The League of Nations II.

(The Crimson invites all men in the University to submit signed communications of timely interest. It assumes no responsibility, however, for sentiments expressed under this head and reserves the right to exclude any whose publication would be palpably inappropriate.)

Senator Lodge's criticism of the League of Nations Constitution seems to centre in the fear that the United States, by endorsing such an agreement, would be robbed of its right of sovereignty in domestic as well as in foreign affairs. This attitude of his is peculiarly interesting in view of a statement made by him in May, 1916, in support of the platform of the League to Enforce Peace. At that time he is quoted as saying: "I know how quickly we shall be met with the statement that this is a dangerous question which you are putting into your agreement; that no nation can submit to the judgment of other nations; and that we must be careful at the beginning not to attempt too much... But I do not believe that when Washington warned us against entangling alliances he meant for one moment that we should not join with other civilized nations of the world, if a method could be found to diminish war and encourage peace. The limit of voluntary arbitration has, I think, been reached. I think the next step... is to put force behind international peace." What a strange reverse in opinion has come to Mr. Lodge within the short space of three years!

By far the most pertinent and telling objection to the League Constitution appeared-in the editorial columns of the Boston Herald last week and later in Senator Lodge's speech. The hypothetical case of a dispute arising between the United States and another country over the question of immigration was taken up and it was shown that if the case were decided against us and the other party approved of the decision, we should be compelled by the rules of the league to surrender our right of sovereignty to just that extent. This argument seems to me unanswerable. It is simply a question of whether or not the United States and her sister nations are willing to sacrifice some of the rights which in the past they have so jealously guarded and thereby secure greater brotherhood among themselves in practice as well as in theory. The alternative proposed by Senator Lodge, that of reserving to each nation the right of self-determination in questions of domestic policy would make of the League a veritable dumb-show. For if the question of immigration were to be exempted from the League's jurisdiction, why not likewise the questions of limitation of armament and the manufacture of munitions?

Let us remember that the United States is not the only nation that stands to lose some of her former privileges by joining the League of Nations; the mere fact of co-operating to enforce world peace means sacrifice and some degree of give and take on the part of all concerned. We have preached unselfishness and brotherhood long enough; now is the time to make good our declarations. C. S. JOSLYN '20.