Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2007 with funding from
IVIicrosoft Corporation
http://www.archive.org/details/firstassemblyoflOOworlrich
1^ IJ»I t I -..
A LEAGUE of NATIONS
Vol. IV, No. 1 DOUBLE NUMBER February, 1921
The
First Assembly
of the
League of Nations
Published Bimonthly by the
WORLD PEACE FOUNDATION
40 Mt. Vernon Street, Boston
Price, 10 cents per copy; 25 cents per year
•founded in 1910 BY EDWIN 6INN
The corporation is constituted for the purpose of educating the people
of all nations to a full knowledge of the waste and destructiveness of war,
its evil effects on present social conditions and on the well-being of future
generations, and to promote international justice and the brotherhood
of man; and, generally, by every practical means to promote peace
and good will among all mankind. — By-laws of the Corporation.
I It is to this patient and thorough work of education, through the school,
the college, the church, the press, the pamphlet and the book, that the
World Peace Foundation addresses itself. — Edwin Ginn.
The idea of force C2in not at once be eradicated. It is useless to believe
that the nations can be persuaded to disband their present armies and
dismantle their present navies, trusting in each other or in the Hague
Tribunal to settle any possible differences between them, unless, first,
some substitute for the existing forces is provided and demonstrated
by experience to be adequate to protect the rights, dignity and territory
of the respective nations. My own belief is that the idea which underlies
the movement for the Hague Court can be developed so that the nations
can be persuaded each to contribute a small percentage of their military
forces at sea and on land to form an International Guard or Police Force. —
Edwin Ginn.
^Incorporated under the laws of Massachusetts, July 12, 1910, as the International School
9£ Peace. Name changed to World Peace Foundation, December 22, 1910.
A LEAGUE OF NATIONS
Published Bimonthly by
WORLD PEACE FOUNDATION
40 MT. VERNON STREET, BOSTON, MASS.
The subscription price is 25c. per year in advance, or 31-00 for five years.
Prices in quantities on application.
General Secretary, Edward Cummings.
Corresponding Secretary, and Librarian, Denys P. Myers.
CONTENTS
PREFACE 5
I. INTRODUCTION. 7
II. COMMITTEES, ELECTIONS AND PUBLICITY 13
Election of officers 13
Publicity 15
Practice of the committees 17
Meetings of the Council 18
Polish-Lithuanian dispute 19
Report on the work of the Council 21
Registration of treaties 22
A Chinese declaration 24
Efifort to favor Esperanto 24
m. GENERAL ORGANIZATION:
Rules of procedure 25
Powers of the organs 26
Language question 27
Japan to raise equality issue later 29
Rules of procedure of the Assembly 31
Relations between the Council and Assembly 39
Neither parliament nor government 40
Competence of each discussed 41
No need to define functions now 44
Principles rejected and those adopted 45
Nonpermanent Members of the Council 46
Obligatory rotation rejected 48
Distribution of Council membership 49
How should vote be held? 51
Elect Members of Council 52
IV. AMENDMENTS TO THE COVENANT 54
Committee is suggested 55
Postponement discussed 57
Argentina's withdrawal 60
Proposal to eliminate Article 10 62
V. TECHNICAL ORGANIZATIONS 64
Relation to Assembly and Council 66
Economic and Financial Organization 69
Discussion as to raw materials 71
Resolutions as adopted 76
Communications and Transit 78
Duties of conference and committee 79
Judicial functions respecting transit 82
International Health Organization 82
Traffic in women and children 88
Interested Governments only to attend 89
Traffic in opium 90
China seconds resolution 91
Co-operation with intellectual labor 93
Passes after discussion 94
Children affected by the war 95
Campaign against typhus 96
Political effect of epidemics 98
Passports 101
India and the International Labor Office 103
VI. PERMANENT COURT OF INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE . . 104
Essential task of League 105
Solution respecting competence 107
South American point of view 108
"To-morrow we shall go further" 109
Statute voted marks gains Ill
Independent Proposals of jurists 113
VII. SECRETARIAT AND BUDGET 115
Staff and Organization 116
Discuss teniu-e of oflBce 117
Budget 119
Problem of fair payments 120
Resolutions 123
Audited accoimt for the first fiscal period 127
Budget for the second fiscal period 128
Third budget 130
VIII. ADMISSION OF NEW STATES 133
Minorities in states admitted 135
Admissions granted:
a. Austria 136
b. Bulgaria 142
c. Costa Rica 148
d. Finland 149
e. Luxemburg 149
/. Albania 151
Admission to Technical Organizations 155
a. Armenia 159
b. Baltic States: Esthonia, Latvia, Lithuania 160
c. Georgia 162
Decision as to very small countries 164
Unfavorable votes 165
a. Azerbaijan 165
b. Ukraine 166
IX. ECONOMIC WEAPON: ARTICLE 16 167
Decisions accepted 171
Questions to be studied 173
X. ARMAMENT. 174
a. Traffic in arms 174
Surplus weapons are problem 174
b. Private manufacture of arms . 176
c. Steps toward reduction 177
No revision of laws of war now 178
d. Limitation of budgets 181
XI. MANDATES: ARTICLE 22 183
Publicity m-ged 184
An opinion from the Council 187
Recommendations passed 189
Xn. MEDIATION IN ARMENIA 191
Xltl. SOVIET RUSSIA AND POLAND 199
APPENDIX: Delegations to the First Assembly 203
THE WORLD AND THE LEAGUE 206
PREFACE
Said IA>n Bourgeois in the debate on mandates at the 30th
plenary meeting of the Assembly of the League of Nations on
December 18, 1920:
* 'Let us not be skeptical and let us not be impatient. Remember
that the League of Nations is a new-bom child and wants time
in order to acquire strength for the tasks of the future. . . .
There are many men in the world who are looking upon this
Assembly and looking upon us now with a hypercritical view so
that not a single point of difference of opinion between any of the
Members is missed by those men. As soon as they suspect any
little difference of opinion they immediately start to write to the
world's press and distribute hundreds of telegrams to the various
countries saying that the League of Nations is in danger and that
it is in process of dissolution. I say that the League of Nations is
not in process of dissolution. On the other hand, these writers,
when they are faced with a unanimous vote, make little count of
it, and they much prefer to emphasize our tiny, insignificant
points of difference. Let the skeptics smile; but let us be sure
that the fruit of our deliberations will soon be placed before the
public, and then the niunber of people that have confidence in us
will increase."
This publication, quite independently of the distinguished
Frenchman's knowledge, aims to do what he anticipated. It gives
an adequate accoimt of the problems before the first Assembly
of the League of Nations and the substance of the more im-
portant debates. Every effort, consistent with clearness, has
been made to present the facts as nearly as possible in the actual
words of the participants. All resolutions and recommendations
of the Assembly — complimentary ones omitted — are given textual-
ly, being printed in solid 10-point type, as distinguished from the
leaded 10-point type of the regular text and the leaded 9-point
employed for quotations.
Aside from the narrative necessary to bind the discussion
together or to summarize it, the entire work is taken exclusively
6 :'\: : • .■i.'EAGUKc of' nations
from official sources. There have been used in its preparation
267 Assembly Documents, referred to by the abbreviation A.D.;
the Provisional Verbatim Report of the 31 plenary meetings; the
21 numbers of the Proces-Verbaux of the Committees; and the
36 numbers of the Journal of the First Assembly. The permanent
Record has not yet reached us, and on that account references are
omitted. The material has, however, been carefully assigned to
its proper session, to facilitate finding the original passage in the
permanent print, should the reader have occasion to do so.
THE FIRST ASSEMBLY OF THE
LEAGUE OF NATIONS
I. INTRODUCTION
The first Assembly of the League of Nations was held at Geneva
November 15 to December 18, 1920. Since May, 1919, the League
had been in being under the auspices of an Organization Committee
of the Paris Peace Conference; and since January 10,1920, it had
been in legal existence by virtue of the entrance into force of
the treaty of Versailles. The Council had met ten times and
together with the Secretariat had organized the League so far as
possible. In addition, the Council had done a great amount of
work within its competence.
The Assembly had before it the task of completing the organ-
ization of the League, making itself a reality along parliamentary
lines and of handling various questions within its comp)etence and
incident to the world situation. The meeting of the Assembly
was the first gathering of nations under a permanent agreement
made in advance; it was the first direct contact of the majority
of the member states with the League which they had joined.
The work outlined for the Assembly was, consequently, to depend
upon how 41 states — big and little — would work together; and
the question thus brought forward was of importance because
the bulk of the Assembly's work was the building of the structural
framework within which the League would develop in the future.
How many rights would states intrust to the League; would big
and little states harmonize their interests for the general good?
The answer was satisfactory; the framework, as set up, left
each state its right to decide essential questions, but at the same
time built for the general interest. Africa, the Americas, Asia
and Europe met in the common forum and produced, with a
minimum of friction, decisions which made the League of Nations
an all but universal instnmient **to promote international co-
operation and to achieve international peace and security '* by
organic means agreeable to them all.
8 ;.'-/; ';«': ;«i6AGte o? .nations
But let the Assembly speak for itself. Paul Hymans of Bel-
gium presided at the first meeting and then voiced the purposes
of the Assembly and of the League:
"Our aim is in the first place to establish frequent and friendly
intercourse between independent states and to form ties which
will lead to mutual understanding and sympathy.
"By the good offices of the Council and the Assembly, by
arbitration and conciliation, and by the establishment of a regular
and permanent international jurisdiction, by a series of organiza-
tions within which, as it were in laboratories, financial, economic
and commercial problems, the conditions of labor and questions of
health will be subjected to an impartial and objective investiga-
tion, the League of Nations will be able to play a powerful part in
preventing dangerous crises, in the settlement of disputes which,
if prolonged, run the risk of becoming more bitter and more
acute, and in improving the moral and material lot of the peoples
by wise co-operation.
The Common Life of Nations
"In a word, our ambition is to create by degrees within ever
widening spheres a certain common life of nations, ruled by the
principles of justice, swayed by good faith and loyalty, and in-
spired by an international spirit. By an international spirit I
mean the spirit which places general interests above individual
interests, the spirit of fraternity which strives to alleviate the
sufferings of peoples and the difficulties under which the Govern-
ments labor, to co-ordinate their action and to appease the hates
and rivalries which sometimes suddenly give rise to those great
outbursts of madness which shake the world to its foundations
and threaten to ruin the work of centuries.
"Thus it is that we are not working together for the accom-
plishment of a work of practical utility only, but we are pursuing
a lofty ideal to which our hearts and thoughts aspire.
"In spite of criticism — sometimes very severe criticism, which
comes from far away and precisely from that quarter from which
we hoped and continue to hope for fruitful collaboration — we
have the conviction that the League of Nations responds to a
need and an appeal which comes from the soul of the peoples
WORK TOGETHER FOR HUMAN RIGHT V
after the frightful drama from which we have just emerged, an
appeal and a need for justice, harmony and peace.
**In every national entity morality imposes upon each individual
duties toward others and duties toward the nation as a whole.
There is a moral law for nations as for individuals, and nations,
like individuals, have necessarily relations one with another.
They have their mutual duties as well as their mutual rights, and
they also have their duties to the whole of human society.
* 'Without destroying the features which distinguish our national-
ities and our races, without denying or attempting to diminish
the individual character of the different peoples, their special
gifts and vocations, let us endeavor to insure their collaboration
in the work for the common good. Working together, let us seek
to prepare and step by step to achieve the reign, so long awaited,
of international morality and human right.'*
''It Works; It Acts; It Lives''
Mr. Hymans in his closing address as President of the First
Assembly summed up its work in words continually applauded
by the representatives of 45 states. Among apt tributes to place
and personnel, to work done and foundations laid, he gave voice
to many general verdicts, of which the following are notable:
"It was said five weeks ago, at the opening of this session,
that we were making a great experiment. To-day I think I can
say that the experiment has succeeded. The League of Nations
has found itself; it works; it acts; it lives, and it has the will to
live. For five weeks now we have been engaged in work and dis-
cussion. The Assembly has been divided into numerous com-
mittees, and into even more numerous subcommittees. In these
committees, in which all the states were represented, and in the
subcommittees, care was taken to secure the presence of all the
most expert and competent men. The work undertaken by these
bodies has been painstaking, thorough, conscientious; and all the
questions considered have been submitted to the most searching
investigation. Let me quote only one instance, that of the com-
mittee intrusted with the scheme for an International Court of
Justice. This committee held 22 meetings.
"It is well to recall these facts, when we reflect. Gentlemen,
10 LEAGUE OF NATIONS
that when we met we were to some extent in an inorganic state.
. . . Our methods of discussion, our means of action, were all
uncertain. With a promptitude which does it credit, and which
has certainly surprised many parliamentarians and perhaps many
Parliaments, the Assembly determined its rules of procedure in
two sittings, it determined clearly its relations with the Coimcil,
it fixed its budget. It was wise enough — if I may express an
opinion now that my presidency is terminating — it was wise enough
to decide not to revise the Covenant immediately. It wished to
put it to the test, to set it in motion; it wished to let time pass, so
that it might allow the schemes to mature, rejecting nothing,
being ready to examine all, to discuss all, and submitting to a
commission to be nominated by the Council the carefully studied
schemes dictated by experience, so that in the fullness of time,
after a year, the Assembly may at length give its decisions and
modify, if it thinks fit, the original plan.
*'Built the Temple of Right''
"But we share one hope and one purpose — Peace. And there
is no one who desires it more than we do; we upon whom a glorious
destiny laid the duty of fighting for the right and liberty of the
world. The greatest task of this Assembly, and its principal
achievement for Peace was the constitution of the International
Court of Justice. This idea has been germinating for many
years. To-day we see its fruition. Jurists, who were among the
most eminent in the world, prepared the draft scheme at The
Hague; the Coimcil investigated and considered it thoroughly
and at length. After the Council came Committee No. 3, then a
subcommittee of specialists, and finally we have been privileged
to witness that after a long day of important deliberations, in
which the most eminent members of this Assembly took part, the
proposed resolutions were unanimously adopted.
"We have built for you. Gentlemen, what I may call the
Temple of Right, the Palace of Peace. In this draft, now sub-
mitted to the Governments, is a clause to which I wish to draw
the attention of public opinion. It is this new clause of Article
36, permitting the states by a simple unilateral declaration, with
whatever methods or reservations they prefer, to admit its
FBATEKNITY IN PERSONAL KELAT10N8 11
obligatory competence for all disputes of a juridical nature. Here,
Gentlemen, we have made a considerable step forward. The
progress we have made will leave its mark on the history of Right :
it is opening the road to obligatory arbitration.
**I think I may say that a spirit of fraternity and sincerity has
dominated our personal relations. One of the characteristics of
this great Assembly, where so many men hitherto unknown to
each other have met together, has been the cordiality of their
relations, and this is to be explained not only by their character
and their sociability, but also by a profound uniformity of thought.
. . . There have been differences of opinion, but we have always
felt agreed upon our aim, and in truth, we have been divided
merely by shades of opinion and not by principles. How could it
have been otherwise? How could we avoid divergences between
men assembled from all corners of the world; men from the north
whose outlook is colder, men from the south of more ardent and
spontaneous temper, men from Africa, Asia, America, represen-
tatives of young states and representatives of old civilizations.
But, I repeat, on our aims, on the ideal which led us, on the desire
for justice and peace, on these points there was no disagreement;
we felt ourselves united all the time.
Equality of States Re-established
"One of the features of this Assembly has been the recogni-
tion of the equality of states. It is a feature to which we must
draw attention, the more particularly because we are emerging
from a period which is still very recent when a strange and artificial
distinction was still drawn between the states which were called
states with limited interests, and those which were called states
with general interests. The interest of humanity and the interest
of the world is a general interest. The small states, whatever the
size of their territory and whatever their population, have the
same interest as large states in the safety of humanity. Nihil
humani a me alienum puto. . . .
*'I will not say that we are all old, but many of us are already
the men of yesterday; some of us can still claim to be the men of
to-day; but I appeal to the men of to-morrow. It is upon them
that the great burden is laid, on youth, on the youth of all the
12 LEAGUE OF NATIONS
countries in the world, and especially on the youth which has
fought and shed its blood, which has garnered the glories of the
war and witnessed its horrors; it is to youth that I appeal to con-
struct the new moral world which is indispensable to the full
growth of the League of Nations. We must {persevere in our task
and proceed upon our way. Proud in our hope and the conscious-
ness of our lofty duty, we must persevere in our path to our
glorious destiny.''
