so in England. His motion for publicity was finally defeated.

Meeting in strict secrecy the committees at the session of Nov. 17 then proceeded to the election of Chairmen. Out of twelve Chairmanships and Vice Chairmanships the smaller nations received nine, five of which were representatives of the Latin American countries. The list follows:

Commission on admission of new States: Chairman, Antonio Huneus of Chile; Vice Chairman, Dr. Juan Callos Blanco of Uruguay.

Commission on General Organization: Chairman, Arthur J. Balfour; Vice Chairman, Dr. Wellington Koo (China).

Commission on Tecnical Organization: Chairman, Tomasso Tittoni, (Italy); Vice Chairman, Take Jonescu (Rumania). Commission on the Court of International Justice: Chairman, Leon Bourgeois; Vice Chairman, Dr. Affonso da Costa (Portugal).

Commission on Finances: Chairman, Count Quinones de Leon, Spanish Ambassador to France; Vice Chairman, Señor Restrepo of Colombia.

Commission on Disarmament, Blockade and Mandates: Chairman, Hjalmar Branting of Sweden; Vice Chairman, Señor Aguer (Cuba).

The Assembly completed its organization on the following day, when it elected six Vice Presidents, who, with the six Chairmen of Commissions, and M. Motta, the Swiss President, who had been elected honorary President of the Assembly, were to constitute what was in effect the Executive Committee. Those chosen from the European nations were H. A. van Karnabeek of Holland and Dr. Eduard Benès of Czechoslovakia. The non-European nations had no cause for complaint, inasmuch as they captured four appointments, distributed to Viscount Ishii of Japan, Honorio Puyerredon of Argentina, Sir George E. Foster of Canada and Rodrigo Octavio of Brazil.

DISCUSSIONS AND DECISIONS

One of the first problems that arose in the main body of the Assembly was that of amendments to the League covenant. The Scandinavian countries had presented amendments tending to lessen the hold of the large powers. These amendments sought to establish (1) the right of small countries adjacent to nations

which began hostilities in defiance of the League to maintain trade and other relations if this were considered necessary in order to avoid a clash; (2) compulsory arbitration by the World Court created at The Hague; (3) regular meetings of the League; (4) the appointment of four non-permanent members of the League Council, to be elected each year for four years,

The ensuing debate soon revealed the general belief that non-participation by any member nation would make the whole blockade, as a weapon to prevent war, ineffective. Despite the feeling, it was decided, on Dec. 10, to leave with the League members themselves the right of decision. Other amendments were debated later, but amendments, as a whole, including attempts to obtain the elimination of Article X., were finally set aside, and a standing committee was appointed

to report on all such proposals at the second meeting of the Assembly, to be held in 1921. It was definitely announced that the League would undertake to make no changes until it heard proposals from the next administration of the United States Government.

ARGENTINA'S WITHDRAWAL

As for the much disputed interpretation of Article X., the Assembly at the session of Dec. 2 made it clear that the meaning of the passage did not go beyond advising and recommending. Two decisions taken at this session supported President Wilson's construction of the clause. The first declared that Article X. did not mean that the League guaranteed the status quo of the nations of the world, but merely condemned external aggression against members, and did not concern itself with changes of a territorial or political nature produced by any other causes. The second decision was to the effect that Denmark should have the right, before contributing troops for the plebiscite at Vilna, to make this action dependent on the approval of her Parliament.

The decision to waive the whole question of amendments had the result of precipitating a dispute which at one moment threatened to disrupt the Assembly. Most prominent of all those to move for amendments had been the Argentinians, headed by Señor Puyerredon. Argentina stood especially for compulsory arbitration by the International Court of Justice, the election of members of the Council by the Assembly, the admission of all States to the League, including Germany, and the admission of small States of undefined boundaries without a vote. It was clear from the start that Puyerredon was leading the campaign of the small nations to undermine the power of the larger ones.

The fight culminated on Dec. 4, when the Argentinian delegation had read a resolution advocating the admission of all sovereign States unless they voluntarily decided to stay outside. Señor Puyerredon frankly admitted that the object was to open the way to the admission of Germany. This, with all the other changes proposed, was rejected, whereupon Señor Puyerredon, with all

the members of his delegation, withdrew from the Assembly, declaring that he would not return until all four proposals were accepted. The Assembly refused to rescind its action and accepted the departure of the Argentinians.

Señor Puyerredon, in departing, emphasized his view that the amendments proposed by him were absolutely fundamental for the strong constitution of the League upon a broad and democratic basis, and declared that the question of amendments should not have been blocked.

ADMISSION OF NEW MEMBERS

Though the Assembly had set its face against the scheme of wholesale admission of all sovereign States, proposed by the departing delegation, and though, at its very first session, it had shown clearly that it had no present intention of admitting Germany, it was quite ready to consider proposals for the admission of other enemy nations that had made a sincere attempt to fulfill their treaty obligations. The admission of Austria, which made its application and appointed M. Mensdorff, former Austrian Ambassador to London, to speak on its behalf in the Assembly, was favorably considered. on Dec. 15. Bulgaria was admitted to the League at the session of Dec. 9, despite the opposition of France, after the Membership Commission had reported in her favor. A factor which influenced this result was the receipt of a report from Marshal Foch declaring that Bulgaria had done more than any other of the Central Powers to fulfill the terms of the treaty.

