in conference. 
 Are the mandatory States to be chosen by the high con¬ 
 tracting parties, by the members of the league, by the body 
 of delegates, or by the executive council? Or is the State 
 protected, for stripped of the new-day verbiage a pro¬ 
 tectorate is really provided for, other than the Turkish 
 Empire communities, to indicate or to pick out from the 
 league membership or from States not league members or 
 from the high contracting parties, that particular State 
 which the protected State wishes as a protector? It is 
 clear, however, that the protecting State, the mandatory, 
 will have in the matter no choice or voice other than that 
 which it exercises in the body of delegates or in the execu¬ 
 tive council or as a member of the high contracting parties, 
 whichever makes the choice. But no matter who picks the 
 mandatory power, clearly some one beside ourselves has 
 
 1078S3'—19347 
 
31 
 
 the power to say whether and when our boys and how 
 many of them shall be sent to the arid regions of Armenia, 
 or to the sleeping-death regions of central Africa, or to the 
 wildernesses of southwest Africa, or to the inhospitable 
 South Pacific Isles, and when they get there it will be 
 somebody else beside ourselves who will determine how 
 long they shall remain, by what laws they shall govern the 
 people, and what shall be their measure and rules of pro¬ 
 tection. For it is clear—that is as clear as the covenant 
 makes anything—that the terms of the protectorate are 
 to be determined not by and between the protecting and 
 protected States, but by the high contracting parties or 
 they failing by the executive council in a special act or 
 charter. 
 
 Moreover, it seems a matter of certain deduction that as 
 parties other than ourselves are to determine the size of the 
 army of occupation which we shall send, the methods and 
 nature of its operations, the length of time it shall remain 
 there, the rules and principles by which it shall govern the 
 peoples of the occupied territory, and the kind and extent 
 of the upbuilding work which shall be performed by the 
 protecting State, then somebody else beside ourselves must 
 decide how many billions—for we speak now only in such 
 terms—we shall Vvring from our own people by taxation 
 and spend in the territory over which we have been made 
 mandatory, perhaps against not only our own free desires 
 but the will of the protected peoples themselves. 
 
 I take it to be unnecessary to point out how destructive 
 
 all these things would be of our Constitution, which lodges 
 
 in the Congress the power to raise and equip armies, to 
 
 raise revenue, and make appropriations—in both matters 
 
 solely in accordance with the discretion of Congress, and 
 
 which lodges in the National Executive the power to con- 
 107883—19347 
 
32 
 
 trol and direct the operations of any army in the field, in¬ 
 cluding the power to lay down the rules which shall operate 
 and control between the occupying army and the inhabi¬ 
 tants of the territory occupied. 
 
 Thus this covenant will, if it becomes operative, strike 
 down most vital provisions of our Constitution, and here 
 again it fails to meet the test. 
 
 I am now to the third question I have put: Are the pro¬ 
 visions of the proposed covenant destructive of our 
 sovereignty ? 
 
 Cast up in your mind the colossal powers granted to the 
 executive council, in which, be it always remembered, we 
 are but one of nine participating powers; recall the far- 
 reaching and vital covenants into which we shall enter as 
 one of the high contracting parties; and hold in mind that 
 we are to give up the power to say when we shall have war, 
 when peace, what shall our Army number, how many ves¬ 
 sels of war shall we have, how, when, where, and under 
 what conditions shall our Army and Navy be used, when 
 shall our treaties be binding, what shall our treatment of 
 commerce be, how great shall our gift of funds to other 
 powers, and, therefore, how great the tribute we shall pay ? 
 Consider all these, and you can not but say that our sover¬ 
 eignty has in matters of national life and death been 
 destroyed. 
 
 Pause, Mr. President, and consider what it is proposed 
 to do—to take from the social organism not alone the right 
 but the power of self-defense. We shall stand not only 
 naked but bound and helpless. 
 
 ,Why, sir, it is contrary to the eternal course of nature, 
 exhibited in all her works since the dawn of time, for a 
 defenseless organism to survive, whether that organism be 
 plant, animal, or social. How, then, shall we hope to live ? 
 
 107883—19347 
 
 % 
 
33 
 
 I come now to the fourth and last of my tests: Will this 
 plan, if put into operation, threaten our national inde¬ 
 pendence and life ? 
 