II. COMMITTEES, ELECTIONS AND PUBLICITY
After the provisional adoption of rules of procedure at the
second plenary meeting on November 15, President Hymans
said **it will be obvious that the Assembly can never reach the
successful end of its labors if it does not distribute the work
between its members. On the other hand it has been thought
advisable to insure to every state an equal share in the preparation
of the final decision. Therefore, these two ideas have led us to
suggest that your study of these questions should be divided
among six commissions, it being understood that all the states are
entitled to be represented on every one of those commissions. In
deciding how the subjects should be divided among the various
commissions, we have decided to group together questions which
are connected with each other and which present a logical whole.**
He continued by describing the proposed division of work, which
resulted in a motion to constitute the following committees:
1. General organization.
2. Technical organization.
3. Creation of a Permanent Court of International Justice.
4. Secretariat and budget.
6. Examination of applications for new admissions.
6. Reduction of armaments, economic weapon, and mandates.
The division of work makes apparent the extent to which the
Assembly was engaged merely in setting up the framework of the
League. Of the six committees, the first five were occupied with
preliminary preparations which in the future should occupy
scarcely the time of a single committee.
Election of Officers
The presiding officer for the first plenary meeting had been
designated as the president of the Council, who at the time hap-
pened to be Paul Hymans of Belgium. He was immediately, and
practically unanimously, elected permanent president by the
delegations.
14 LEAGUE OF NATIONS
At the third meeting on November 16, after considerable dis-
cussion, the Assembly resolved that:
There shall be 12 vice-presidents of the Assembly;
Each committee shall elect its own chairman;
These chairmen shall be vice-presidents of the Assembly;
The Assembly will elect by ballot six other vice-presidents.
Balloting for the six vice-presidents occurred at the sixth plenary
meeting. Before the vote, on motion of M. Tittoni (Italy), M.
Motta, President of the Swiss Confederation, was imanimously
chosen honorary president of the Assembly as a tribute to a
democracy which more than any other **has understood how to
combine liberty and equality of her citizens with respect for law."
On the first ballot, 39 states voting, the following were elected by
a clear majority (A.D. 104) :
Viscount Ishii, 32; Jhr. van Karnebeek, 31; M. Pueyrredon, 28;
Dr. Benes, 26 ; Sir George Foster, 22. The other figures were : M. Oc-
tavio,18; M. daCunha,8; SirSaiyid Alilmam, 8; Dr.Nansen, 8;
Lord Robert Cecil, 8; and sundry other votes of lesser amounts.
On the second ballot the poll was: M. Octavio, 22; Lord Robert
Cecil, 6; Sir Ali Lnam, 5; Dr. Nansen, 3; M. da Cunha, 2; M.
Viviani, 1.
The chairmen of the committees were announced at the same
meeting and the General Committee was therefore declared to be
constituted as follows :
Giuseppe Motta, Switzerland, honorary president; Paul Hy-
mans, Belgium, president; Mr. Balfour, Great Britain, chairman
of First Committee; Mr. Tittoni, Italy, chairman of Second Com-
mittee; M. Bourgeois, France, chairman of Third Committee; M.
Quinones de Leon, Spain, chairman of Fourth Committee; M. Hun-
eeus, Chile, chairman of Fifth Committee; M. Branting, Sweden,
chairman of Sixth Committee; Viscount Ishii, Japan; M. Karne-
beek, Netherlands; M. Pueyrredon,^ Argentine Republic ;M. Benes,
Czecho-Slovakia; Sir G. Foster, Canada; M. Octavio, Brazil.
iThe resignation of Honorio Pueyrredon was received on December 8, as a con-
sequence of the withdrawal of the Argentine delegation. The ballot to elect a
vice-president to fill the vacancy was taken on December 11 . Thirty-seven states
voted, majority 19. M. Blanco, delegate of Uruguay, received 24 votes, and was
therefore elected. Other votes were given for Prince Charoon, M. Jonescu, Dr.
Nansen, Mr. Rowell, M. Spalaikovich, Mr. Wellmgton Koo, M. Zahle, and Zoka ed
Dowleh.
problem of public discussion 15
Publicity
The question of publicity elicited a great deal of interest in
and out of the Assembly because it was supposed to have a bearing
upon ''secret" diplomacy. There had already been a certain
amount of criticism in Europe respecting the practice of the
Council's holding its discussions in private, and only rendering
its decisions at public meetings. There has never been any ques-
tion in the League as to the publicity of decisions arrived at, and
it is really very difficult to decide whether publicity of all stages of
discussion is an aid or a deterrent to public imderstanding. The
League's practice has been to subject a matter to study first by
the Secretariat, the results being set forth in a memorandum.
This memorandum has gone to the Council or to the Assembly
as a basis of discussion. Eventually a report and a resolution are
prepared by a rapporteur and adopted by the appropriate body.
As a matter of fact, the reports made and the decisions reached in
all of the League's activities have accurately summarized the
discussions.
The question of publicity was raised before the Assembly
respecting the committees, respecting the Council and respecting
the very complicated dispute pending with the Coimcil between
Poland and Lithuania. At Geneva from the outset it was ap-
parently taken for granted that the proceedings of the Assembly
should all be public.
In the course of the third plenary meeting, Lord Robert Cecil
inquired *'at what stage should the delegation of South Africa
bring up a proposal as to the publicity of the proceedings of the
committees." The President ruled that the question would be in
order after two items on the agenda had been disposed of. M.
Viviani (France) rose to say that this suggestion proposed that
the meetings of the committees should be public, "which is a
proposal contrary to custom up to now." On behalf of the French
delegation he emphatically insisted upon the discussion of the
proposal immediately.
Lord Robert Cecil replied that ''Article 15 of the provisional
rules, reading: 'unless the committees decide otherwise, their
meetings shall be held in private and no minutes shall be kept of
their discussions,' " was unworkable in practice. "Minutes must
16 XEAX3UE OF NATIONS
be kept of discussions," he said, "because it is impossible that
every member should be present at every meeting." English
parliamentary practice, unlike the French, called for public com-
mittee meetings. *The only way you can secure the support of
the public opinion of the world is by taking the world into your
confidence as often and as freely as possible." He continued: "I
concede, every one must concede, that a committee be entitled
to sit in private, because evidently there must be many dis-
cussions which can only take place in private, but the rule, I
venture to submit, should be that the discussions should be held
in public and that only when there is good reason should the
public be excluded." He moved:
Each Committee shall decide what portions of its deliberations shall
he held in private, the general rule being that the sittings shall be in
public unless there is a special decision to the contrary. Full minutes
shall be kept of the proceedings of the public sittings, and such minutes
of the proceedings at the private sittings as each committee shall direct.
M. Tittoni (Italy) wanted to be liberal, but would point ouc
,^*that the committees are going to present reports to this Assembly,
and their reports will be published. We should be guided by the
consideration that we need not prolong our discussion indefinitely."
He was afraid they might have too many public discussions,
leading to undue prolongation of the sessions so that people would
become tired. M. Viviani (France) proposed a compromise
amendment:
The Committees shall keep a register of their discussions and minutes,
which shall be published, and which shall always be accessible to any
member of the Assembly.
He Stated that he would have raised the question if Lord
Robert Cecil had not. Sir James Allen (New Zealand) sup-
ported and seconded the Cecil motion. Mr. Fisher (Great Britain)
felt that M. Viviani's proposal was in the right direction. He
believed that full minutes should be kept and given to the public.
On the other hand he felt that "the Assembly would be judged
not by its words but by its achievements." Lord Robert Cecil
stated that he was willing to accept M. Viviani's proposal, with-
PRESS HEARD DEBATES 17
drawing his own, if the French delegate would insert the words
**as soon as possible'* after the word "published." M. Viviani
accepted this change and the motion was agreed to/
Practice of the Committees
The resolution, of course, controlled the practice of the com-
mittees, for which a special publication was issued, carrying the
extended minutes of meetings as soon as they had been approved
for publication. The degree to which the press was to be allowed
to attend the committee meetings was discussed in three of those
bodies, the others following the procedure outlined without further
consideration of the matter.
In the course of the first meeting of the Sixth Committee,
Reduction of Armaments, Economic Weapon and Mandates,
Mr. Fisher proposed that the sessions dealing with general topics
should be held in public, details being considered afterward in
private by subcommittees. The Chairman (M. Branting) ex-
pressed his agreement with the suggestion as being in accordance
with the true spirit of the League. The press reporters were,
therefore, frequently present during the actual meetings of that
very important committee.
At the first meeting of the Second Committee, Technical Organ^-
ization, the Canadian delegate (Mr. Rowell) proposed that repre-
sentatives of the press should be admitted to the meetings, unless
in particular cases the committee should otherwise decide. The
Chairman (M. Tittoni) replied that this proposal was contrary to
the spirit of the decision already taken in the Assembly. He added
that the final report of the committee would be publicly discussed by
the Assembly. He therefore saw no reason for adopting the Cana-
dian delegate's proposal, which, it seemed to him, would render the
committee's discussions longer and more difficult. He put the
question to the committee, and the proposal was rejected.
In the Fourth Committee, Secretariat and Budget, on November
23, Mr. Barnes (Great Britain) said he was more than ever con-
vinced of the advantage of not admitting the press to the meetings
of the conmiittee and asked that a final decision be taken on this
^The resolution in its final form is Rule 14, 6, of the rules of procedure, page — ^
above.
18 LEAGUE OF NATIONS
question. Sir James Allen (New Zealand) favored giving the press a
summary of the proceedings. The Chairman (Senor Quinones de
Leon) informed the committee that, in view of the delicate char-
acter of the questions to be dealt with, he was of opinion that it
was impossible to admit the press to the debates, but that the
minutes would be communicated to the press as soon as they had
been adopted. No one opposing this recommendation, it was de-
cided that the press would not be admitted to the meetings of
the committee.
Meetings of the Council
Another phase of publicity which attracted attention in the
Assembly was with reference to the Council's practice. The
Council, of course, makes its own rules of procedure, but the
Assembly met with the feeling that it was in reality paramount to
that body on account of its complete representation of states Mem-
bers of the League, and that as a consequence it was quite within its
competence to express its opinion of any practice of the Council.
Lord Robert Cecil (South Africa) raised the point in a speech
during the fifth plenary meeting of the Assembly on the Secretary-
General's report on the work of the Council. He then suggested
*'that the arrangements for publicity made by the Council have not
been in practice adequate and workable," and asked the Coimcil 'Ho
consider very carefully whether some at any rate of their actual
working sessions should be held in public.'' In the words of M. Tit-
toni: **It is upon the confidence of the world that the power of the
League depends." He introduced a motion. Lord Robert, speaking
to this motion at the tenth meeting of the Assembly, said :
I understand that I am fortunate enough to have obtained the assent
of the Council to this proposition, and that they are prepared to accept
the suggestion that they should consider what steps can be taken to in-
sure greater publicity for their proceedings. I am sure that the Council,
in assenting to that motion, have taken a very wise action. I have had
an opportunity of hearing from many sources during the past few months
complaints of the difficulty of knowing what is going on in the Council.
I quite recognize the immense difficulties and even dangers of the situa-
tion, but I will venture very respectfully to urge upon the states which
compose the Council that it is very desirable indeed that their proceedings,
which in many respects must be, for the greater part of the year, the
most important actions of the League, should be given the utmost pub-
IMPORTANT PRECEDENT SET 19
licity. ... I am suflBciently bold and revolutionary to trust that the
Council will even consider the possibility of having some of their real
debates held in public — as many as possible — so that the peoples of the
world can watch what is actually going on.
The President observed that "Lord Robert Cecil has correctly
slated that the Council is entirely willing and ready to discuss
the matter which he has raised. As there are no remarks, I con-
clude that there are no objections."
The following motion was therefore declared to be adopted:
That the Council be requested to take into consideration the
means for securing greater publicity for their discussions and
decisions.
Polish-Lithuanian Dispute
The third phase of the publicity question established a prece-
dent of great importance respecting the peaceful settlement of
international disputes by the League. On September 5, 1920,
the Polish Govermnent had requested the intervention of the
Council to prevent war between Poland and Lithuania on account
of the parlous and highly complicated situation in the vicinity
of their boundary territory. The Council acceded, and since then
had been conducting extensive negotiations with both parties,
while having its own mission on the ground. The developments
from day to day were much discussed in the news and several
decisions of the Council regarding current happenings had been
published. In general, however, the Council was following the
customary practice of holding the documents for publication as a
whole after a settlement had been reached. Governments, in
cases of dispute, have usually given out carefully selected docu-
ments with a view to misinforming the public in their own favor,
but have regularly withheld the complete dossier. The Council's
practice differed only in the fact that published documents were
not intended to influence public opinion one way or the other.
Referring to this dispute as summarized in the report of the
Secretary-General on the work of the Council, Lord Robert Cecil
in the fifth plenary meeting of the Assembly said it was a * 'matter
of great importance that the Assembly should know in full what
had happened," and cited Article 15 of the Covenant to support
flfil LEAGUE OF NATIONS
the contention that publicity should be given to the documents
already exchanged between the disputants and the Council. He
hoped that the Council would see no objection to the full publica-
tion of these.
At the tenth meeting of the Assembly, Lord Robert Cecil
brought up the motion, which he did not consider it necessary to
discuss since he had been informed that the Council saw no objec-
tion to it. But he would like to draw the Council's attention
to the various statements that have recently appeared in the press to the
effect that very large forces, apparently belonging to one of the dis-
putants, have been moved into the country of the other, that the forces
are equipped with aeroplanes and cannon and I know not what. I ask
the Council whether they could in the course of their statement as to
documents let us know what is really going on. I understand that they
have representatives in that part of the world, and I think the Assembly
would be glad to know what are the reports on the subject of these alleged
hostilities which have been made by the representatives of the Council.
It is an exceedingly serious matter, because if it should turn out that
there has been a breach of Article 16, as the Assembly are aware, the
penalties provided by the article automatically come into force.
President Hymans, who was also president of the Council,
stated on its behalf:
The Council has already considered the question and a certain number
of documents concerning the conflict have already been circulated. I am
allowed to tell the Assembly that the Council entirely agrees that every
document shall be circulated. In addition, the Council is now examining
in substance the position of the conflict between Poland and Lithuania,
and we expect to meet again here, in Geneva, and any communications
with the delegates of Poland and Lithuania will be duly made known.
Lord Robert Cecil may be sure that, in the broadest manner possible, his
wishes will be met.
Lord Robert declared himself as fully satisfied with this state-
ment and the motion was immediately seconded by M. Askenazy
for Poland. ^'Poland wishes to hide nothing,'' he said. The
resolution was adopted without objection:
That any statements of their case made by Poland and Lithu-
ania, together with all the relevant facts and papers be forthwith
published.
I
DOCUMENTS OPEN TO ALL 91
The application of the resolution was a surprising incident to
most of the delegates to the Assembly. The question at issue
between Poland and Lithuania during the days immediately
following the passage of the resolution was at white heat and both
delegates and newspaper correspondents w ere very anxious to get
the latest facts concerning it. As soon as possible after the As-
sembly's action the Secretariat announced that the documents
would be published in a special number of the Official Journal as
soon as possible, their bulk and the congestion of available printing
plants being reasons for delay. The Secretary-General announced,
however, "that five complete sets of the papers had been placed
in the Library of the Secretariat where they will be available for
the use of all delegations.'' (A.D. 147.) A list of the documents
so posted was carried in the Journal of December 1. Notwith-
standing these announcements, both delegates and correspondents
spent a great deal of time prying about in search of private and
exclusive information. It became rather a joke around the Secre-
tariat to refer these confidential inquirers to a pile of documents
about a foot high already placed at their free disposal.
Report on the Work of the Council
Another publicity precedent set in the first Assembly was the
report of the Secretary-General on the work of the Council.^ This
document gave the delegates of Members of the League an oppor-
tunity to discuss what the Council had accomplished, and also
gave rise to the resolutions discussed above and others. The de-
bate on the report lasted several days, resulting in suggestions of
which a single striking selection is here given.
Speaking of the work of the Council Mr. Hagerup (Norway) at
the fifth Assembly meeting suggested that in the future "the min-
utes of the meetings of the Council should be circulated among
the Members of the League in time to enable the Governments to
study them to give their delegates [to the Assembly] the instruc-
tions which seemed necessary." He also thought that the general
report for the future should be submitted to a committee of the
Assembly for examination.
Lord Robert Cecil (South Africa) shared the Norwegian's
iPor text see League of Nations, III, No. 6, December, 1920.
22 LEAGUE OF NATIONS
view. He thought that the report ''forms a complete reply to
those who have said in some countries that the League of Nations
is dead. The report shows that the League of Nations is very
much alive.'' The manner and form, arrangement and clearness
of the report "reflect the very greatest possible credit upon the
Secretariat.'' He mentioned that the main divisions of work
had been between the work of organization and the political and
other constructive activities of the Council. He regarded it as
inevitable that during the first months of a great association such
as the League, the great part of its energy must be devoted to
matters of organization, which had been ''of the greatest possible
excellence." It does not, however, make a great appeal to popular
sympathy. He believed that the League must get its machinery
in order before it can cope with the vast problems which will come
before it and believed that this stage was now practically completed,
leaving the way open for constructive activities. And he concluded :
We have an English proverb — Well begun is half done. That is a
proverb which we may apply to the labors of the League of Nations with
confidence and with hope. Undoubtedly we have begun well. . . .
