home. It is easily demonstrated, however, that such a com-
bination would not be to the purpose. It is clear to all of
us that each of the two questions involved is very
important.
We have no doubt that the delegate who proposed
combining the discussion of these two questions also real*
izes the importance of each of the questions, and has no
desire to impair the consideration of either one of them.
At the same time, we already see clearly that the question
of Allied troops on foreign territories is-not a simple one,
and calls for serious "discussion; and the problem of the
general reduction of armaments is still more complicated.
We cannot combine the discussion of these questions
without impairing our consideration of both the one and
the other. By combining the discussion, we will fail to
devote sufficient attention to either question. Therefore,
such combination is inexpedient.
Nor is it hard to see that the questions are different
in their very nature.
When we say, give us information about your troops
on foreign territories, we are speaking of a question of
the present day, of receiving factual material for the cur-
rent moment. But when we discuss a question that has to
do with the general reduction of armaments, we are bring-
ing up a problem.of great scope, applying to a lengthy pe-
riod of time. While the first question is chiefly one of fact,
the second is primarily a question of principles, involving
the intricate elaboration of.problems such as the partici-
pants in international meetings amd conferences have nev-
er heretofore been able to solve.
Nobody will deny that it will require quite some time
to work out the problem of the general reduction of arma-
ments. Without serious application, which will take many
months, there can be no serious -discussion of the problem
297