 Judged by all the standards of the past, by history and 
 by experience, we must answer that it does. 
 
 It threatens our life in respect of all those matters in 
 which our sovereignty is impaired, because when sover¬ 
 eignty goes, life as a nation goes. Independence goes 
 when our conduct is dictated by others, when our continued 
 existence depends upon the will of others, when we are 
 no longer able to avail ourselves of our wonted means of 
 defense, actual or by anticipation. 
 
 That under this plan our conduct is dictated by others 
 can not be gainsaid when we recall that we may be 
 launched into a world-wide war without the power of de¬ 
 termining what out participation shall be, either in men, 
 armament, or money. That our continued existence de¬ 
 pends on the will of others is clear from the fact that, 
 disarmed by the mandate of the league, we shall not be 
 permitted to increase our armament save by the consent 
 of the executive council, no matter how great or pressing 
 the emergency or the danger. 
 
 That we may no longer avail ourselves of our wonted 
 means of defense, actual or by anticipation, is not to be 
 successfully denied, as one illustration will suffice to show. 
 
 It was Thomas Jefferson who said, “ Our first and 
 fundamental maxim should be never to entangle ourselves 
 in the broils of Europe; our second, never to suffer Europe 
 to intermeddle with cis-Atlantic affairs.” On this latter 
 principle Monroe announced later the doctrine which 
 bears his name, namely, u We should consider any attempt 
 on their part—the part of European powers—to extend 
 their systems to any portion of this hemisphere as danger- 
 
 107883— 19347 
 
34 
 
 bus to our peace and safety and, “ We could not view 
 any interposition for tlie purpose of oppressing them—the 
 young American Republics—or controlling in any other 
 manner their destiny by any European power in any other 
 light than as the manifestation of an unfriendly disposi¬ 
 tion toward the United States. ” It was Secretary Olney 
 who said, “ To-day the United States is practically sover¬ 
 eign on this continent and its fiat is law upon the subjects 
 to which it confines its interposition. ” 
 
 To say that the elaborate plan now before us which 
 contemplates and provides for the mastery of the world 
 does not run counter to these announced principles, is 
 to be blind to the plainest meaning of plain language. 
 Moreover, to contend that this great doctrine, which em¬ 
 bodies a vital principle of policy not a mere tenet of inter¬ 
 national rule or law is saved by the vague and general 
 prescriptions of the covenant preamble or by the poorly 
 worded declarations of article 1, is either to convict of 
 a failure to understand the question or of a deliberate 
 attempt to impose on the credulity of those who have not 
 had opportunity to read the document themselves. No, 
 Mr. President, if we adopt this plan we take from the 
 Monroe doctrine its life, we do not longer control the 
 destinies of America, and the great national security 
 which for a century has thereby come to us, has gone, 
 perhaps forever. 
 
 Thus the plan fails to meet each and every of the tests 
 I have applied. It does not abolish or prevent wars and 
 it does sanction and commend them. It does strike 
 down great constitutional principles, bulwarks of our pro¬ 
 tection. It does rob us of the utmost vital attributes of 
 sovereignty. It does threaten our independence and life. 
 
 Why, then, and I ask it in all sincerity, this feverish 
 
 107383—19347 
 
35 
 
 anxiety for the adoption of this plan ? Why is there this 
 racing np and down over the face of the whole land by 
 propagandists urging its adoption? What benefit is to 
 come from such a sale of country as is urged upon us? 
 Who are the beneficiaries of this betrayal of our people? 
 No nation threatens us; no group of nations seeks our de¬ 
 struction ; never before were we relatively so strong. War 
 itself, the great curse of mankind, is further away to-day 
 than it has been in centuries. Have we shown ourselves 
 recreant when the world labors big with potential disas¬ 
 ter ? Let our billions of treasure poured out as from per¬ 
 petual fountains, our tens of thousands of young lives 
 nobly sacrificed in a great cause, answer. Has famine 
 failed to appeal to us ? Count the millions of tons of food 
 we send to feed the- starving. Have we been deaf to the 
 cry of the oppressed? Count our young men in France. 
 Have we failed to love liberty and humanity better than 
 life itself ? Ask the mothers whose sons lie on the battle¬ 
 fields of Europe. 
 