I am here to represent South Africa because the prime minister of South
Africa was good enough to think that I could more adequately than any
one else present to the Assembly the views which he held. . . . General
Smuts, not so many years ago, was one of the most redoubtable and
successful commanders of the forces of the Boer Nation when they were
in arms against the British Empire, and I was the son of the prime minister
who conducted the war on behalf of the British Empire. And yet it now
comes about that the general of the Boers goes to the son of the British
prime minister and asks him to appear before the League of Nations as
the best exponent of the general's views on international subjects. How
has that result come about? Not by timidity, not by shrinking from a
bold action, but by a great act of trust in the Boer people, an act which
, . . has more than justified itself by its results. Surely that is an exam-
ple to us. Do not let us be afraid.
Registration of Treaties
Dr. van Karnebeek (Netherlands) raised the question of the
legal interpretation of Article 18 at the seventh meeting of the
Assembly while the report on the Council's work was under dis-
cussion. He stated the problem:
BHOULD REGISTRATION BIND i^
You will remember that the registration of treaties and international
engagements is referred to in the report and it was also the subject of a
memorandum of the Council at Rome, in which there is much useful
information.^ Here the principle of the question is treated rather from the
point of view of publicity and also from the administrative point of view;
but there is another side to the question which is not there referred to,
namely: What are the judicial effects of its dispositions? The article
says: **No treaty shall be binding until it is registered.'* That seems clear
enough, and yet questions arise. Does it mean that states are not bound
unto the registration is completed, that is to say, that states between the
time of signing and the time of registration might consider themselves
not bound by the treaty; or, secondly, does it mean that states are so
bound, but that the parties can not demand execution before registration;
or, thirdly, does it mean that the treaty cafn be executed but that the
parties can not rely upon the treaty in making their appeal to the League
of Nations? There then are the three points of view. You may say that
one or other of them is not justified. I think the most rigorous application
of all is the one which is best. The English text says that no such treaty
shall be binding until it is registered. I ask, should we not have the exact
interpretation of this determined by the Assembly?
The Dutch delegate spoke to his resolution again at the tenth
meeting of the Assembly at the request of the President. He
added some points needing to be cleared up, saying in part :
For instance, difficulties might arise in the case of treaties between states
which aie Members and states which are not Members of the League of
Nations. I think if the Assembly does not adopt a most rigorous interpre*
tation of the Covenant, that is to say, that the parties are not bound until
the registration is completed (which is the strict text of the Covenant) then
perhaps the Covenant will have to be modified. Again, as M. Tittoni asked
the other day, what is to happen if the parties are bound, the treaty is
capable of being put into execution, yet is not recognized by the League
of Nations? What does that mean? If the treaty is executable, what do
the parties gain by registration? My answer is that the whole object of Ar-
ticle 18 is to secure publicity. It is the commandment of publicity I may
say, and if you take away from states the interest to publish their treaties
you strike at what is one of the most important articles of the Covenant
The motion was finally passed in the following form:
That the Council should be called upon to intrust the examina-
tion of the scope of Article 18 of the Covenant from a legal point
iCf. Treaties Series, I. 8-13.
24 LEAGUE OF NATIONS
of view to a special committee, which would prepare for the Coun-
cil all relevant proposals. The Council would then report on the
question to the next General Assembly, and place before it the
proposals of the special committee.
A Chinese Declaration
The first Chinese delegate made this announcement at the 30th
plenary meeting of the Assembly :
I have the honor to inform the Assembly that there are several subjects
of vital interest to China, affecting international relations, which, under
the provisions of the Covenant of the League of Nations, the Republic of
China intends to bring to the attention of the Assembly or of the Council.
In view, however, of the fact that at this first session of the Assembly its
time has been devoted, and rightly so, in the opinion of the Chinese
delegation, to perfecting the organization of the League, and its rights
and duties as set forward in the Covenant, the Chinese delegation will
not bring these subjects before the Assembly at the present session. . , .
I reserve full right of the Republic of China, as a Member of the League,
to present the subjects to the Assembly or the Council at a more ap-
propriate time in the future. We do not waive any right to which we
may be entitled.
Ej^ort to Favor Esperanto
At the 19th plenary meeting the following proposal (A. D. 194)
was made by MM. Octavio, Restrepo, Doret, La Fontaine, Hu-
neeus, Wellington Koo, Lord Robert Cecil, Schanzer, the Ma-
haraja of Nawanagar, Benes and the Emir Zoka ed Dowleh, and
referred to the Second Committee :
The League of Nations, well aware of the language diflficulties that
prevent a direct intercourse between the peoples and of the urgent need
of finding some practical means to remove this obstacle and help the
good understanding of nations, follows with interest the experiments of
official teaching of the international language Esperanto in the public
schools of some members of the League, hopes to see that teaching made
more general in the whole world, so that the children of all countries may
know at least two languages, their mother-tongue and an easy means of
international communication, and asks the Secretary-General to prepare
for the next Assembly a report on the results reached in this respect.
At the final meeting of the Assembly the previous question
was moved by M. Hanotaux and carried, so that the motion
was defeated.
III. GENERAL ORGANIZATION
Rules op Procedure
The first duty of a deliberative body is the passage of rules of
procedure. In preparation for the Assembly, the Secretariat-
General prepared provisional rules which had been printed and
circulated as Assembly Document 1, and had been subjected to
some discussion in the Council. At the afternoon session on
November 15, after complimentary resolutions had been passed,
the President reverted to the rules with a comment that "they
would require a thorough and careful study." The question
would have to be referred to a special committee which would
be requested to report the final rules as quickly as possible.
However, it seemed very difficult to await the report of
the committee before having any rules; "therefore until they
are ready I take > the liberty," said President Hymans,
*'that only provisionally and just temporarily we should pass
as a whole the rules of procedure suggested provisionally by
the Secretariat-General." After some discussion this was
done.
The First Committee, General Organization, immediately set
to work studying the permanent rules under the chairmanship
of Arthur J. Balfour, with Mr. Wellington Koo acting as vice-
chairman.^
Dr. Maggiorino Ferraris read the report from the First Com-
mittee at the 11th plenary meeting. The rapporteur began by
naming the subcommittee which had prepared the draft: France
(M. Viviani, Chairman); South Africa (Sir Reginald Blanken-
berg); Brazil (Dr. Rodrigo Octavio Langaard de Menezes);
Japan (Viscount Ishii); Sweden (Baron Marks de Wurtemberg);
Uruguay (Dr. Juan Carlos Blanco); and Italy (Dr. Maggiorino
Ferraris, rapporteur).
1 The First Committee held meetings as follows: 1, November 19; 2, Novem-
ber 22; 3, November 24; 4, November 26; 5, November 27; 6, November 28;
7, December 2; 8, December 7; 9, December 8.
II
46 LEAGUE OF NATIONS
The draft provisions had been examined by the First Com-
mittee, and almost all had been adopted either unanimously or
by large majorities. The draft was principally based upon the
following :
1, The Covenant; 2, the provisions of the rules of procedure
of the Council, adopted at Rome, on May 17, 1920 (Official
Journal, No. 5, July-August, 1920); 3, the provisional rules of
procedure, which were distributed at the beginning of the session;
4, the provisions of rules in force in several Parliaments; 5, the
draft amendments submitted by the Delegations of Sweden,
Switzerland, Australia, Portugal, and China, and by the Hon.
N. W. Rowell, Delegate of Canada. M. Ferraris continued in
substance :
It is only by experience that future Assemblies will learn what im-
provements are required in their rules of procedure. What we need to-day,
is to draw up rules of procedure of an almost definite character, which
may serve as a guide both for our discussions and for the work of future
Assemblies.
Another object which we have endeavored to attain is the immediate
definition of the respective positions and powers of the Members of the
League, of the delegates who represent them, of the Council of the
League, and of the Secretariat-General. Our guiding principle throughout
has been, that the Members of the League are the origin and the source of
the whole organization; that the Assembly is the sovereign but inter-
mittent power of the League; that the Council is the permanent power;
that the Secretariat-General is its permanent executive organ.
Powers of the Organs
Hence, from these data, it is a majority of the Members of the League,
which can at any time summon a session of the Assembly, settle the
place of its meeting, propose the questions to be placed on its agenda,
and name their representatives and their substitutes in the Assembly
(Rules 1 and 5) ; but, once the Members of the League have exercised this
power, the Assembly, according to our draft scheme, enters into the
supreme exercise of its sovereignty. Thus, it is stated (Rule 1), that the
Assembly shall meet by right once a year on the first Monday of Septem-
ber; that it shall be able to designate its place of meeting (Rule 2) ; that it
shall choose its president and vice-presidents (Rule 7); that it alone is
competent to verify the credentials of its representatives (Rule 5); and
that it shall draw up its agenda as it wishes, as well as the composition
FOLLOW EXPERIENCE OF CENTURIES Vt
and work of the committees (Rule 14). To the president, who is raised
by the Assembly to this unique position, and who will feel all the re-
sponsibility and all the authority which his high position confers upon
him, will fall the task of expressing and realizing the powers of the As-
sembly, the rules of procedure giving him the necessary means (Rules
8, 15 and 19). With respect to the direction and the management of
the work intrusted to the president and to the various officers, the rules
of procedure have been inspired by the principles which are in force in
different countries of the world and which have in their favor the
experience of centuries. . . .
During the time in which the Assembly is not sitting there falls to the
Council the task of performing these functions, above all, that of carry-
ing out tlie results of these deliberations. It is the Council which may
convene the Assembly (Rule 1), which summons it (Rule 3), which
approves the agenda prepared by the Secretary-General (Rule 4), which
presents its reports to the Assembly (Rule 4), and which can always inter-
vene in the debate through one of its members in order to make an
explanatory statement (Rule 15).
Finally, the Secretary-General, as an executive officer, has to collect
the opinions of the Members of the League with regard to the summoning
of an extraordinary session of the Assembly (Rule l). It is he who has
to communicate the order convening the session to the different Members
(Rule 3), who has to prepare the agenda (Rule 4), who has to register
the names of the representatives and of their substitutes (Rule 5), and
who has to present his report to the Assembly and to execute the decisions
taken either by the Assembly or by the Council (Rules 9 and 10). We
have promptly complied with the desire expressed by our colleagues of
trans-oceanic countries, that for any urgent or important question the
cable should be employed. . . .
Language Question
A very delicate and important question has been raised with reference
to the languages used by the League.^ Our Spanish-speaking colleagues
both in Europe and America are justifiably proud of the intellectual and
economic expansion of their race throughout both continents, and have
requested that their tongue should be used on equal terms with French
1 At the eighth meeting of the Assembly, the delegates of Spain, Cuba, Venezuela,
Colombia, Nicaragua, Argentina, Denmark, Chile, Haiti, Great Britain. Switzer-
land, Belgium, Uruguay, Panama, Bolivia, Salvador, Guatemala and Paraguay
concerted in presenting the following motion:
"The undersigned delegates have the honor to propose to the Assembly to
decide that the Spanish language should be considered as one of the official Ian-
%0 LEAGUE OF NATIONS
and English, which are now in use in the League. No one can raise any
objection to their wishes or hopes except in so far as they bring us face to
face wnth practical difficulties which to us seem very serious. . . . Your
committee, being animated by the principle of absolute impartiality, has,
however, felt the force of practical requirements, and has recognized that
its duty was to provide the Members of the Assembly with the requisite
means of understanding one another, of discussion and of deliberation.
From this standpoint no one can gainsay that there are two languages in
the world which are in general use in intellectual and economic intercourse
between nations, languages which obtained official recognition from the
fact that the Covenant and the treaty of Versailles were drafted in
French and English. . . .
In every society, the noblest and highest expression of union and
fraternity is the sacrifice of particular interests and of our dearest ambi-
tions to the common good and for the interests of all. In this relation
your committee is sure that it faithfully expresses the unanimous senti-
ment of the Assembly in presenting its profound acknowledgments to the
representatives of Spanish-speaking countries, who, in a spirit of self-
sacrifice and devotion to the common welfare, have agreed not to insist
on their proposal at this session, although making reservation with respect
to the future.
It is, however, our duty to remember that, at one of the most recent
meetings of the Assembly, one of the most distinguished Spanish-speaking
representatives told us (in the purest French) that some of his colleagues
would be better able to express their thoughts in their native tongue, and,
as the same possibility might arise in the case of other nationalities, we
have decided, in accordance with the provisions of the provisional rules of
guages of the Assembly, and that the General Organization Committee should be
intrusted with the practical application of this principle."
The proposal came on the agenda of the 8th meeting. Mr. Tittoni objected to
its consideration, to which Seftor Quinones de Leon (Spain) replied with an argu-
ment respecting procedure. M. Branting (Sweden) hoped that the official languages
would not be increased and that the matter would be investigated by the com-
mittee. Sefior Aguero (Cuba), speaking in French so precisely and fluently as
to be congratulated by the President, supported the motion most heartily. He
urged that the proposition was intended not merely to flatter fifteen Spanish-
speaking nations constituting 36 per cent of the League members. It was put
forward to insiu-e greater co-operation between the various countries and to
secure the greatest possible understanding between them. He said that Spanish-
speaking delegates sometimes had difficulty in making use of other tongues.
They only suggested that they have the full right to make use of the Spanish
language in addressing the Assembly without requiring minute and constant
translation. On motion of Senor Blanco (Uruguay), the matter was referred to
the committee, in view of the fact pointed out by the President that the rules
made it permissible to speak Spanish in the Assembly.
FREEDOM IN USING LANGUAGES 29
procedure, to allow every representative to speak in whatever language
he may prefer, furnishing either a French or an English translation.
In addition, each country may circulate the documents published by
the League in its own language. The rules of procedure provide for these
two contingencies, and, by the adoption of a system of absolute equality
and impartiality, enable all Members of the League to publish the
documents of the League in any language they think fit. For obvious
reasons of convenience and expense, however, each representative or
Member of the League must provide for the translation and publication
(Rule 16).
Some delegates have expressed a wish that the various nationalities
should be taken into account in the choice of vice-presidents and members
of committees. This principle has, however, been applied with such
complete impartiality at this session of the Assembly, and is inspired by
motives which find expression so naturally, that we thought it super-
fluous to mention it in the rules of procedure, being convinced that
the Assembly will always take a pride in applying this principle in its
labors.
Mr. Balfour (Great Britain) spoke as chairman of the First
Committee, appealing to the Assembly not to deal with questions
of detail in any controversial spirit and emphasizing both the
care of the committee and its support of the subcommittee con-
clusions by votes for the most part unanimous. He paid tribute
"to the admirable taste, temper, ability and eloquence, which
marked the debates on" the very difficult question of a third
language, and concluded:
I hope you will adopt the proposals we have laid before you; I hope you
will remember they are the product of careful thought, and long and
arduous labor, and I trust they will be adopted with little modification
and will long serve to regulate our proceedings. I now propose the resolu-
tion, which will ask your assent to these draft rules of procedure.
Japan to Raise Equality Issue Later
Viscount Ishii (Japan) followed, beginning with felicitations
to the Assembly on having before it the first product of its labors :
and then turning to a point on which "we have to differ from our
colleagues, although the matter in question is not so much one
of principle as a question of material feasibility,'* he said:
I shall succinctly state the case before the general meeting, so that
30 LEAGUE OF NATIONS
Japan's standpoint may be elucidated, and incidentally I shall be able to
renew to you in the name of my country the assurance of her profound
belief in the League of Nations and of her very sincere solicitude to play
her proper share in bringing the unprecedented organization of peace to
the consummation devoutedly wished for. It is the question of the
fourth article of the draft regulations, which orders the holding of the
Assembly once every year. In principle Japan is in full accord with that
proposal, but in actual practice she has difficulties which are perhaps
undreamed of by many of my colleagues in this Assembly. Even in these
days of steam and electricity Japan is a far cry from the seat of the League
of Nations. A voyage through the China Sea, the Indian Ocean and the
Mediterranean Sea will take us more than seven weeks. We must count
at least four months for the trip from Japan to Geneva and back through
the most convenient route in these days. If we add one month for the
duration of the Assembly, the Japanese representatives must be prepared
to be away from their country for five months in the most favorable
circumstances. ... In view of the physical infeasibility of sending
Japanese representatives from the far country, it may often be necessary
to elect our delegates from among those who may be staying at the time
in Europe or its vicinity. I desire to take this opportunity to anticipate
by requesting that any such eventuality should not be considered as a
mark of scanty interest on the part of the Japanese Government in the
work of the world parliament. Nothing is, and will ever be, farther from
the thought of Japan and her people.
Japan has a firm determination, and has often shown it by action, that
she would always abide loyally by her international engagements. In her
enthusiastic efforts to carry out, in co-operation with her sister-members,
the sublime spirit embodied in the Covenant, she is prepared to make
all necessary sacrifices and offerings, being firmly convinced that the
promotion of the cause of this League of Nations is the most effective of
endeavors in ushering in an age of enduring peace. ...
