question for the solution of which it had been created. Finland maintained that the Aland question was not international but purely a Finnish question and therefore outside of the jurisdiction of the League. The Council, however, declared that it was competent to deal with it. The matter was left to a future decision, special investigators having been appointed.

Still more important was the conflict between Poland and Lithuania. The latter had refused to recognize as binding the decision of the Supreme Council of Dec. 8, 1919, fixing the eastern limits of Poland and claimed a different line, namely that traced in accordance with the treaty of July 12, 1920 with the Russian Soviet government. Here again the Council did not at once go into the question but awaited the result of certain direct negotiations that were going on between the contestants. Nevertheless, it prevailed upon the two states to accept provisionally a line between the zones of occupation which the troops of neither power should overstep. The essential point in the question was the fact that a part of Lithuanian territory namely, the region of Grodno was still occupied by the Bolshevist troops.

The future status of Armenia was discussed in the meeting of October 21. According to the spirit of the Peace Conference and also of the Supreme Council of the Allies, Armenia was to be directed in the first stages of its independence by some Power acting as mandatory. The burden of the mandate was so serious that no state was willing to undertake it and the Supreme Council, March 12, proposed to the League of Nations that it should cooperate with it in the protection of the future state. It decided against this on April 10, as noted above. In its reply to the Supreme Council, April 11, the League said that the entire civilized world must support the complete emancipation of Armenia and that to this end it was necessary for some civilized state to accept a mandate under the protection of the League. Armenia would be satisfied with this solution which, of course, required that aid be given to her in the freeing of the country and the guarding of its frontiers. Financial assistance was also necessary. Under the plan proposed by the League the burden of these measures would be divided among the different states.

On April 26 the Supreme Council informed the Council of the League that it had appealed to President Wilson. On May 31 it was learned that the United States Senate had refused the mandate. Meanwhile Armenia had become an independent state by virtue of the Treaty of Sèvres, August 6, 1919, and had applied for admission to the League. The Council of the League came to no further decision in respect to Armenia and it was proposed that the question of financial aid be submitted to the approaching Assembly of the League, fixed for November 15. As to the policy of the League it had been effective on its administrative side and as above indicated the results were considerable. Its accomplishments during the first year of its existence included, first its organization. This comprised a secretariat of three hundred officials, two hundred of them being of a clerical or subordinate nature and the remaining hundred being responsible authorities. Three annexes were added to it organized on the model of the International Bureau of Labor and comprising

finance, hygiene and transit. Each of these during the interval had held its first meeting. The Bureau of International Labor in the absence of a strong central organization of the League assumed an independent existence and proceeded to expend on its activities an amount equaling two-thirds of all other expenses of the League, the League being responsible for its budget. The expenditures of the League exceeded anticipation and at the session of the Council at San Sebastian it was brought out that the League subsisted chiefly on bank loans. As to the other measures undertaken by the League before the Geneva meeting, the results were in the main negative, that is to say, the questions taken up were abandoned or the policies approved were left unexecuted. There was one exception to this, and that was the question of the Aland Islands. The proposal to send a mission of inquiry into Russia had failed on account of the refusal of the Soviets to receive it. The League was unable to take any steps toward an active policy in respect to Armenia. When the Persians demanded aid against the Bolshevists, the League went no further than to discuss the subject with the appellants. And although the League arbitrated the Polish-Lithuanian difference, it had no means of applying its decision. The League also encountered a check in its social and philanthropic activities. The return of the prisoners of war, for example, was not accomplished except for a very small percentage: the organization of the campaign against typhus in Poland had reached only the point of an appeal for funds; and the Brussels conference called to discover the causes of the economic world crisis and to recommend remedies had not done more than to proclaim a number of general truths. In the domain of practical and immediate policies of less importance the League had shown successful results. For example, it has intervened in the question of international transit and the regulation of passports with the result that many difficulties and some of strike throughout the world were removed. It reduced the so-called white slave traffic and it secured better means of protecting public health. Down to the time of the Geneva Assembly, the League had shown no ability to carry out the principal political aim for which it had been founded. În regard to a certain class of matters destined to come before it, it seemed very likely to take useful action-such matters for example as the unification of legislation in the different countries in respect to patents, commercial and literary property, conditions of naturalization, frauds in the sale of food, etc. It was felt after the American elections and the affirmation of Mr. Harding that the United States could not enter into a league which had the power to bind its members in the exercise of force without consulting them, that the tendency would be not to extend the powers of the League, but to reduce them, for it was believed that the League could not endure successfully unless it obtained the support of America. As to one of the chief questions before it for example, that of general disarmament, it remained in suspense because the United States was not represented.

causes

THE GENEVA ASSEMBLY. On November 15, the Assembly of the League of the Nations opened its sessions at Geneva with representatives from forty-one nations. M. Motta, president of the Swiss delegation, delivered the opening address

into final shape by the economic section appointed early in December. It was provided that nations desiring financial credit should notify the commission what assets they possessed, that the commission should then estimate their value and authorize the governments in question to issue gold bonds. It was understood that the plan had received the approval of the leading European bankers. The text of the draft approved by the Council was in part as follows:

"The government of a country desiring to participate shall notify the commission what specific assets it proposes to assign as security for commercial credits to be granted by the nationals of exporting countries. The commission, after an examination of these assets, shall determine the gold value of the credit which it would approve against the security of these assets. The participating Government will then be authorized to issue bonds to a gold value fixed by the commission. "The assigned assets are to be administered by the participating Government or by the commission as a majority of the League of Nations may determine on the proposal of the commission. Nevertheless, in cases where the administration of assigned assets is by the participating Government, the commission at any time may-and in case of default shall-require the participating Government to transfer the administration of the assets to itself. The participating Governments have the right of appeal to the Council against this requirement, and the decision of the Council shall be binding.".

"The countries exposed by the weakness of their credit to onerous conditions and exacting demands will thus secure an impartial tribunal to protect them. They will find in it support when dealing with creditors and will be relieved of any fear of unfair political pressure, which would not, as in the case of debt councils, threaten to encroach on their sovereign rights. These sovereign rights would remain under the protection of the Council of the League. Being thus able without misgiving to offer to the lenders adequate guarantees, they should be in a position to borrow on more reasonable terms than would otherwise be the case,'

The Assembly closed its sessions on the evening of December 18. The last session was the occasion of some sharp discussion in respect to the powers of the Council. Lord Robert Cecil and Mr. Balfour, the English delegates took opposing ground as to the policy of the League in respect to mandates and as to the relation between the Council and the League. There was much criticism, especially on the part of the representatives of the smaller nations, of the wide powers assumed by the Council. It was the controlling authority in nearly every matter, except the admission of members and the appropriation of money. A resolution had been introduced declaring that the states holding mandates should not exploit the territories concerned or raise troops in them. Mr. Balfour contended that the Council retained the entire freedom of action in this respect. There was also much objection to the secrecy of its proceedings. Lord Cecil recommended that the great Powers should make their policy in respect to mandates known. He consistently demanded publicity. He persisted in this demand believing that the time of the old secret diplomacy had passed. Mr. Balfour declared that the Council was the responsible body under the Covenant and that its members could not admit any restriction on its freedom of action. This issue had divided the Assembly during its entire session. It was charged that the great Powers were simply carrying out selfish national policies in the manner of the old diplomacy. The refusal to publish their proceedings gave offence to a large number of members.

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE. In October the secretary of the League of Nations published the plan for the permanent International Court of Justice, as developed by the committee of

jurists in sessions held at The Hague, June 16– July 24th. The chief interest of the plan was its manner of solving the problem which had caused the failure in 1907, namely, the question of the composition of the court. According to the plan the judges of the court were to be elected by the council and the Assembly of the League from a list of names designated by the national groups of the permanent court of arbitration instituted at The Hague by the conferences of 1899 and 1907. Its permanence was insured by the requirement that it should hold a session each year and, at the option of its president, might be convoked in extraordinary session when circumstances required. The powers of the court were indicated by the following provisions. In a difference arising between the states which cannot be resolved through diplomatic channels and which does not pertain to another jurisdiction, the complainant may submit it to the court of international justice. The court has jurisdiction over first, the interpretation of the Treaty; second, all questions of international legislation; third, any violation of international obligations; fourth, the nature and extent of the reparation for such violation; fifth, the interpretation of sentences pronounced by the court. It also would take cognizance of all differences of any kind that might be submitted to it as the result of a general agreement or a specific understanding between the parties concerned. If a contest arose between the parties in regard to the competence of the court in respect to a difference between them the court was to decide. It was also to give its advice in respect to any international question even if it did not have relation to a difference between the nations. The language of the court was to be French although another language might be authorized at the request of the parties in litigation. The committee of the League's plan was presented to the Assembly at Geneva, December 13, and unanimously adopted. It differed from the plan of Mr. Root and his associates in some important particulars. For example, the committee of the League in conformity with the decision of the Council at Brussels believed it impossible to secure the consent of the requisite number of League members to a plan which permitted an offended nation to cite another nation before the Court. This provision was replaced by one which gave the nations the right to consent or refuse obligatory arbitration.

SAAR BASIN. The commission of the Saar Basin was appointed by the Council of the League February 13, and assumed its duties February 26. Its president was M. Rault of France, other members were two representatives of Belgium, one of Denmark, and one of Canada. The Saar Basin, it will be remembered, comprises the mining region which for fifteen years under the terms of the Treaty was to be exploited in the interest of France for the payment of the damage done to her industrial regions. The function of the governing commission was to make sure that the new arrangement caused no unnecessary friction with the natives. It announced that officials would thenceforth be chosen, so far as possible, from among the population and no longer be appointed by the Prussian, Bavarian, or German governments, and that above all, the administration of justice was to be in the hands of the natives. Religious freedom was assured and provisions for the material welfare of the inhabitants promised. Subsequent conferences