 Can we not be trusted again to come to the rescue when 
 again popular government, civilization, and human right 
 threaten to be overwhelmed ? I challenge any man or na¬ 
 tion to say nay. Why, then, this plan to strangle and 
 crush us? Mr. President, there is here something amiss. 
 We stand here in the Senate of the United States, and 
 soberly and anxiously, debate, plan, and consider, not as 
 did our fathers before us, on how can we best preserve and 
 augment our liberties and make ourselves and our pos¬ 
 terity free men, but on the dark and gloomy problem, 
 what is the greatest bondage which we can put on our 
 backs and live. 
 
 “ But,” we are told, “ look at the mighty wastage, the 
 sorrow, the suffering and agony, the slavery, and the death 
 
 107883—19347 
 
36 
 
 of this great universal war—is there not some way to pre¬ 
 vent the world from being again so cursed? Our indus¬ 
 trial and economic relations we can cover by separate trade 
 agreements with individual countries, but can we not do 
 something to avert the horrors of war? ” 
 
 Yes; there are ways, some of them simple and well tried. 
 
 One way is to provide for the compulsory arbitration of 
 all disputes under some such plan as that provided for in 
 the international prize court, or the unratified Ameriean- 
 British and American-French arbitration treaties of 1911, 
 or the Olney-Pauncefote treaty of 1897, or a union of the 
 best in all of them. 
 
 We need not worry about the enforcement of the awards 
 of the arbitral court, for I recall no case between great 
 powers in which an award made has not either been carried 
 out as given or has not led to an adjustment mutually satis¬ 
 factory to both parties. We may forget armed force in 
 this and look to the reign of law and order. If small States 
 should be recalcitrant as between themselves, means of per¬ 
 suasion can be found that will satisfy all needs. 
 
 This will adjust peacefully the great bulk of our dis¬ 
 putes, including questions of territorial extent and thus 
 prevent war. We had the proud privilege, by the Jay 
 treaty of 1794 with Great Britain, to usher in “ the modern 
 era of arbitration.” From then till the present, almost a 
 century and a quarter, arbitration has saved us from all but 
 three relatively small international wars, barring this last, 
 and compulsory arbitration might have saved us even this. 
 Let us not discard or think lightly of arbitration as a means 
 of preventing war. 
 
 A second way would be this: If we feel that world 
 interests and power are reshaping in such way that we 
 need to be protected and that we need to protect others, 
 
 107883—19347 
 
37 
 
 then let ns form an allliance with the strongest other 
 power or two powers of the world for mutual protection. 
 That we he not thrown into quarrels in which we would 
 have no sympathy, we must choose as our allies those 
 powers whose traditions, institutions, ideals, and people 
 are most like our own. If we are as ready to fight for 
 them as we will be—under the present supposition—to 
 have them fight for us, let us make this as strong an 
 alliance as can be written, because from a shadowy one 
 we shall have all the disadvantages and few of the advan- 
 tages of a strong one. In either event, such a definite 
 understanding between ourselves and our allies will ob¬ 
 viously and inevitably drive the balance of the world into 
 a counter alliance, which can not but bring trouble in the 
 future. 
 
 Or, in the third place, if the people of the United 
 States—not a clamorous part of them, but a great ma- 
 jority—desire to establish a true league of nations; if 
 they feel either the need or the desirability of creating an 
 organization to stop war and not merely to build a coali¬ 
 tion to further trade or to preserve and expand terri¬ 
 torial possessions; and if so feeling, and to this end they 
 are willing, to make the present necessary sacrifice in 
 independence and sovereignty and the inevitable future 
 sacrifice of untold American treasure and life, then we 
 may proceed as follows: 
 
 At a convenient and proper time in the relatively near 
 future we shall cooperate with the representatives of all 
 the other powers in the formation among all, not a por¬ 
 tion, of the nations of the world an international league. 
 Among the first articles of the constitution which shall 
 create this league should be one which shall provide that 
 war is thereby declared to be an international crime and 
 
 107883—19347 
 
38 
 
 that any nation engaging in war, except in self-defense 
 when actually attacked, shall be punished by the world 
 
 as an international criminal. 
 
 Tliis constitution should also provide that all disputes 
 
 relating to international matters as defined by an inter¬ 
 national code should be decided by an international court. 
 