Japan had an opportunity, when the Covenant of the League of Nations
was originally formulated, to declare her firm belief that equality before
the law should be assured to all men irrespective of their nationality, race
or religion. ... It was to the poignant regret of the Japanese Govern-
ment and people that the original framers of the Covenant found them-
selves unable to accept the Japanese proposal in this matter, and the
Japanese delegates declared that they would continue in their insistence
for the adoption of their just demand by the League in the future. In
view, however, of the present circumstances, Japan is strongly persuaded
that the League is as yet in a stage where the consolidation of its or-
ganization and its actual working based upon the present Covenant should
ASSEMBLY MEETS ANNUALLY 81
be accorded greater attention and deeper deliberations than the questions
relating to the fundamental principle which might involve the revision of
the Covenant and the deliberation of which should be deferred for some
time yet. From that point of view, Japan is refraining from making any
concrete proposal at this Assembly as to the question of equal oppor-
tunity and treatment, and will patiently bide her time until the opportune
moment will present itself.
Rules Adopted
After remarks by Seiior Garay (Panama), Mr. Rowell (Canada),
Senator Millen (Australia), Lord Robert Cecil (South Africa)
and a few others some amendments were effected in the text of
the draft rules and Mr. Balfour's resolution was put and carried
in the following form (A. D. 151):
The Assembly of the League of Nations, having examined the
draft rules of procedure presented by the First Committee,
and having heard the report made by the rapporteur of the
committee, Signor Ferraris, representative of Italy, resolves
that the draft rules of procedure, as amended by the Assembly,
be hereby adopted as the rules of procedure of the Assembly of
the League of Nations.
Rules of Procedure of the Assembly^
RULE 1. 1. The Assembly shall meet every year, at the seat
of the League of Nations, commencing on the first Monday in
September.
2. Sessions may also be held at such times as the Assembly at a pre-
vious meeting decides, and at such times as the Council, by a majority
vote, decides.
3. K a Member of the League considers a Session to be desirable, it
may request the Secretary-General to summon a Special Session of the
Assembly. The Secretary-General shall thereupon inform the other
Members of the League of the request, and inquire whether they concur
in it.^ If within a period of one month from the date of such communica-
tion of the Secretary-General, a majority of the Members concur in the
request, a Special Session shall be summoned.
^Revised to accord with 20/48/143 of January 6, 1921.
^Notification by telegram, if necessary (Proces-verbai of First Committee,
fifth meeting).
352 LEAGUE OF NATIONS
RULE 2. The Sessions of the Assembly shall be held at the seat of
the League, or, in exceptional circumstances, at such other place as is
designated by the Assembly or by a majority of the Council, or by a
majority of the Members of the League.
RULE 3. 1. The Sessions of the Assembly shall be summoned by
the President of the Council, acting through the Secretary-General.
2. The summons shall be addressed to the Members of the League not
less than four months before the date fixed for the opening of the Session.
In exceptional circumstances, however, the Council, by a majority vote,
may sanction a shorter period.
3. Nothing contained in paragraph 2 of this Rule shall affect the
provisions concerning special cases contained in the Covenant.
RULE 4. 1. The agenda shall be drawn up by the Secretary-General
with the approval of the President of the Council. The complete agenda
shall be circulated as nearly as possible four months before the date fixed
for the opening of the Session.
2. The agenda of a General Session shall include :
a. A report upon the work of the Council since the last Session;
b. A report by the Secretary-General upon the work of the Secre-
tariat and upon the measures taken to execute the decisions of the
Assembly;
c. All items whose inclusion has been ordered by the Assembly at a
previous session;
d. All items proposed by the Council ;
e. All items proposed by any Member of the League; and
/. The budget for the next fiscal period and the report on the ac-
counts of the last fiscal period.
3. Any Member of the League may, at least one month before the
date fixed for the opening of the Session, request the inclusion of addi-
tional items in the agenda. Such items shall be placed on a supplemen-
tary list, which shall be circulated to the Members of the League at
least three weeks before the date fixed for the opening of the Session.
The Assembly shall decide whether items on the supplementary list shall
be included in the agenda of the Session.
4. The Assembly may in exceptional circumstances place additional
items on the agenda; but all consideration of such items shall, unless
otherwise ordered by a two-thirds majority of the Assembly, be post-
poned until four days after they have been placed on the agenda, and
until a committee has reported upon them.
8UB8TITUE8 PERMITTED 88
RULE 5. 1. Each Member shall communicate to the Secretary-
General, if possible before the opening of the Session, the names of its
Representatives, of whom there shall be not more than three. The names
of Substitute-Representatives may be added.
2. Each Representative shall, as soon as possible, and preferably
before the opening of the Session, present his credentials to the Secretary-
General.
3. A committee of eight members for the examination of the credentials
shall be elected by the Assembly by secret ballot. The committee shall
report without delay.
4. Any Representative to whose admission objection has been made
shall sit provisionally, with the same rights as other Representatives
unless the Assembly decides otherwise.
RULE 6. 1. In addition to the Substitute-Representatives men-
tioned in paragraph 1 of Rule 5, the Representatives of a Member of the
League attending the Assembly, acting together as a Delegation, may
appoint substitutes. Any such appointment shall be communicated in
writing to the President.
2. A Substitute-Representative appointed by a Member of the League
may take the place of a Representative without having been nominated
by the Representatives.
3. A Substitute-Representative or substitute may take the place of a
Representative who is absent from a meeting of the Assembly, or is tem-
porarily prevented from taking part in its deliberations, but if the Repre-
sentative is present at the meeting the Substitute-Representative or sub-
stitute is only entitled to assist him.
4. A Delegation may appoint for service on a committee a deputy or
technical adviser other than those referred to in the above paragraphs of
this Rule; but a deputy or adviser so appointed shall not be eligible for
appointment as Chairman or Rapporteur, or for a seat in the Assembly.
RULE 7. 1. The officers of the Assembly shall consist of a President
and of six Vice-Presidents, together with the Chairmen of the main
Committees of the Assembly, who shall be ex-ofiicio Vice-Presidents of
the Assembly. These officers shall form the General Committee.
2. The President and the six Vice-Presidents shall be elected at the
beginning of each Session.
3. Until the election of the President, the President of the Council
shall act as President of the Assembly.
RULE 8. 1. The President shall announce the opening, suspension
and adjournment of the meetings of the Assembly, direct the work of the
34 LEAGUE OF NATIONS
Assembly, insure the observance of the Rules of Procedure, accord the
right to address the Assembly, declare the debates to be closed, put ques-
tions to the vote, and announce the result of the voting.
2. In the general direction of the work of the Assembly, in the con-
stitution of such committees as the Assembly decides to create, in deciding
on the communications to be made to the Assembly,^ in the framing of the
agenda for each meeting, and in the determination of the order of priority
for its various items, the President shall be assisted by the General
Committee.
RULE 9. 1. The Secretary-General shall be responsible for the or-
ganization of the Secretariat of the Assembly and of the Secretariat of
any committees set up by the Assembly.
2. The Secretary -General may be assisted or replaced at the meetings
of the Assembly by a deputy or deputies. The Secretary-General, or
one of his deputies, may at any time, on the invitation of the President,
bring before the Assembly reports concerning any question which is being
considered by the Assembly, and may be invited by the President to make
verbal communications concerning any question under consideration.
RULE 10. 1. It shall be the duty of the Secretariat, inter alia, to
receive, print, circulate and translate documents, reports and resolutions;
to translate speeches made at the meetings; to draft, print and circulate
the Minutes of the Session; to have the custody and proper preservation
of the documents in the archives of the Assembly; to publish the reports
of the meetings; and, generally, to perform all other work which the
Assembly thinks fit to intrust to it.
2. All documents emanating from the Assembly shall be circulated to
the Governments of the Members of the League.
RULE 11. 1. The public shall be admitted to the plenary meetings
of the Assembly, by cards distributed by the Secretary-General.
2. The Assembly may decide that particular meetings shall be private.
3. All decisions of the Assembly upon items on the agenda, which
have been taken at a private meeting, shall be announced at a public
meeting of the Assembly.
RULE 12. A list of the attendance at each meeting of the Assembly
shall be kept by the Secretariat.
RULE 13. At the beginning of each meeting the President shall
^Drafting of important communications to be by the President and General
Committee (Proces- verbal of First Committee, fifth meeting).
*
*
PROCEDURE IN COMMITTEE 35
present* to the Assembly all communications addressed to the Assembly
or to the League, the importance of which appears to him to warrant
such action.
RULE 14. 1. The Assembly shall establish such committees as it
thinks fit for the consideration of the items on the agenda. Items of the
same nature will be referred to the committee.
2. The Assembly shall not decide items on the agenda in full meeting
until the report of a committee upon them has been presented and cir-
culated, unless the Assembly itelf, by a two-thirds majority, determines
otherwise.
3. Each Delegation may designate one member, and may nominate
technical advisers for each committee.^
4. Each committee shall appoint its Chairman and Rapporteur.
5. Each committee may appoint subcommittees, which shall elect
their own officers.
6. Each committee shall meet in private unless it decides otherwise.
It shall keep a Register of its discussions, and Minutes, which shall be
published at the earliest possible date, but not until they have been
approved by the committee. They may at any time be consulted by any
member of the Assembly.
7. Every Representative shall have the right to place before any
committee any communication which he considers should be made to it,
but no Representative may, without special leave from the Chairman,
speak at a meeting of any committee of which he is not a member.
8. The Secretary-General or his deputies may make to any committee
or subcommittee any report or verbal communication which he or they
may consider desirable.
RULE 15. 1. No Representative may address the Assembly without
having previously obtained the permission of the President.
2. Speakers shall be called upon in the order in which they have
signified their desire to speak. The Chairman and the Rapporteur of a
committee may be accorded precedence for the purpose of defending or
explaining the conclusions arrived at by their committee. The same
principle shall apply to any member of the Council.
3. The President may call a speaker to order if his remarks are not
l"The mere circulation of documents to individual Members of the Assembly
did not constitute presentation. Documents must be formally brought to the
attention of the Assembly." — Proces- verbal of First Committee, fifth meeting.
2 Military advisers may be included, according to the opinion of the drafting
subcommittee given in response to a question by M, Viviani at the 11th plenary
meeting of the Assembly.
36 LEAGUE OF NATIONS
relevant to the subject under discussion. If necessary he may direct the
speaker to resume his seat.
4. Wlien a motion is under discussion, a Representative may rise to a
point of order, and such point of order shall be immediately decided by
the President in accordance with the Rules of Procedure.
5. The Assembly may limit the time allowed to each speaker.
RULE 16. 1. Speeches in French shall be summarized in English,
and vice versa, by an interpreter belonging to the Secretariat.
2. A Representative speaking in another language shall provide for
the translation of his speech into one of these two languages.
3. All documents, resolutions and reports circulated by the President
or the Secretariat shall be rendered in both French and English.
4. Any Representative may have documents circulated in a language
other than French and English, but the Secretariat will not be responsible
for their translation or printing.
5. Any Member of the League or any group of Members, may require
that all documents and publications of the League shall be regularly
translated into and printed and circulated in a language other than
French or English; but shall in such case defray all the necessary expenses.
RULE 17. 1. Resolutions, amendments and motions must be intro-
duced in writing and handed to the President. The President shall cause
copies to be distributed to the Representatives.
2. As a general rule, no proposal shall be discussed or put to the vote
at any meeting of the Assembly unless copies of it have been circulated
to all Representatives not later than the day preceding the meeting.
3. The President may, however, permit the discussion and considera-
tion of amendments, or of motions as to procedure, without previous
circulation of copies.
RULE 18. 1. During the discussion of any question, any Represen-
tative may move the previous question or the adjournment. Any such
motion shall have priority in the debate. In addition to the proposer of
the motion, two Representatives may speak in favor of, and two against,
the motion.
2. Parts of a proposal shall be voted on separately, if a Representative
requests that the proposal be divided.
3. A Representative may at any time move the closure of the debate
whether any other Representative has signified his wish to speak or not.
If application is made for permission to speak against the closure, it may
be accorded only to not more than two speakers.
4. The President shall take the sense of the Assembly on a motion for
RULES AS TO VOTING 37
closure. If the Assembly decides in favor of the closure, the President
shall declare the closure of the debate.
5. When a number of proposals are before the Assembly, the proposal
furthest removed in substance from the principal one shall be voted on first.
6. If an amendment striking out part of a proposal is moved, the
Assembly shall first vote on whether the words in question shall stand
part of the proposal. If the decision is in the negative, the amendment
shall then be put to the vote.
7. When an amendment adds to a proposal, it shall be voted on first,
and if it is adopted the amended proposal shall then be voted on.
RULE 19. 1. Except where otherwise expressly provided in the
Covenant or by the terms of a treaty, decisions of the Assembly shall
be taken by a unanimous vote of the Members of the League represented
at the meeting.
2. All matters of procedure at a meeting of the Assembly, including the
appointment of committees to investigate particular matters, shall be
decided by a majority of the Members of the League represented at the
meeting.
3. All decisions taken in virtue of these Rules shall be considered as
matters of procedure.
4. A majority decision requires the aflSrmative votes of more than half
of the Members of the League represented at the meeting.
5. For the purposes of this Rule, Representatives who abstain from
voting shall be considered as not present.
RULE 20. The Assembly shall vote by "Appel Nominal," except
when the Members of the League represented at the meeting agree that
the method of voting shall be by heads of Delegations rising in their seats,
and except in the cases provided for in Rule 21. The "Appel Nominal"
shall be taken in the following manner:
The Delegation of each Member of the League represented at the
meeting shall be provided with two voting tickets, on which the name
of the country is written, one red and one blue, the former being "Aye,"
the latter *'No." The voting tickets shall be deposited in an urn placed
near the President's platform. When all the votes have been collected,
the President shall declare the ballot closed and the General Committee
shall proceed to count the votes. The individual votes shall be com-
municated to the Assembly and the result shall be announced by the
President.
RULE 21. 1. All decisions relating to individuals shall be taken by a
secret ballot.
88 LEAGUE OF NATIONS
2. If, when one person onlj' is to be elected, no one person obtains at
the first ballot an absolute majority of votes, an entirely new ballot shall
be taken; but on this occasion the voting shall be confined to the two
candidates who obtained the largest number of votes at the first ballot.
If there is at this ballot an equality of votes for the two candidates, the
elder candidate shall be declared elected.
3. "When a number of elective places of the same nature are to be filled
at one time, those persons who obtain an absolute majority at the first
ballot shall be elected. If the number of persons obtaining such majority
is less than the number of persons to be elected, there shall be a second
ballot to fill the remaining places, the voting being restricted to the
unsuccessful candidates who obtained the greatest number of votes at
the first ballot, not more than double in number the places remaining
to be filled. Those candidates, to the number required to be elected,
who receive the greatest number of votes at the second ballot shall be'
declared elected.
RULE 22. In case of equality in any voting other than that referred
to in Rule 21, in which a majority is required, a second vote shall be taken
in the course of the next meeting; this meeting shall be held within 48
hours from the date on which the first vote was taken, and it shall be
expressly mentioned on the agenda that a second vote will be taken on
the matter in question. Unless there is at this subsequent meeting a
majority in favor of the proposal, it shall be considered as lost.
RULE 23. 1. The President may declare a meeting to be adjourned
or suspended, if a proposal for adjournment or suspension made by him
does not meet with objection from the Assembly.
2. The President shall declare an adjournment or suspension of the
meeting upon a vote to this effect by the Assembly.
RULE 24. The General Committee, in cases where it deems it neces-
sary, may revise the resolutions adopted by the Assembly, changing their
form but not their substance. Any such changes shall be reported to the
Assembly.
RULE 25. The verbatim report of each meeting shall be drawn up by
the Secretariat and submitted to the Assembly after approval by the
President.
RULE 26. The resolutions adopted by the Assembly shall be cir-
culated by the Secretary-General to the Members of the League within
fifteen days after the termination of the Session.
REPRESENT GOVERNMENTS 39
RULE 27. These Rules of Procedure shall apply to the proceedings
of committees of the Assembly.
RULE 28. These Rules of Procedure may be altered by a decision
of the Assembly; but no such alteration shall be made except upon a
majority vote of the Assembly taken after a committee has reported upon
the proposed alteration.
Relations Between the Council and Assembly
The relations between the Council and Assembly of the League
were the subject of the third meeting of the First Committee.
Mr. Rowell (Canada) thought that the legal statement on the
competence of the Council and the Assembly which had been
presented to the Assembly by the Secretary-General and the
report on the same subject by Mr. Balfour showed that certain
principles were pretty clearly established and could probably be
accepted without much controversy. He proposed that the
committee's report to the Assembly should recommend the
recognition of six principles taken from the documents, with the
exception of one:
Under the Covenant the members of the Council exercise their functions
as such members as the representatives of their respective states, and they
have no standing on the Council except as such representatives.
This was intended to fix upon the states represented upon the
Council the responsibility for the action of that body. In his
J- opinion it was of vital importance for the future of the League
that the states represented on the Council should be held account-
able, not the individual delegates. In the view of M. Viviani
(France), a representative could not have any opinion different
from that of his Government, for one must either agree to repre-
sent one's Government or refuse to do so. A person who agreed
to act as a representative must obey the instructions given in his
mandate.
