this Doctrine, while should any dispute as to the meaning of the latter ever arise between the American and the European powers, the League is there to settle it.

This commentary receives especial force from the facts that England had a close historical connection with the proclamation of the Monroe Doctrine in 1823 and that in the Venezuelan dispute the most advanced claim as to the scope of the Doctrine was sharply called to her attention. No delegation at the Peace Conference probably understood better than that of Great Britain how the Monroe Doctrine was intended to be affected by Article XXI.

As the "validity" of the Monroe Doctrine is not "affected" by Article XXI, the Doctrine is excluded from the operation of the Covenant. If, therefore, a case within the principle of the Doctrine should arise it would not be within the jurisdiction of the League. Even if a question whether the Doctrine extended to a particular situation could be made the subject of inquiry under Article XV, there could be little doubt of the result;

for, if we except a few cases where doubt has existed as to the applicability of the Doctrine, and the belated assertions of President Carranza that it is non-existent, it is now understood by all the nations of the world.

But it is too late to have forebodings on account of the remote chance that a question concerning the Monroe Doctrine may have to be submitted to arbitration or inquiry under the Covenant, for, by the Bryan treaties, ratified by the Senate in 1914 and 1915, we have already agreed with Great Britain, France, Italy and six other European nations, as well as with Chili, Brazil, Peru and seven other American states, that all disputes of an international character, including those affecting national honour and vital interests, such as the Monroe Doctrine, shall be submitted to an International Commission for investigation and report, and that pending such report war will not be declared or hostility commenced. These treaties are "international engagements" and their validity, within the reservation of Article XXI, is not affected by the Covenant. Under the Bryan treaties, therefore, arbitrators, a ma

jority of whom are not to be American citizens, would have jurisdiction to consider and report concerning any dispute arising under the Monroe Doctrine, and while the arbitration was proceeding this country would be obliged to abstain from enforcing the Doctrine, however exigent the situation might be. Under such circumstances the question whether Article XXI adequately reserves the rights of the United States under our traditional national policy loses much of its importance.

(Letter No. 23)

ARTICLES XXII-XXV

The preceding articles of the Covenant have dealt almost exclusively with the organization of the League and the prevention of war. Article XXII and the three that follow are concerned with the improvement of conditions in which the people of many countries take, or ought to take, an interest.

The first of these articles deals with races hitherto ruled by Germany and her allies and not yet qualified to govern themselves. Its object is two-fold. First, to protect and assist peoples on their way to complete independence; to guard them from dangers, and guide them while still inexperienced in the use of popular government. During that period they would be likely to make mistakes which might expose them to external and internal perils. The second object is to prevent selfish exploitation of backward peoples

and natural resources. These regions were won by all the nations that helped to win the war, and all have a right and duty to demand that the native inhabitants shall not be maltreated, and that one of the victors shall not monopolize to the exclusion of other countries any raw products essential to the industries of the world.

Such things are properly placed under the control of the League; and if so the plan of mandataries acting under contract with the League, and rendering an annual report of their stewardship to the Council, with a permanent commission to supervise the administration, seems well devised for the purpose. No nation need accept a mandate unless it pleases, but if it does so it accepts the trust under the conditions prescribed by the League. The whole plan marks a great step forward in the recognition of the common responsibility of civilized nations for the weaker peoples of the earth; in contrast with the principle of exploitation for the national benefit of those who can succeed in conquering and owning them, or who can by purchase, bargain or force of arms obtain a transfer of