Finland, Luxemburg and Costa Rica were admitted on Dec. 16, and Albania was admitted on Dec. 17 after some debate, in which Delegate Inman of India dwelt upon the excellent impression which this act would have upon Mohammedans throughout the world. The six nations above named were all the new ones admitted; they brought the total membership to forty-seven. The application of Azerbaijan, Georgia, the Ukraine, Esthonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Montenegro and Lichtenstein were rejected for the present, most of them on

the ground maintained by President Wilson that former Russian territory should not be disposed of until a responsible Russian Government had given its consent.

Armenia almost won admission. Dr. Nansen of the sub-committee had handed in a favorable report, and the movement, led by M. Viviani, the "silver-tongued " orator of France, bade fair to be successful. The turn of the wheel of history, however, produced a volte-face on the part of the Assembly. Delegate Fisher of England had received advance news that Armenia had abandoned her resistance to the Turks and gone Bolshevist; he therefore moved for postponement, and before the next meeting the whole story of Armenia's capitulation had been published in the papers. The Premiers decided against recognition, and on Nov. 25 the Assembly decided, instead, to ask President Wilson to mediate between the Armenians and the Nationalist forces of Mustapha Kemal.

HJALMAR BRANTING Swedish Delegate to the Assembly, former Prime Minister of Sweden

Rowell of Canada a reply which contained a sensational attack upon all the methods of European diplomacy and upon the procedure of the Assembly itself. The League, he declared, could not entertain such proposals as that made by the Belgian delegate, which were wholly outside the scope of the covenant, and which amounted to an attempt to interfere in the internal affairs of the adhering nations. Canada, he declared, would never consent to such a pooling of primary materials. He delivered an onslaught against militarism wherever it might appear, among enemy countries

PAUL HYMANS

Belgian Foreign Minister, chosen President of the League Assembly (Harris & Ewing)

De

or within the Entente itself, and declared that the primary function of the League was to preserve the world's peace by substituting some other method than war for settling international disputes. spite arguments by Signor Tittoni, the Belgian proposal was lost. Mr. Rowell had cleared the air considerably. Later Canada also won the fight to create an economic bureau not subject to the control of the League Council.

THE FIGHT OVER MANDATES

Some important points in regard to mandates were settled at the sessions of Nov. 26 and 29. The commission in charge of this subject appointed a permanent mandate committee of nine members, five of whom were chosen from States that held no mandates. It decided that in case of controversy the mandatary should be prohibited from voting with the committee. In spite of determined British protests the control

ling power was given to nations not holding mandates. This action confirmed the decision taken by the Council at Brussels, which had been fought by the British since its announcement.

Despite this victory, however, it soon became apparent that in actual practice the system devised would amount to control by the mandate-holding nations, namely, Great Britain, France, Belgium and Japan. This was seen in the decisions embodied in the mandate commission report on Nov. 30. It stipulated that each mandate-holding State must send to the commission annually a report by a special representative. The commission is to examine the report; any observations are to be sent to the Council. The commission is to hold a joint meeting with the mandate-holding powers, either before or after the presentation of the annual report, at which it is empowered to lay before them all proposals which it thinks the Council should submit to the mandataries. This was interpreted as meaning that the mandate-holding powers would retain control, for though five non-mandate nations were seated, the other four mandate members had each two votes, securing a majority.

The Berlin Government, shortly after the Geneva congress opened, had sent in an official note declaring that Germany no longer considered itself bound by the mandate clauses of the Versailles Treaty, as it had expected when signing to be admitted to the League and to have a voice in the allotment of mandates. This protest made a marked impression, especially as it was not addressed to the League Council but to the Assembly.

The Assembly, however, was placed in a difficult position because of the persistent refusal of Great Britain and France to divulge their plans in mandated territories. In a vigorous report made public on Dec. 16 the Committee for Mandates admitted that it could not move an inch and could not secure any discussion of the subject because of the Supreme Council's opposition. Drafts of the mandates had been asked for in vain. After three weeks' insistence the Council admitted that it had received the draft

for Class A mandates-those in Turkey. Five days' efforts resulted in securing a private reading of this draft form. The Council refused the committee's request for permission to publish the terms of these mandates. The other mandates were not shown. No information was divulged regarding the mandates for the former German colonies. The report of the committee showed clearly that a state of friction had developed, and that the great powers, on the alleged ground that it was inexpedient to discuss the mandates until the Turkish Treaty was put in operation, were tightening their grip on the territories assigned them. In words of uncompromising frankness the committee condemned the tendency toward "militarism" in the mandated areas. It was already clear, however, that the League Council would not allow the Assembly to push the matter.

The dispute between the Assembly and the Council was emphasized even more sharply on Dec. 17. When the League Council met it found before it a draft of the mandates of Class C, which covered those for former German colonies in South Africa and Australia. It also found a demand from the Assembly Commission on Mandates that this draft be submitted to it for examination. The Council approved the draft, as well as all other drafts of Class C, but instead of submitting them to the commission sent them to press headquarters, saying that they represented the decision of the Council, were henceforth in effect, and would not be changed except by a decision of the Council. Lord Robert Cecil, representing South Africa, and Mr. Mellin, Australia, had thus succeeded in forcing publicity, but failed completely to obtain any control of the mandate situation by the Assembly.

Their failure was also the failure of Japan, whose nationals are excluded by the mandate draft from the South Pacific Islands, held by Australia. The Japanese delegates issued a statement declaring for equal opportunity of commerce and trade under Mandate C, but announcing agreement for the time being in the interests of harmony. Many of the delegations were highly incensed at