M. Usteri (Switzerland) put forward amendments providing for
continuance of committees appointed by the Assembly to the
next session of the Assembly.
The Chairman pointed out that a question of great difficulty
and importance had been raised. The League of Nations acted
40 LEAGUE OF NATIONS
through three organs: the Council which was permanent, the
Assembly which was a temporary body, and the committees
nominated by the Assembly. According to the Swiss proposal
these committees would continue to sit in the interval between
sessions of the Assembly. He considered that this suggestion
constituted so complete a change in the machinery of the League
that it must be most seriously examined.
Neither Parliament nor Government
M. Viviani agreed with the Chairman. It must be decided
whether the League of Nations was a parliament and the Council
a government. If this were the case, permanent committees
would be admissible; but it was not the case. Until that had
happened representatives were the representatives of their
respective Governments, and in the absence of formal instructions
could take no decision without previous reference to their Govern-
ments. The Council was the executive organ when the Assembly
was not in session. If a permanent committee of the Assembly
was established, there was danger of its coming into conflict with
the Council. If such conflict arose, the question would have to
be referred to the Assembly, which would mean that the Govern-
ments would meet to find a mediator. What was being done at
the moment was to democratize the ambassadorial system; repre-
sentatives came with appropriate powers; but it would be wrong
to establish permanent committees which might exercise authority
over the Council. If the Assembly desired, it might nominate
Members to sit with the Council for discussion of the budget.
M. Usteri (Switzerland) in reply admitted that the Assembly
was not a parliament, but contended that his proposal would
assist the conduct of business during the interval between two
Assemblies, facilitate the work of the opening meeting of the
next session, and permit the committees to continue a task
intrusted to them, which could not be completed in the time
available during a session of the Assembly. The Swiss proposal
did not conflict with M. Viviani's view that it would be wrong to
establish permanent committees in the proper sense of the word,
but merely meant that committees which had commenced their
task should carry it to its conclusion, even if the Assembly came
to an end in the interval.
COUNCIL TO FINISH TASKS 41
Delegates of the Argentine Republic, Brazil and Cuba developed
the propositions that a permanent committee would deprive the
Council of executive authority; that a representative attending
the Assembly could not depart from the instructions which he
had receiAed; and that it was impossible to understand how
members of a committee could continue to consider themselves as
delegates after the Assembly had risen, seeing that their mandate
terminated with the session of the Assembly. In their opinion,
if a committee had not concluded its work during the Assembly,
it was for the Council, which was permanently in session, to
complete the work.
The Chairman considered that the question appropriately be
referred to a rapporteur, and proposed that M. Viviani and
Mr. Rowell should be asked to draw up a report. At the sixth
meeting of the committee, the rapporteurs read their report,
which was highly commended and unanimously adopted.
This report was read at the 14th plenary meeting of the Assembly
and extensively discussed.
i
!
Competence of Each Discussed
Sir William Meyer (India) proposed that "where a subject,
which the Council would otherwise be efficient and competent to
deal with, has been referred by the Council to the Assembly, the
latter thereby obtains competence to suggest, if need be, altera-
tions in any scheme submitted by the Council." Sir All Imam
urged the same point in a detailed argument after Mr. Rov.ell
had replied to the Indian's colleague and Sir William Meyer
withdrew his motion on the imderstanding expressed in Mr.
Rowell's second explanation that "if the Council submits a
matter to the Assembly, the Assembly has a perfect right to
suggest whatever in its judgment would be the right and the
wise course to take, and that as a matter of sound public policy
I the Council should act upon it."
I M. Politis (Greece) proposed an amendment to the report to
J this effect: "That during the session of the Assembly the Council
I should not begin to deal with any matter belonging to the com-
mon competence of the Assembly and the Council without first
referring the matter to the Assembly." But he withdrew it on
42 LEAGUE OF NATIONS
the strength of M. Viviani's argument that *'the proposal would
practically mean an amendment to the Covenant."
The report was adopted with the exception of a single point.
The Greek delegate had proposed the following change: *'The
Assembly has no power to reverse or modify a decision which
falls within the exclusive competence of the Council." The
significance of the proposal was well stated by Mr. Doherty
(Canada) in the course of the debate :
With that word used, the Assembly is asked to declare that it has no
power to reverse or modify decisions which fall within the exclusive
competence of the Council. By striking out the word "exclusive," we
are asked to declare that the Assembly has no power to reverse or modify
a decision which falls within the competence of the Council, and that
statement will come, following on a report which establishes that there
are matters which are within the competence of both bodies. It therefore
follows, if we adopt this amendment, this Assembly will have declared
that wherever a matter is to be dealt with by both bodies, the action of
one shall be final, and we shall be committed to this position, that in a
matter in which jurisdiction is conferred upon both these bodies, the
Assembly may find itself absolutely impotent as the Council had acted
first.
The decision reached at the 15 th plenary meeting after the
rapporteurs had examined with Mr. Balfour, the Chairman of
the First Committee, whether it was possible to find a formula
conciliating all opinions, to suggest to the Assembly the suppres-
sion of Paragraph (6) from Article 10 of the report. The raj^-
porteurs thought that it expressed the same principle as the
preceding Paragraph (a), and that its suppression would not
modify the substance of the report. This left the whole matter
of concurrent jurisdiction open, and the report was adopted
without a formal vote.
The report (Assembly Document 159/20/48/159/1) was as
follows :
I. We propose to seek in the Covenant the rights and duties
attributed to the Council and the Assembly respectively. Before
proceeding to this analysis, and in order to throw light upon it,
we will attempt to take account, from the constitutional point of
view, of the legal position of the League of Nations. We can not
NO ANALOGY FOR LEAGUE 43
attain a definite opinion until we have eliminated from the dis-
cussion certain hypotheses on which we must dwell for a moment.
a. It is impossible to consider the Assembly as a Chamber of
Deputies and the Council as an Upper Chamber. The objec-
tions to this view are that, while in certain matters the Council
and the Assembly have identical rights, in others they have each
their special rights; and that the two bodies are not called upon
to discuss and decide exactly the same points. If the Assembly
was the Chamber of Deputies and the Council a sort of Upper
Chamber, the same subjects would come first before the one
and then before the other body.
h. It is equally imj ossible to consider the Council as invested
with the executi^ e and the Assembly with the legislative power.
The conclusive objection to this view is that the Assembly pos-
sesses executive prerogatives.
The truth is that the League of Nations has no analogy in
ordinary constitutional law. Article 2 of the Covenant provides
that the action of the League shall be effected through the instru-
mentality of an Assembly and a Council. It follows that the
League is a single organism which has at its disposal two organs,
whose distinct or similar attributes must now be considered.
II. Competence of the Council. — The Council has rights and
duties which are special to it; for example, those mentioned in
Article 4 of the Covenant.^ The Council has the appro^ al of the
appointments made by the Secretary-General (Article 6) and
may decide that the seat of the League shall be elsewhere than
at Geneva (Article 7). The Council shall formulate plans for the
reduction of armaments and must give its consent to armaments
exceeding those limitations (Article 8). It shall advise as to the
evil effects attendant upon manufacture of arms by private enter-
prise (Article 8). The Council shall advise, in case of aggression
(Article 10). It must formulate and submit proposals for the
establishment of a Permanent Court of Justice (Article 14), and
it may act as a Council of Mediation (Article 15). It must make
recommendations to the Governments as to military contribution
to the armed forces to be used to protect the covenants of the
League (Article 16). It will define the conditions of the man-
dates if they have not been previously agreed upon by the Members
of the League (Article 22, paragraph 8). Its consent is required
for the co-operation of the Secretariat with international bureaus
and commissions (Article 24, paragraph 2).
^Inserted in the Assembly on motion of Serb-Croat-Slovene State.
44 LEAGUE OF NATIONS
The Council furthermore derives clearly defined functions from
the peace treaties (see Article 48, Article 50, Annex 17, Article
213 of the treaty of Versailles; Article 159 of the treaty with
Austria, Article 104 of the treaty with Bulgaria, etc.).
III. Competence of the Assembly. — The Assembly also has
duties and rights which are peculiar to it; for example, admission
of new Members (Article 1); election of representatives on the
Council (Article 4); approval of additional members on the
Council (Article 4); approval of the Council's nomination for the
office of Secretary-General (Article 6); hearing of disputes re-
ferred from the Council to the Assembly, etc., etc. We find
that on these very important matters the final decision rests
with the Assembly and not with the Council.
IV. While, as we have seen, the Council and the Assembly
have each their distinctive rights and duties, there are matters
the decision of which is left to the League of Nations without it
being specified to which organ of the League the right of decision
belongs (Articles 23 and 24 of the Covenant; Articles 103, 336,
338, 376 of the treaty of Versailles).
V. Finally our account of the provisions of the Covenant in
regard to the powers of the Council and the Assembly should be
completed by setting out the relevant provisions of Articles 3
and 4. The former provides:
"The Assembly may deal at its meetings with any matter
within the sphere of action of the League or affecting the peace
of the world."
The latter article provides :
"The Council may deal at its meetings with any matter within
the sphere of action of the League or affecting the peace of the
world."
No Need to Define Functions Now
VI. In the opinion of the Committee it would not seem to be
desirable or necessary to formulate in explicit language at the
present time what are the precise functions which the Council
and the Assembly are respectively expected to perform. In the
report presented by Mr. Balfour and approved by the Council
the following conclusion is reached:
"The moral I would draw from these broad considerations is
that the less we attempt to formulate in explicit language the
precise functions which the Council and the Assembly are re-
spectively expected to perform, the better for the future of the
League. . . .
VOTES OBLIGATE STATES 45
"Let US substitute for any such formalism of our respective
duties a resolve to deal with any difficulties between the Assembly
and the Council, not according to prearranged rules, but according
to the dictates of tact and common sense, treating each case as^
it arises on its merits."
The Committee recommend the Assembly to accept and act
upon this conclusion.
VII. In the report by Mr. Balfour already referred to, a pro-
posal is made for the appointment of mixed committees to deter-
mine questions of doubtful competence between the Council and
Assembly. While appreciating the purpose of this proposal, we
think it is not necessary at the present time to decide this question.
VIII. It remains to solve a very important question: What is
the nature of the executive effect of decisions of the Council
and the Assembly? In our opinion the Assembly and the Council
should be considered to have complete authority in all matters
which the Covenant or the treaties have committed to them for
decision. There are, however, matters referred to in the Covenant
which are not within the competence of these organs, but require
the concurrence and action of the Governments concerned in the
form of international conventions, such as the serious questions
contemplated by Article 23, paragraphs a, 6, e, /. In these matters
one must not forget that the responsibility of the Governments
represented at the Assembly, which is external to the Assembly,
can not be engaged. The action of the Assembly should accord-
ingly take the form of a recommendation or invitation leading
up to agreement between the Governments.
Principles Rejected and Those Adopted
IX. Two further questions were discussed in the committee.
a. The first question was whether a member of the Council,
in rendering his decisions on the Council, represented the Member
of the League which appointed him or acted in an independent
capacity. Representatives on the Council and the Assembly
are responsible to their own Governments and to those Govern-
ments alone. The Assembly has no right to interfere with the
choice which a Member of the League may make of persons to
represent it, nor to prevent a representative from saying what
he pleases; but it is essential that it should be thoroughly under-
stood that, when a representative votes, the vote is that of the
Member which he represents, whether the vote be cast in the
Council or the Assembly. {See Article 5.)
46 LEAGUE OF NATIONS
b. The idea was suggested not of permanent committees con-
tinuing to function after the Assembly had risen, but of allowing
committees which have failed to complete their labors in the course
of a session of the Assembly to retain their mandates until their
discussions are completed. The Committee is unable to accept
this proposal. Practical reasons render it unrealizable. As each
committee consists of one representative from each state, it
would be impossible to keep the members of a committee in
Geneva after the Assembly session was over.
X. At the close of this purely juridical discussion, and as an
assistance toward reaching a working basis for the time being,
the Committee suggests the adoption of the following principles,
which it has framed after close examination of the investigations
upon the subject in question already made by the Secretary-
General and Mr. Balfour:
a. The Council and the Assembly are each invested with partic-
ular powers and duties. Neither body has jurisdiction to render
a decision in a matter which, by the treaties or the Covenant, has
been expressly committed to the other organ of the League.
Either body may discuss and examine any matter which is within
the competence of the League.^
b. Under the Covenant representatives sitting on the Council
and the Assembly render their decisions as the representatives
of their respective states, and in rendering such decisions they
have no standing except as such representatives.
c. The Council will present each year to the Assembly a report
on the work performed by it.
NONPERMANENT MEMBERS OF THE CoUNCIL
No question before the Assembly was given more careful or
serious attention than that relating to the selection of the four
Members of the League which, with the great powers, make up
the Council. An equitable scheme of apportioning four places on
the Council among ten times that number of Members, of deter-
mining lengths of service, of properly distributing representation
geographically, etc., in effect raised the same problem which has
proved a difficulty in international organizations from the outset.
The Assembly, while not committing itself to decisions of prin-
ciple on its first examination of the question, successfully passed
1 Added at, the 14th plenary meeting of the Assembly on the motion of I>ord
Robert Cecil (South Africa).
FREEDOM OF ASSEMBLY *8 CHOICE 47
resolutions fulfilling its duty to make appointments, and thereby-
created precedents which will facilitate the later establishment
of principles acceptable to all states.
The First Committee studied the problem in all its details
during several meetings in which all the debatable questions
were ]^ut to a record vote. These were all close. They resulted in
a series of five draft resolutions which were presented to the
19th plenary meeting of the Assembly in a report (172B) by
Mr. Balfour, chairman of the First Committee, who explained
that all the important proposals were the subject of very sharp
discussion and marked differences of opinion, with votes show-
ing no very substantial majority. "All the important differences
that declared themselves among the members of the committee,"
he said, "really turned on this — whether we should endeavor to
lay down rules with regard, for example, to nonre-eligibility."
The report related succinctly what had passed in committee,
and stated;
n. . . . The French text of Article 4, paragraph 1, lays down that
the four nonpermanent Members of the Council soiit designes lihrement
par VAssemhlee et aux epoques qu'il lui plait de choisir, while the English
text reads: "shall be selected by the Assembly from time to time in its
discretion.'*
Part of the Committee was of opinion that this provision should be
understood as follows : The plenary Assembly should remain free to choose
as Members of the Council those Members of the League whom, at
the time the selection is made, it considers best fitted to carry out their
duties as such, that is to say, to watch over the interests intrusted to
the Council. The selection of the four Members is, therefore, to be
free and not subject to any regulations on the part of the Assembly,
either in respect of apportionment of seats or of the progressive limitation
of choice. Such regulations are alone admissible as are confined to the
method of selection and the duration of the mandates or are intended
to guarantee freedom of choice. In other words, only regulations exclu-
sively affecting the actual procedure of selection can be considered as
compatible with the Covenant.
On the other hand, however, other members of the Committee are of
opinion that Article 4 gives the Assembly of the League absolute liberty
not only to regulate at will the method of election and the duration of
mandates, but also to introduce any system of apportionment of seats
or of rotation calculated to increase the prestige of the Council and to
48 LEAGUE OF NATIONS
enable it to watch over the common interests of the whole world in the
best possible manner.
Obligatory Rotation Rejected
III. Part of the Committee was of opinion that the fundamental
principle to which the Assembly should always adhere in selecting the
nonpermanent Members of the Council, is that those Members should
be chosen who are best fitted to carry out, in conjunction with the per-
manent Members, the duties intrusted to the Council; the election
must always be a selection. With this object in view, especial considera-
tion should among other things be given to international political, eco-
nomic, social and financial relations of every sort, as well as to the re-
spective situations of the various states at the time of the election.
Other Members consider that, in order to insure that the composition
of the Council is satisfactory, it is essential to guarantee to Members
of the League the certainty of obtaining a seat in turn, since without
this certainty there would be a risk that they would gradually cease to
take an interest in the work of the Council, and that the spirit of co-
operation would be weakened. For these reasons, they proposed that
the duration of the mandate of nonpermanent Members of the Council
should be reduced to a short period — for example, two years — in order to
accelerate the rotation as much as possible, and to require that a Member
who had sat on the Council should not be re-elected until all the other
Members had also sat on the Council. This system has been called
the system of obligatory rotation.
Part of the Committee believes that this is incompatible with Article 4
of the Covenant. The system of free selection provided for in this article
would thus be replaced by the system of obligatory rotation. The lati-
tude of choice would be restricted from year to year, and would indeed
finish by disappearing altogether, because the Assembly would ultimately
only be able to appoint to the Council those Members who had not yet
been elected.
It was urged that justice, as well as expediency, requires that all the
Members of the League of Nations should in turn obtain a seat on the
Council, in order to be able to represent their views on matters of inter-
national policy, and to utilize their special knowledge concerning the
actual situation in different parts of the world. The majority, however,
considers that the appreciation of these elements should always be left
to the Assembly. The latter can not therefore adopt a rigid system,
which is foreign to the Covenant, nor can it be bound by any such prin-
ciple as that of obligatory rotation. The Committee has accordingly
not adopted this system.