 The code would define what war is and would discrimi¬ 
 nate between aggressive and defensive war, between as¬ 
 sault and protection, and would outlaw one and not the 
 other, for no system of law ever enacted or wisely pro¬ 
 jected has penalized self-defense by man or by State. 
 Existence ceases when the right and power of self-defense 
 is gone. 
 
 This code would also provide that one nation could not 
 jsummon another before the international court, except in 
 respect to a matter of international and common concern 
 to the contending nations, and that the jurisdiction of the 
 court would not extend to matters of governmental 23olicy, 
 which would be excluded from arbitration unless one of 
 the disputing parties had by treaty or otherwise given an¬ 
 other country a claim that might involve these subjects. 
 Under such a code we would not be called upon to arbitrate 
 the policy involved in our Monroe doctrine, our conserva¬ 
 tion policy, our immigration policy, our right to expel 
 aliens, our right to repel invasion, our right to maintain 
 military and naval establishments, or coaling stations 
 within our own borders or elsewhere, as the protection and 
 development of this country might demand, our right to 
 make necessary fortification of the Panama Canal, or on 
 our frontiers, our right to discriminate between natives 
 and foreigners in respect to rights of property and citi¬ 
 zenship, and other matters of like character. 
 
 107383—19317 
 
39 
 
 The international court should be authorized by the 
 league constitution to call upon the powers signatory to 
 enforce its decrees and awards as against unwilling 
 States by force, economic pressure, or otherwise. 
 
 The court should sit in the hemisphere of the contending 
 nations; and if the disputants lived in opposite hemi¬ 
 sphere, then in the hemisphere of the defendant power. 
 
 The constitution should further provide that if it were 
 necessary to enforce a decree against an American power 
 refusing to follow the decree of the court that such decree 
 should be enforced by the countries of this hemisphere; 
 that if a decree of the court must be enforced against a 
 country of the Eastern Hemisphere, then it should be by 
 such means and methods and by such forces and powers 
 as the court and the powers of that hemisphere should 
 decide. 
 
 A league framed on these broad lines would carry with 
 it a minimum of loss of our sovereignty; it would relieve 
 us from participation in the broils of Europe; it would 
 preserve the Monroe doctrine and save America from the 
 results of European aggression and intrigue; it would re¬ 
 duce to the minimum the causes of war; and would make 
 the waging thereof otherwise than in self-defense when at¬ 
 tacked a public crime, punishable by the combined forces 
 of the world. 
 
 But, Mr. President, these are not the problems which 
 now press urgently upon us. As I have recently proposed 
 to the Senate, let us have an end of all this. Let the dis¬ 
 cussion of a league of nations be postponed for later con¬ 
 sideration not alone by the victorious belligerents but by 
 all the nations if and when at some future time a general 
 conference on this subject may be both possible and useful. 
 Professing as we do to have all humanity for our concern, 
 
 107883—19347 
 
40 
 
 let us not in our league outlaw a great part of the civilized 
 world. Let us see to it that this league which is to usher 
 in a reign of righteousness upon the earth shall comprise 
 all peoples that dwell upon it, including our regenerated, 
 democratized enemy. 
 
 Meanwhile our cobelligerents need have no anxiety, for 
 so surely as the sun rises if the Hun flood again threatened 
 to engulf the world, we shall again be found fighting for 
 the right, with the same complete accord and cooperation 
 as in the past, all for the defense of civilization. 
 
 And why should this be our course, because, Mr. Presi¬ 
 dent, a million and a half of our boys are marking time in 
 Europe, waiting patiently, anxiously, their eyes turned 
 across the water, for the signing of the treaty of peace that 
 shall allow them to return to the homeland, to the family 
 hearths which need them and which they need. How much 
 longer shall their return wait on academic discussion of 
 unattainable dreams? How much longer shall they for 
 this suffer exposure and hardship and endure disease? 
 How many more of them must die “ over there ”? While 
 the Hun thrust forth his cruel, blood-thirsty hulk, they 
 gladly abode there and gave their all, even to life itself, 
 but now that he cowers, like a whipped cur in his kennel, 
 they feel that their work is finished. They want to come 
 home. 
 
 Remembering what they have given, what they were 
 willing to give, and what their dead comrades have given; 
 remembering the wan-faced waiting mothers, wives, and 
 children; remembering the wrack, the weariness, and the 
 heartache of it all, we must find a way to grant their scant 
 but deep-felt wish. 
 
 107883—19347 
 
 o