LENGTH OF SERVICE DEBATED 49
IV. In order to insure a wiser apportionment and a more enlightened
choice at the election, the Committee preferred the system of voting
for one name at a time to the "scrutin de liste," and although the election
is one of states and not of persons, the Committee unanimously declared
itself in favor of a secret ballot.
V. As regards the duration of the mandates, part of the Committee
is in favor of as short a period as possible, in order to give the Members
of the League the greatest possible chance of being represented on the
Council within a reasonable time. Another part of the Committee,
however, considers that the four nonpermanent Members of the Council
will not be able to exercise an appreciable influence by the side of the
permanent Members, unless they sit for a sufficiently long period to
enable them to become familiar with the course of business. They,
therefore, proposed four years as the period of the mandates. The
Committee decided by 14 votes to 13 in favor of the period of two years,
15 members being absent or abstaining from voting.
VI. The Committee further declared itself in favor of partial re-
newals of the nonpermanent Members and fixed upon two as the number
of Members to be selected each year. Any system involving the simul-
taneous renewal of the four seats was rejected.
VII. The Committee was further of the opinion that a system of
qualified nonre-eligibility should be adopted with a view to preventing
the growth of a species of customary right to re-election. The majority
thought that it would be possible to allow a Member, who had held his
seat upon the Council for two years, to be selected for a further two
years, but felt the necessity of stipulating that, subsequently, retiring
Members should be ineligible for a period of four years. Even when a
Member was not re-elected after sitting for two years, he should not be
able to sit again on the Council until a period of four years had expired.
Distribution of Council Membership
VIII. The Committee proposes, firstly, that two of the four Members
should be selected at each annual meeting of the Assembly, and, secondly,
that all four Members should be selected during the present session.
As a temporary measure, therefore, the Committee suggests that two of
the mandates should be for one year and two for two years. The re-
spective length of the mandates could be decided at the election, but
the Committee prefers that this question should be decided by drawing
lots, after the selection of the Members.
A proposal to distribute the four nonpermanent seats upon the follow-
ing geographical basis — three seats to the European and American
50 LEAGUE OF NATIONS
Members of the League, and one seat to the Members from Asia and the
other parts of the world — was thorouglily discussed by the Committee.
On the one hand, it was urged in support of this idea that — due regard
being given to the main branches of humanity, the great currents of
civilization, the principal sources of wealth, and the commercial arteries
of the world: (1) The Members of the League of Nations who are not
permanently represented on the Council naturally fall into three groups :
the European Group, the American Group, and a third group including
Asia and the other parts of the world; (2) These three groups of Members
of the League with their respective problems, conditions and capabilities
should all be represented on the Council, the permanent embodiment of
the spirit of the League, inasmuch as universal co-operation is essential
for the effective maintenance of world peace and the advancement of
the common interests of humanity; (3) The proposed system of appor-
tionment is equitable and is designed to obviate the preponderance of
any one part of the world, to the exclusion of other parts, with regard to
nonpermanent representation, a preponderance which would be possible
in the absence of any system of apportionment; (4) The nonrepresentation
of any one of these three groups of Members might jeopardize friendly
relations between them, and even weaken the League itself, since the
nonrepresented group would gradually lose interest in the League;
(5) Such a system of apportionment is desirable, since it would tend to
enhance the prestige of the Council and to inspire confidence in its de-
liberations and decisions among all the Members of the League; (6) An
equitable system of this kind is entirely in harmony with the spirit of
the Covenant and does not constitute a restriction on the discretionary
power conferred upon the Assembly, by the Covenant, but is rather an
enhghtened use of that power.
On the other hand, it was urged that any hard and fast system of
apportionment would be contrary to the Covenant since it would involve
restriction of the freedom of the Assembly by introducing a system
of representation foreign to the Covenant, as has been already explained;
that neither the Asia-Africa-Oceania group nor even Asia or Africa
separately can be considered from any point of view entities sufficiently
homogeneous to supply a legal basis for representation on the Council;
that the universal co-operation necessary for the effective maintenance
of world peace and for the advancement of the common interests of
humanity must be achieved by the Assembly of the League rather than
by the Council; that in order to obtain equitable representation, and to
avoid the undue preponderance of any part of the world, among the
noni)ermanent representatives of the Council, we must rely rather on
the spirit that animates the League than on any predetermined regula-
MAJORITY OR UNANIMOUS VOTE? 51
tions ; that Europe is at present in the throes of a crisis, and that in conse-
quence the composition of the Council must oflFer guaranties which will
meet the requirements of this situation; that later on a crisis may develop
in some other part of the world, creating new requirements; and that
at any rate until peace has been finally re-established, there can be no
restriction of the freedom of choice of the Assembly as regards the selec-
tion of the four nonpermanent Members of the Council.
A motion proposing to adopt experimentally at the election in the
present session of 1920 the system of distribution of seats mentioned
above was accepted by 13 votes to 12, two Members abstaining from
voting, and 15 being absent.
IX. The Committee finally considered whether the regulations which
it recommends are or are not matters of procedure within the meaning
of Article 5, paragraph 2, of the Covenant. Certain Members of the
Committee urged that at least Resolution IV could not be regarded as a
question of procedure, but was a question of substance. The Com-
mittee, however, adopted by a majority the view that all the resolutions
proposed deal with matters of procedure.
Ecm Should Vote Be Held?
After the debate had proceeded for some time, M. Aguero
(Cuba) proposed that voting should take place on the resolutions
in order. This plan was about to be followed when M. Urrutia
(Colombia) suggested that the question of whether the vote
was to require unanimity or only a majority, as a matter of
procedure, should be previously decided. Mr. Millen (Australia)
objected that this would "trespass upon the sovereign rights of
the sovereign states." Mr. Balfour supported the Colombian
suggestion. Signor Schanzer (Italy) urged that deciding what
was a question of procedure was a question of substance, for
which unanimity was required. As to the proposed resolutions,
he felt that, for instance. No. 2 could be decided by majority
vote but No. 4 required unanimity.
M. Benes (Czecho-Slovakia) agreed with the Italian and
therefore proposed this motion :
That we proceed this year with the selection of the nonpermanent
Members of the Council only for the duration of one year, without any
restrictions at all, that the different proposals and the resolutions which
the committee has worked out be referred to the Committee on Amend-
ments to the Covenant t<: report to the Council.
52 LEAGUE OF NATIONS
This brought both opposition and support, but the debate was
brought to a close by Mr. Balfour proposing his resolutions,
amended to conform to this suggestion. M. Benes expressed
approval and Mr. Wellington Koo seconded the Balfour motion,
which was put to a vote item by item. All votes were w ithout
objection, except that the recommendation vote stood 27 to 4.
The text as passed follows (A. D. 218) :
1. The mandates of Belgium, Brazil, Spain and Greece as Mem-
bers of the Council, as provisionally conferred by Article 4, paragraph
1, sentence 3, of the Covenant, shall expire on December 31, 1920.
2. In execution of Article 4, paragraph 1, sentence 2, of the
Covenant, the nonpermanent Members of the Council shall,
at the present session of the Assembly, be selected one at a time
and by secret ballot for a period of one year. If no Member
obtains at the first ballot an absolute majority of votes, a new
ballot shall be taken, but on this occasion the voting shall be
confined to the two Members who obtained the largest number
of votes at the first ballot. If at this ballot the two Members
obtain an equal number of votes, the President shall decide by lot.
3. The various proposals considered by the First Committee
on this subject shall be sent to the Committee to be constituted
by the Council for studying amendments to the Covenant,
Vv hich shall report on them to the next Assembly.
Recommendation
The Assembly is recommended to vote for the four nonper-
manent Menibers to be selected by the Assembly in 1920 so that
three shall be selected from among the Members of the League in
Europe and the two American Continents and one selected from
among the members in Asia and the remaining parts of the world.
ELECT MEMBERS OF COUNCIL
In accordance with these resolutions, balloting for the four
nonpermanent Members of the Council took place at the 25th
plenary meeting. Ballots resulted as follows:
39 states voting, Honduras and Liberia not voting.
1. Thirty-five in favor of Spain; 2 in favor of Brazil, and
2 in favor of China. Spain designated as a Member of the
Council.
DETAILS OF ELECTION 53
2. Thirty-three in favor of Brazil, 3 for Portugal, 2 for China
and 1 for Sweden. Brazil declared the second nonpermanent
Member of the Council.
3. Nineteen voted for China, 16 for Belgium, 1 for Holland,
1 for Sweden, 1 for Czecho-Slovakia and 1 for Portugal. Accord-
ing to the rules, a second ballot between the two states at the
head of the ballot, China and Belgium, was necessary.
4. Belgium 24 votes, China 14, and Rumania 1. Belgium de-
clared the third nonpermanent Member of the Council.
5. China received 21 votes, Rumania 7, Sweden 5, Czecho-
slovakia 2, Portugal 1, Greece 1, Switzerland 1 and the Serb-
Croat-Slovene State 1. China proclaimed a nonpermanent
Member of the Coimcil.
IV. AMENDMENTS TO THE COVENANT
The First Committee's discussion of amendments to the Cove-
nant began at its first meeting. On motion of M. Politis (Greece)
that the question should not be taken up until a subcommittee
had first examined it, the meeting adjourned. At the second
meeting the amendments proposed by the Danish, Norwegian
and Swedish Governments were before the committee. These,
with the exception of a lengthy proposed procedure for com-
missions of inquiry,^ were in substance identical with the Danish
suggestions, which read :
Art. 3, par. 2. The Assembly shall meet each year at the time fixed by
its rules of procedure and from time to time, as occasion may require, at
the seat of the League, or at such other place as may be decided upon.
On the demand of ten members of the League, the Secretary-General
shall immediately summon a meeting of the Assembly at the seat of the
League.
Art. 4, par. 1. The Council shall consist of representatives of the
United States of America, the British Empire, France, Italy and Japan,
together with representatives of four other Members of the League.
These four Members of the League shall be selected by the Assembly
at its annual meetings, by a majority of the Members of the League repre-
sented at the meeting, and for a period of four years dating from the first of
January of the following year. A member who has been appointed for one
period may not be appointed for the following period. On the occasion of
the first appointment, the four members shall be appointed respectively for
periods of three, four, five and six years.
Art. 13, par. 2. Omit the word "generally."
Art. 16, add after par. 1. At the request of a Member for whom the
application of the above provisions might entail serious danger, the Council
may authorize this Member to maintain intercourse, in sueh measure as the
Council shall decide, with the covenant-breaking state.
Baron Marks von Wurtemberg (Sweden), introducing the
amendments, referred to the careful study which had been given
to the question of a League of Nations by the Scandinavian
IFor full text see Official Journal, No. 6, 353-357; Assembly Document 10.
VARIOUS OPINIONS EXPRESSED 55
(iovernmenls, both before and since the framing of the Covenant.
Me urged that the Covenant inevitably contained defects and
obscurities; and while he recognized that important changes must
raise questions of great delicacy and ought not unduly to be
])resse(l at the present moment, he considered that the Scandina-
vian amendments were immediately necessary.
Sir Ali Imam (India) thought the committee should lay down
the principle that they would not consider any amendments
inconsistent with the explicit terms of the Covenant. M. Viviani
(France) proposed that the committee should, on principle,
refuse to consider any amendment of the Covenant. The first
Assembly of the League must not take any action which could
appear to reverse the provisions of the treaty of Versailles. He
thought, moreover, that the committee were not competent to
deal with amendments to the Covenant.
Committee Is Suggested
M. Lange (Norway) urged that the committee had a mandate
lo deal with the amendments. The purpose of the amendments
was merely to render explicit the provisions in the Covenant and
fill up its lacunae. They were in no way contrary to the pro-
visions of the treaty of Versailles. The Assembly ifiust not take
a formalistic view and fall short of what was demanded by public
opinion. He proposed, as a subsidiary measure, the appointment
of a committee of jurists to report on the amendments at the
next session of the Assembly. M. Struycken (Netherlands) con-
sidered that the committee should discuss the first two Scandi-
ir.Lvian amendments, reserve the third until Assembly Com-
mittee No. 3 had presented its report, and refuse to discuss the
remaining amendments which touched the substance of the
Covenant.
Viscount Ishii (Japan), referring to the safeguards against ill-
considered amendments in the constitutions of most states, was
strongly of opinion that any proposal to amend the Covenant
was premature. The Chairman agreed that amendment of the
Covenant at this moment would be premature. There was as yet
hardly any experience of its working as originally drafted. He
recognized that the Scandinavian amendments did not go to the
56 LEAGUE OF NATIONS
root of the Covenant or conflict with its essential principles, and
that the Covenant would one day require amendment, but he
thought that a little delay was advisable.
The representatives of Norway and Denmark again appealed
to the committee to discuss the principle of the amendments, or
to take steps to secure appointment of a committee to report
upon them to the next Assembly. M. Spalaikovich (Serb-Croat-
Slovene State) and M. Jonescu (Rumania) appealed to the com-
mittee to do nothing to invalidate the treaty of Versailles, which
was the charter of their national freedom.
Vote Not to Consider Amendments
The Chairman proposed a vote upon whether the amendments
should be considered. M. de Alvear (Argentina) rose to support
the appointment of a special committee to consider amendments.
After an exchange of views between the representatives of France,
Norway, China and Argentina, the Chairman said that the ques-
tion of such a committee would arise if it was decided to consider
the amendments. The Chairman then put the following question :
"Whether the amendments referred to the committee should at
this moment be taken into consideration by the Assembly or not."
The committee, by 20 votes to 8, decided against consideration
of the amendments.
The following countries voted with the majority: South Africa,
Australia, Belgium, Brazil, British Empire, Canada, China,
Czecho-Slovakia, France, Guatemala, Haiti, India, Italy, Japan,
Poland, Rumania, Salvador, Serb-Croat-Slovene State, Spain,
Switzerland.
The following countries voted in the minority: Argentina,
Cuba, Denmark, Netherlands, Norway, Panama, Siam, Svv^eden.
Three countries did not vote.
At the fourth meeting of the First Committee, the Chairman
announced that the Netherlands proposed that the Council be
invited by the Assembly to appoint a committee to study the
amendments to the Covenant presented to the Assembly. The
committee shall report to the Council, which shall in its turn
place their conclusions before the Assembly at the next meeting.
He thought that this proposal was perfectly consistent with
COVENANT NOT PERFECT 57
the general scheme of the League and would give great satis-
faction to the Scandinavian countries and Switzerland, and
probably form a useful precedent. If it was accepted, he did not
think the Council would be hostile to the proposal. On the
recommendation being voted on, it was carried, 18 states voting
for and none against.
Mr. Balfour (Great Britain), Chairman of the First Com-
mittee, acted as rapporteur at the 12th plenary meeting of the
Assembly. He said in part:
"After some discussion we decided that the moment was in-
opportune for making any amendment at all, and I should like
briefly to explain our reasons for the course we then adopted. Let
me say in the first place that one reason was not that we thought
the Covenant inspired from Heaven, immutable, perfect in all its
parts, never to be changed, modified or improved. No such idea
entered into the mind of any member of the committee. We
know perfectly well the extreme difficulties under which the
Covenant was drawn up. It was drawn up in Paris in the year
1919 by statesmen of the greatest eminence, but who were at that
moment overwhelmed with responsible work; it was carried
through with marvelous unanimity and rapidity. . . . Admir-
able as is the Covenant, we all recognize that certainly in details,
and possibly as time goes on even in matters which can not be
described as matters of detail, changes will be desirable, and will
indeed be inevitable. Our view was, and is, that those changes
must come, and ought to come, but they ought not and properly
can not come at the present moment. If our first reason for
deferring amendments was not because we think the Covenant
perfect, neither was it because we think the amendments proposed
by the Scandinavian countries were not in themselves worthy
of the most careful consideration, and indeed showed the utmost
industry, skill and ingenuity on the part of those who drew them
up. That is not our view. . . .
Postponement Discussed
"Our motive was twofold, and the first motive was this: If
you change the Covenant, you change the treaty of Versailles.
The Covenant ... is an integral part of the treaty, and we thought
58 LEAGUE OF NATIONS
it very undesirable at this moment and in the circumstances in
which we find ourselves, that the Assembly should set to work
to pull to pieces that great international instrument which gave
a seal to the peace of the world. . . . Our second motive was this.
We remembered that the League of Nations is yet very young,
that it has been in existence less than a year, less, indeed, than
eleven months, that its experience and the experience of its
Members is necessarily imperfect because it has been inevitably
short, and we thought, and still think, that before beginning to
amend the instrument which has brought us into being, and
by which we exist and work, we ought to have behind us some-
what more experience than could have been afforded us by ten
months' working of the Council, and a fortnight's work of the
Assembly.
"These reasons which I have briefly indicated were sufficient
to convince the committee that the work of amending the Cove-
nant was one which, though inevitable, ought to be somewhat
deferred. The question then remains, granting that broad prin-
ciple is accepted, how are we to deal with the carefully thought-
out amendments which have been laid before us by the Scandina-
vian countries?"
The speaker read his resolution and ended with this
comment:
You will observe that the amendments are not withdrawn from
the Assembly, or indefinitely shelved or put on one side, but
that they are handed over to a committee which will carefully
and maturely consider their provisions, and after such careful and
mature consideration report to the Council, who will in their turn
report to the next Assembly. Therefore, when in September next
the Assembly comes together again in this town, they will be in
a position fully to consider and finally to decide whether those
amendments shall be accepted.
Dr. F. Hagerup (Norway): I wish to express my thanks to the
President of the First Commission for the kindly terms in which he has
referred to the resolutions of the Scandinavian countries. Also I desire
to express my satisfaction with the resolution which he has proposed to
the Assembly. I wish to emphasize the point that the amendments have
not been rejected, but are to be submitted to a special examination.
That is exactly what wc desire.
SHORT DELAY ACCEPTED 59
The Swedish and Danish delegates expressed themselves in
the same sense. The Dutch delegate spoke much to the same
effect. M. Affonso Costa (Portugal) next spoke:
I am one of those members who consider that the question of amend-
ments to the Covenant could be carried out at this Assembly. I feel very
much that the Covenant is not perfect. . . . The Covenant is not in it-
self the treaty of Versailles, and it can be modified by Article 26 accord-
ing to necessity. But the First Committee decided that it would be
premature to effect any amendment now. There will be another Assembly
of the League on September 5 next, and the time between now and then
is not too long for us to study these questions and even to present other
amendments. Perhaps between now and then other states will have be-
come Members of the League and we want to have those states here be-
fore we start any modifications of the Covenant. I accept the short
delay in making any modifications to the Covenant. But, with regard
to the second part of the motion, I propose to add words to this effect:
That the committee will study the Scandinavian proposals and also such
proposals as shall be submitted to it within a period which the Council
shall determine.
He then read out certain amendments to the Covenant which
the Portuguese Government wished to propose for the considera-
tion of this committee.
Mr. Balfour, in reply to a question by Mr. Rowell, stated that
the resolution about to be voted upon did not cover the method
of allocating financial quotas.^ He added that it seemed to him
desirable, as the delegate of Portugal had suggested, that amend-
ments might be with advantage submitted to and considered by
that committee, so that "when we meet next year, we shall meet
with a considered opinion on the merits of the various proposals
for changing the text of the Covenant. My own advice would
be to accept, not merely the resolution in the form I read it out,
but also the amendment which the representative for Portugal
desires to add to it."
Eventually, the Balfour motion as amended by M. Costa was
put to a standing vote as a whole.
MM. Pueyrredon (Argentina) and Velasquez (Paraguay) rose
against the proposal. The President suggested that a vote by
ISee page 124.
60 LEAGUE OF NATIONS
ballot would satisfy the dissidents. M. Pueyrredon replied that
he had voted against because the proposal prevented considera-
tion of amendments at the present session. M. Viviani rose to
the point of order that this was a question of procedure capable
of decision by a majority. The President so ruled. *'I agree, '*
said M. Pueyrredon. * 'Under these conditions the proposal
is adopted,'^ declared the President, and the meeting, assenting,
adjourned. The resolutions as adopted follow (A. D. 158) :
The Assembly of the League of Nations resolves:
a. That the amendments to the Covenant proposed by the
Danish, Norwegian and Swedish Governments shall, at this
moment, not be taken into consideration by the Assembly; and
b. That the Council be invited to appoint a committee to
study the said proposals of amendment, together with any which
may be submitted by a Member of the League within a period to
be fixed by the Council.^
This committee shall report to the Council, which shall place
the conclusions before the Assembly at its next session.
Argentina's Withdrawal
The President opened the 14th plenary meeting by reading
correspondence, which follows in part:
Argentine Delegation,
Assembly of the League of Nations, Geneva.
December 4, 1920.
Sm,
In the course of the Plenary Session of the 2nd instant, the Assembly
was notified of a motion proposing to adjourn the discussion of amend-
ments to the Covenant by various nations until the next session of the
League. . . .
We should have consented to the postponement of questions of sec-
ondary importance, but we can not do so in the case of important motions
capable of completing and strengthening the institution which is the
fruit of the Covenant
lAt the final session of the Assembly it was announced that the Council had
fixed March 31, 1921, as the date at which the proposals for amendments to the
Covenant should be sent in to the Secretariat, in order to be examined in time by
the committee.
REASONS THAT WERE GIVEN 61
We are ready to respect the opinions which are represented in the vote
which we are discussing, though they are at variance with our own. We
recognize that these opinions are inspired by the desire to help forward
the noble aims pursued by the League of Nations; but we should be lack-
ing in consistency if, after having firmly upheld the same principles in our
declarations and in the committees, we failed to adopt the only course
which appears to us to be reconcilable with the convictions which induced
the adhesion of our Government to the great idea of a League of Nations.
The chief aim of the Argentine Government in sending the Delegation,
of which I have the honor to be head, was to co-operate in the work of
drawing up the charter by means of amendments to the Covenant, in
which we hoped that it would be possible to embody the ideals and prin-
ciples which Argentina has always upheld in international affairs, and from
which she will never deviate.
WTien once this aim has disappeared, owing to the postponement of
the amendments, the moment has arrived for Argentina's co-operation
in the work to cease. The adoption or rejection of the lofty principles
contained in the amendments which have been presented to the League
would have served to demonstrate to our country, and to public opinion,
by what permanent rules of conduct the League of Nations was likely to
be guided.
For the above reasons, and in accordance with the instructions re-
ceived from my Government, I have the honor to inform the President,
and through him the Assembly, that the Argentine Delegation considers
its mission at an end.
I beg you. Sir, to be so good as to accept and to transmit to the eminent
representatives of the states composing the Assembly our most respect-
ful greetings.
The President read his reply expressing regret on behalf of the
Assembly at the action of the Argentine Delegation. He then
accorded the floor to Lord Robert Cecil who after a graceful
tribute to the personality of Senor Pueyrredon said that the
latter's "proposals were never discussed here. I hoped they
would have been discussed, and had the Argentine Delegation
remained, they would undoubtedly have had full opportunity of
discussion, and after that discussion we could all have made up
our minds as to the value and opportuneness of those proposals/'
And he added :
But I am bound to add this, for fear of misunderstanding— ithat if
every Member cf the Assembly were to take the line which the Argentine
62 LEAGUE OF NATIONS
Delegation has taken, no progress would have been possible. No As-
sembly can exist; no Assembly can function, if, because some decision
as to the procedure on a particular resolution is arrived at, the author of
that resolution withdraws all his assistance from the deliberations of the
Assembly, and I can not help feeling that our Scandinavian colleagues
have shown a much higher appreciation of what is required when they
have co-operated in the decisions of the Assembly, even though the effect
of them was to postpone the adoption of the proposals they have laid
before us. In any case, the attitude of the Assembly and the League is
unchanging; wherever criticism may come from, the League will con-
tinue to discharge its duties. No one who has had the privilege of taking
part in this Assembly can fail to realize the gigantic step forward which
has been made in international co-operation.
Proposal to Eliminate Article 10
The Assembly next turned to amendments proposed by the
Argentine delegation and by Charles J. Doherty (Canada). It
is worthy of note that the Argentine amendment bore the same
date as the letter of withdrawal.^ The Canadian motion follows:
That Article 10 of the Covenant of the League of Nations be and is
hereby struck out.
M. Branting (Sweden): *'As the representative of one of
the countries which suggested changes in the Covenant, I now
ask that the Assembly should deal with the proposals before
them in the same way that they dealt with the Scandinavian
proposals."
Mr. Doherty began by recognizing the desirability of applying
the same principle in all perfectly analogous cases, but argued
IThe Argentine proposal read:
"The strength of the League of Nations depends on its including the greatest
possible number of states; the fewer the states outside it the greater will be the
number of the Members pledged to carry out its discipline and to perform the
duties which it imposes. The non-admission of a number of states might lead
to dangerous antagonisms, be the cause of the formation of a league of states
outside the League in rivalry to it, and lead to constant anxiety for the peace
of the world.
"The Argentine Delegation therefore proposes:
"That the sovereign states recognized by the community of nations be ad-
mitted to join the League of Nations in such a manner that if they do not become
Members of the League, this can only be the result of a voluntary decision on
their part."
CANADA ACCEPTS DELAY 68
such analogy did not follow from the fact that motions were
amendatory of the Covenant. He continued:
Our hope has been that the motion of which we gave notice might be
referred to the Second Committee, in order that opportunities might be
given for considering what would be the best method of dealing with it.
I understand, however, through our representative on the Bureau,
that the suggestion made by M. Branting expresses the unanimous view
of the Bureau as to the manner in which the motion which I have the
honor to submit should be dealt with. . . . Our proposal, which, for
reasons that need not be gone into here, did not come before this Assem-
bly in its opening days, is not the result of any afterthought on the part
of Canada or her representatives. It represents the view which Canada
entertained at the time the Covenant was under discussion, and which
she endeavored to cause to prevail. That view, however, did not then
prevail; but Canada, notwithstanding that, in view of the great impor-
tance of the League being brought into being, accepted the Covenant as
it stood with this clause. She did so in the hope and expectation of op-
portunity for amendment of the Covenant, which the Covenant itself
provides for, and she looked forward to having that opportunity to make
her best endeavors, at all events, to bring about this improvement. We
fully recognize that the motion is one of importance, and that there is
much to be said in support of the view that there should be the most
careful consideration. We further realize that no action upon it, favor-
able to the view we entertain, can be taken and be effective without the
co-operation of both Council and Assembly. That being so, and in view
of the fact that it is the view of the Bureau that we could not expect to
obtain unanimity upon this question of the best method of procedure,
we feel we have no other course open to us than to yield as gracefully as
may be, to the inevitable.
The two amendments were referred to the committee to be
appointed by the Council.
V. TECHNICAL ORGANIZATIONS
The Second Committee, Technical Organization, met for its
first meeting^ on November 19, with M. Tittoni (Italy) presiding.
The Chairman stated that "in conformity with the letter and the
spirit of the Covenant, and, even more, in view of the general
purposes for which the League was established, the latter is called
upon to perform a number of duties of an international character,
which, from their nature, may be called duties of a technical
order — such as those dealing with health, transit and communi-
cations, economic and financial questions. These duties are of
importance, not merely because they form an integral part of
those other duties which appear at first to appertain more particu-
larly to the League, such as its political duties and those which
aim at securing international justice, but also because it is by
means of these technical functions that the League of Nations,
in this the initial stage of its existence, will be able to consolidate
its structure and do justice to the importance of its mission. It is
precisely in the field of these questions, more even than in the
political field, that states may now be more disposed to renounce
the individualistic point of view and more inclined to act in the
general interest, since the results are more immediate. The
International Labor Office, which was the first technical
organization established by the League, has in this way
increased the credit of the League by being a practical and
vital institution, that has secured the aid of that public opinion
which undoubtedly constitutes the most powerful support of
the League itself.
"The war, which divided the majority of the states into two
groups, has made it clear that common dangers demand common
action. It is evident that many questions, if they are regarded
and treated in an individualistic manner, may disturb inter-
national harmony, and, on the other hand, if they are approached
^Meetings were held as follows: 1, November 19; 2, November 20; 3, November
22; 4, November 24; 5, November 26; 6, November 29; 7, December 1; 8, Decem-
ber 3; 9, December 6; 10, December 8; 11, December 10; 12, December 16.
AIM IS COLLECTIVE EFFORT 65
from the point of view of common interest, may contribute to
1 he peace of the world. A great number, indeed, of these questions,
which up to a few years ago bore a purely national aspect, have
now crossed the frontiers and assumed a definite international
aspect. In view of this phenomenon, brought into contact with
our own time by the internationalization of ideas and conditions,
Ave must guide our conduct by the endeavor to secure collective
vlYoTt and the co-ordinated action of the greatest number of those
interested.
*'It is precisely in the consideration of universal points of
\[ew in the search for a basis of equilibrium, and in the adoption
of an average international opinion, that the League of Nations,
without becoming in any way a superstate may fulfil its functions.
To a certain degree the League must proceed to analyze conflicting
opinions in every field, and to apply tests to discover how far
the time is ripe for proposed reforms. By establishing contact
with technical experts in all countries and utilizing their aid, the
League must hasten to establish the organizations necessary for
uniform and sanitary action in the general interest. The activities
of these technical organizations should be closely co-ordinated
with the work of the Council, and on this point the Council is
submitting to the Assembly the draft resolution which it passed
at its meeting in Rome.'*
The ten subjects on the agenda of the Assembly which had
been referred to the committee for study were assigned to its
members for special reports at the first meeting, M. Tittoni
taking the first which dealt with relations between technical
organizations and the Council and Assembly.
This important subject was much debated when the state-
ment resf)ecting it was brought before the third meeting
of the committee, a proposal regarding the permanent com-
mittees for each subject occupying the bulk of attention.
The committee finally decided to set up only organizations
advisory in character, except in the case of health, which
was already the subject of an international convention. The
decision as to permanency was therefore left to the Govern-
ments of states.
66 league of nations
Relation to Assembly and Council
M. Hanotaux read the committee's report (A. D. 171) at the
16th plenary meeting of the Assembly. After describing the
organization of the committee's work and the previous action
of the Council and after referring to Articles 23, 24 and 25 of the
Covenant, he said that the foundations had been established
and that the decision as to permanent procedure was due.
The second chapter of the report dealt with relations between
the technical organizations and the Council and Assembly. After
a brief introduction, it contained the following self-explanatory
resolution :
With a view to defining the relations between the Technical
Organizations of the League of Nations and the Council and
the Assembly of the League, the Assembly, after having noted
the resolution of the Council of the League of Nations, dated
May 19, 1920, submitted to it by the Council, adopts the follow-
ing resolution. The resolution will be forwarded to the secretariat
of all technical organizations, and those secretariats must in all
cases be administered by the Secretary-General of the League.
The technical organizations of the League now in process of
formation are established for the purpose of facilitating the task
of the Assembly and the Council by the setting up of technical
sections on the one hand and on the other to assist Members
of the League, by establishing direct contact between their techni-
cal representatives in the various spheres, to fulfil their inter-
national duties.
With this double object, they must keep enough independence
and flexibility to make them effectively useful to the Members of
the League, and yet they must remain under the control of the
responsible organizations which conduct the general business of
the League, with a view to verifying whether the proposals are
in conformity with the principles and spirit of the Covenant, in
accordance with Articles 19 and 20.
The two following principles will serve as a guide:
a. The interior working of the various organizations should he
independent.
They will prepare their own agenda, and communicate it to the
Council of the League before discussion thereon takes place.
In exceptional cases in which it is necessary to add to the
agenda during the progress of a conference of a technical organiza-
tion, and time does not admit of the communication of the addi-
SUBORDINATE TO COUNCIL 67
tlonal item to the Council, any decision arrived at thereon shall
be provisional only until the Council has had an opportunity of
exercising its control.
b. Their relations with the Members of the League should be
under control.
Before any communication of the results or proposals of the
technical organizations is made to the Members, and before
any action concerning a Member is taken, the Council of the
League must be immediately informed in order that they may
be able to exercise their power of control, if necessary. In this
case, the Council may decide that the communication or action
in question shall be postponed and request the technical organiza-
tion concerned either to withdraw the question from its agenda
or to submit it to further consideration.
The technical organization may, however, request that the
decision taken by the Council shall be discussed at the next
meeting of the Assembly.
The Assembly of the League should be informed of all ques-
tions dealt with in the interval between its meetings by the
Council in the exercise of its power of control defined above. It
may either be informed of such questions by the Council on its
own initiative, or on the proposal of any one of its Members,
or at the request of one of the technical organizations of the
League.
A debate on these declarations of principle followed. Dr.
Nansen thought that it was "very important that it shall be
expressly stated that it would be desirable to draw in the aid
and co-operation of non-Members of the League," especially in
scientific and humanitarian fields. Mr. Rowell (Canada) cited
Article 23 of the Covenant and held that "the setting up of the
organization itself should be a matter covered by the international
convention in wl^ich the Governments themselves are entitled
to express their opinion through the action they would take by
agreeing to an international convention." He objected to the
multiplication of international conferences on the scores of expense
and the difficulty of non-Europeans attending them. Mr. Millen
(Australia) ratified these remarks, especially with reference to
the expense involved.^ M. Ador appealed to Mr. Rowell to
^The total indicated expense of such activities for 1921 is almost $400,000 for
48 states!
68 LEAGUE OF NATIONS
approach these important and vital questions in a spirit of cordial
understanding and Lord Robert Cecil, in a conciliatory move, pro-
posed to adjourn the discussion to permit of friendly consultation.
Mr. Rowell accepted this suggestion as in accord with his own
desire in a speech in which he said:
It is because I have such confidence in the League as a means of inter-
national co-operation, and such faith in its possibihties to avert the catas-
trophes through which we have been passing, that I do not wish the
League to make what I believe would be a very serious mistake and im-
peril its usefulness for the future. It is in the spirit of international co-
operation and with a view of making the League the most effective in-
strument possible that I have approached the consideration of the ques-
tion. That is the whole attitude of Canada. . . . Conferences may be
held, various actions may be taken, but this League and the Council
are quite competent to form the conferences. It is not necessary to set up
an international organization, a new organization, in order to call con-
ferences. This League is quite competent to call conferences to consider
any of these matters. Let us do everything that is necessary to meet the
situation in the spirit of co-operation. Do not let us tie our hands for the
future before we have had sufficient experience to know what is the wisest
course to take.
After an. explanation by M. Hanotaux and a compromise pro-
posal by M. da Cunha (Brazil), the session adjourned. At the
17th plenary meeting, M. Hanotaux announced *'that an agree-
ment has been come to in a conciliatory spirit," the formula in-
volving "not a question of principle, but one of definition of terms,"
which related principally to the Economic and Financial Organiza-
tion, under which head they are set forth in detail.^ He accordingly
suggested the adoption of the resolution, which was unanimously
adopted in the terms given above.
"Once these principles of our internal administration had been
established, the Second Committee considered the creation of
the technical organizations which have just been referred to,"
continued M. Hanotaux's report.
"In connection with all these subjects the League of Nations
must be acquainted with the needs and wishes of the peoples,
and the scientific treatment of various subjects; it must prepare
^See page 71, below.
CONSTANT TOUCH WITH PEOPLES 60
the text of any agreements or conventions which may be necessary
or useful ; it must approach its labors with the assistance of those
concerned, whether Governments or groups of Governments, or
even individuals ; in a word, it must keep in constant touch with
laboring humanity, and by holding aloof from all special points
of view and private interests, it must strive to unite, to conciliate,
and to pacify them so that, their claim as far as possible satisfied,
they may thus by their voluntary adherence contribute to the
general pacification and to universal well-being.
"It thus proposes to set up three technical organizations which
are immediately necessary — an Economic and Financial Organiza-
tion, an Organization for Communications and Transit, and an
Organization of International Health."
Economic and Financial Organization
M. Ador (Switzerland) made a statement on the Economic and
Financial Organization, which had been proposed, at the third
meeting of the Second Committee. After having recalled the
work of the Brussels Financial Conference, he expressed the view
that the Assembly should not only establish the basis of an
economic and financial organization, but should also express its
approval of the proposals of the Brussels Conference, particularly
the proposal relating to the necessity for states to restrict such
of their expenses as are not productive in character.
As a consequence, he proposed the adoption of the following
resolution :
In view of the resolutions of the Brussels Financial Conference^ and the
decisions of the Council of the League for their execution, the Assembly
recognizes the necessity of constituting a Permanent Economic and
Financial Committee.
The duties of this committee shall include, among others:
The preparation of a general Economic and Financial Conference in 1921.
The examination of the institution of a Credit Organization.
And, on the basis of the principles set forth in Article 23 of the Cove-
nant, which assures to all states equitable treatment, the examination of
measures for preventing monopolies of raw materials and of the means
of controlling distribution of raw materials.
iSee League of Nations, III, No. 5, October, 1920.
70 LEAGUE OF NATIONS
The Assembly insists on the urgent necessity of employing all natural
wealth in strictly productive channels, and as a consequence it invites all
Governments to make a considerable reduction in their expenses incurred
by armaments and in preparations for war, in accordance with the pro-
visions of Article 8 of the Covenant.
Mr. Millen (Australia) and Sir William Meyer (India) did not
agree with M. Ador's interpretation of the resolutions of the
Brussels Conference. Sir William Meyer maintained also that
the terms of Article 23 of the Covenant could not be extended
to raw materials. The Chairman (M. Tittoni) replied that
the "equitable treatment for the commerce of all Members"
provided in Article 23 of the Covenant could not be reconciled
with monopolies of raw materials. Sir William Meyer (India)
then asked that M. Ador should distinguish between reso-
lutions which were textual reproductions of the decisions of
the general conference and those which rested on his own
inferences.
M. Ador presented three resolutions at the fourth meeting, the
first of which concerned the resolution of the Council submitted
for the approval of the Assembly, on which the committee was
called upon to pronounce an opinion, and after some discussion
of textual corrections, there was adopted a resolution in which
*'the Assembly recognizes and proclaims the urgent necessity of a
permanent economic and financial organization," and in which
it was provided that "the Council of the League of Nations shall
summon, during 1921, a first Economic and Financial Conference,
one of the duties of which shall be the organization of a Permanent
Economic and Financial Committee."
M. Ferraris raised the question of whether the conference
would present a report, and, if so, would it be sent to the Council
or to the Assembly. The committee decided to refer this question
to the Council.
The resolution formed the subject of Chapter III of M. Hano-
taux's report to the Assembly, to which he stated that "important
agreements are in course of preparation in respect of the inter-
national organization of credit" as a result of the Brussels
conference.
Referring to the compromise which had taken place between the
INDEPENDENCE UNAFFECTED 71
16th and 17th meetings in regard to the general resolution respect-
ing technical organizations he added in substance:
It was said that the organizations would incur large expenditure, and
that their setting up would open the door to formidable expense. The
Second Committee had not had time to go thorouglily into this matter,
but it took into consideration yesterday amended estimates submitted by
the Secretariat for expenditure for these organizations, and the amend-
ment of Sir William Meyer was adopted and has been forwarded to the
Fourth Committee, which deals with the budget. The general trend of
that amendment is to limit the total maximum yearly expenditure of the
organizations in question to 2,000,000 gold francs, with power to transfer
such sums from one organization to another as it may seem necessary and
desirable.
There was a second diflSculty. A certain anxiety was demonstrated
concerning the activities of the organizations which it was proposed to
set up, the so-called "Standing Committees" — the **Comite Permanent."
There was a sort of apprehension lest it might gradually evolve into a
super-world wide ministry of the finances and economics of all nations.
It was therefore necessary clearly to establish that each Government,
under the terms of the present report, in the organizations which would
be set up would retain its full right and independence to accept or reject
such proposals as might be put forward. In point of fact, it has always
been understood that these organizations, or so-called "Standing
Committees," never were intended to have anything but an advisory
power. It was never intended that they should have an executive power.
Discussion as to Raw Materials
The question of raw materials and their control was raised by
M. Ador's second resolution. This subject had not been dis-
cussed by the International Financial Conference, but had been
referred to in a resolution brought forward by the representative
of Italy on the Council which, after a postponement, had passed
a resolution at its Brussels meeting, which read as follows :
The Council has fully considered the difficulties experienced by numer-
ous countries in assuring the import of raw materials essential to their
welfare and even to their existence, and has requested the Economic
Section of the Economic and Financial Committee to study:
(a) The extent and nature of their requirements.
(6) The causes of those difficulties (other than those arising from the
lack of credit or fluctuation in the rate of exchange, which have abeady
72 LEAGUE OF NATIONS
been considered by the Brussels Financial Conference) ; the effects of the
existence of monopolies will be very specially considered.
The Council invites the committee to submit to it at the earliest pos-
sible moment a report on the results of its inquiry — a report which is
indispensable for the further deliberations of the International Economic
and Financial Conference.
This matter was the occasion for a marked difference of opinion
at the eighth plenary meeting of the Assembly, while the report
on the work of the Council was under discussion. In his address
then, Henri La Fontaine (Belgium) made a statement which
attracted attention at the time in cable dispatches and which
is accordingly given in full :
I am anxious to say how I and my friends look upon this most important
question. We consider that the earth is a vast territory, unique in its
entirety, from which humanity as a whole must derive full profit and
advantage in equal manner. But this territory does not find itself dow-
ered in every part with the same resources, and with the same amount of
resources, and raw materials will be found in certain parts that are not
found in other parts. Certain nations have the advantage of possessing
these raw materials, others have not; and, in my opinion and in the
opinion of my friends, I think some arrangement should be come to by
which no one nation should have a prior right to these materials, nor that
they should have any priority over the rest of humanity at large, but that
those materials should be equally disposed of among all the nations for
their mutual benefit.
The economic question is not only one of raw material per se but also
of its transformation, circulation and distribution. Transformation has
been taken in hand by the Labor Organization; circulation by the Com-
mittee on Circulation and Transit, and distribution is to be taken up by
the special committee, the formation of which has been requested.
Newton W. Rowell (Canada), who emphasized the importance
of distinguishing between the primary and secondary functions
of the League, urged that they should not seek to promote pro-
posals which were unrealizable because of being outside the scope
of the Covenant. "If," he said, "there is one idea held more
tenaciously than another on our side of the Atlantic it is that
we must retain control of our own internal affairs. You can never
expect the great nation south of Canada to become a party to
this League so long as there is any suggestion or contention that
APPEALS TO THE RICH 73
you are going to interfere with the domestic affairs of that country.
Therefore, I think it is unfortunate to throw out to this Assembly
and to the public any proposal to the effect that the Covenant
of the League covers the question of raw materials. I submit,
with respect, it is clear beyond peradventure that it does not.
It is a question of tremendous importance to all the nations of
the world. Everyone recognizes that. But to introduce it here
and obscure the primary function of the I^eague is only to militate
against its efficiency and impair the position it should hold in
the public estimation of the world."
Referring to this Canadian non possumuSy M. Tittoni, who as
the Italian representative on the Council, had first raised the
economic question, said:
I should have liked the Canadian representative to have expressed
himself in a less categorical manner and in a manner which did not im-
mediately shut the door to all possibility of discussion and arrangement.
We must all be inspired with the conciliatory spirit and allow the supreme
interests of justice and of humanity to have precedence over the interests
of our individual states. In my opinion, on the solution of this economic
question depends the future of peace or war. The relationship between
the different states has become much more difficult since the war than it
was before, all the more so, because all kinds of barriers have been raised
up between states from an economic standpoint since the war, and if this
is persisted in and these barriers maintained and increased they will
inevitably lead to tremendous economic war, and eventually to war itself.
I do not intend to propose any method of solving these tremendous
problems. I only appeal to those powers who are the fortunate possessors
of raw materials, to those powers who are rich, not to wait for the request
from the poorer powers and the powers who are dependent on them, but
to come before this Assembly and say that they will waive their national
interests and national egoisms in the general interests of humanity, jus-
tice and equality.
M. Ador at the fourth meetmg of the Second Committee
thought that the Assembly would wish to indorse the efforts
made by the Council to obtain the most complete information
possible on the question of raw materials. For this reason he
asked the committee to adopt his resolution, which did not
involve the question of prmciple, and had no other object but
the recommendation of the most complete examination possible
I
74 LEAGUE OF NATIONS
of the problem. The delegate of India (Sir William Meyer)
expressed the view that the Council's resolution was not within
the terms of the agenda. The committee was only called upon
to pronounce on the creation of permanent and temporary financial
and economic organizations. In any case, he questioned the
extensive interpretation given by M. Ador to Article 23 of the
Covenant, which, in his view, no more referred to raw materials or
tariff questions than to the injustices of nature. As a consequence,
he proposed the rejection of M. Ador's motion, which he regarded
as quite useless. M. Ador maintained that his resolution did not
involve any question of principle, but merely asked for an ex-
haustive inquiry into the questions which the Council had already
considered.
The delegate of Canada (Sir George Foster) feared that the
terms of the Council's resolution might cause apprehension in the
countries which disposed of raw materials, such as Canada and
the United States. The resolution did, in fact, appear to intro-
duce a new economic doctrine, which permitted interference in
the free disposal of the natural wealth of the various nations.
In his view Article 23 of the Covenant did not refer to raw
materials.
No Resolution Reported
The Chairman (M. Tittoni) asked the committee to return to
the question at issue. They were, in fact, merely concerned with
the ratification of the establishment of a conmiittee of inquiry,
which the Council had already established. The delegate of
Italy (M. Ferraris) said the committee was not called upon to
pronounce on principles, but simply to associate itself with the
program fixed by the Council for the provisional Economic and
Finance Committee. The delegate of Sweden (M. Trygger)
supported the Delegate of Italy. In his view, if the provisions
of Article 23 of the Covenant concerning equitable treatment
of commerce were not observed commercial wars would be in-
evitable, and these in their turn would lead to other wars.
The delegate of Colombia (M. Restrepo) declared that the dis-
cussion which had just taken place involved political and moral
principles as well as political economy. He regretted that the
representatives of the British Dominions appeared to abandon
OPPOSES ARTIFICIAL BARRIERS 75
the principles of economic liberalism which had been the basis
of the greatness of the United Kingdom and the development of
the British Empire. Free trade was a guaranty of international
peace. The delegate of France (M. Hanotaux) appealed
to the committee to abandon discussions of principle, and
remember the countries which had been devastated and
exhausted by the war.
In spite of the efforts to secure a vote on the question of raw
materials, the committee confined itself to passing a resolution
referring the Council pronouncement to the proposed conference,
adding an interpretative paragraph to secure unanimity.
What Italy Sought
At the 17th meeting of the Assembly, while the report was
under discussion, M. Ador in summarizing the work of the financial
conference made a brief reference to the matter and exhorted the
Assembly not to discuss it. M. Schanzer (Italy), having in mind
the passage at arms in an earlier meeting of the Assembly between
the Belgian, Italian and Canadian delegates, made this explana-
tion of his country's attitude:
We have no intention of intervening in any way in the internal affairs
of any nation, nor do we intend to correct nature or to correct geography.
But, on the other hand, we ask for liberty and justice in economic policy,
m the same way as liberty and justice are found in all the other principles
which inspire the Covenant. What we ask is that artificial barriers and
differential prices should not be set up. What we do not want is an
economic system which will necessarily lead to reaction, and necessarily
lead, in the end, to the most terrible conflicts that have ever occurred.
Further, how can the working classes be raised to a higher social standard
if industries are not enabled to live?
Mr. Rowell (Canada) referring to M. Ador*s remarks on the
economic crisis said:
I am sure everyone will agree that for the future of Europe and of the
world it is of the utmost importance that expenditure for military pur-
poses should be reduced to the lowest possible point at the earliest date
practicable, and that men should leam that this war can not be paid for
except by work and increased production. We can not have a world-wide
war and not expect to pay the penalty in years of labor. For years we will
76 LEAGUE OF NATIONS
earn bread by the sweat of our brow because of the luxury of a great war,
and that should make us appreciate the League of Nations all the more.
The speaker made reference to the raw materials resolution
which was not passed by the committee, but, on inquiry, stated
that he accepted the second resolution then under discussion.
This resolution did not refer to raw materials, but authorized the
Economic and Financial Organization to consider the resolution
of the Council already referred to it by the latter body.
M. Ador's third resolution was read at the sixth meeting of
the Second Committee when he stated that he was ready to
omit a last paragraph concerning the reduction of armaments, as
this question had been allocated to Committee No. 6. After
discussion it was agreed that the paragraph should be omitted
from the final text, but on the proposal of the delegate of Poland
(M. A. Doerman) it was decided that the committee should
inform Committee No. 6 that it considered the reduction of
armaments to be indispensable from the point of view of the
economic rehabilitation of the world.
M. Ador's third draft resolution was adopted unanimously.
It brought forth no discussion in the Assembly.
Resolutions as Adopted
The three resolutions were unanimously adopted at the 17th
plenary meeting of the Assembly in the following form (A. D.
171 and 171 A):
First Resolution. — The Assembly recognizes the necessity of an
advisory economic and financial committee, and adopts as a con-
sequence the following resolution :
In order that the League of Nations may proceed without
interruption with the working out of measures of an economic
and financial nature which have been submitted for adoption by
Members of the League in accordance with the Covenant of the
League, an advisory economic and financial committee shall be
constituted. As soon as this committee is constituted, it shall
replace the provisional technical economic and financial com-
mittee appointed by the Council.
The Council of the League of Nations may summon an eco-
nomic and financial conference to consider economic and financial
PROVIDES FOR CONFERENCE 77
problems as circumstances may require, with power to consti-
tute the advisory economic and financial committee above
referred to.
In the regulations to be prepared by the Council for the holding
of the conference, due regard shall be paid to the general prin-
ciples governing the relations between the technical organizations
of the League and the Council, and also to the general provisions
that may be adopted for the other organizations, at the same
time making such modifications as may be required in view of the
object for which the conference is being called.
Second Resolution. — The Assembly having noted the resolution
taken by the Council at its meeting in Brussels, October 27 last,
considers it indispensable that the Economic and Financial
Committee should continue its work without delay in the manner
indicated by the Council.
It is understood that this resolution is voted as an interpretative
clause to Annex 1a of the report of the International Financial
Conference presented by M. Bourgeois to the Council at Brussels.
Annex 1a
Resolution with regard to the Provisional Committee
Pending the coming into operation of a definite organization
for the preparation of which some time will be necessary, it is
essential that the Council should immediately form a limited
Provisional Committee to advise it:
a. In considering the immediate application of the recom-
mendations of the Brussels Conference;
h. In preparing the agenda for the next General Economic and
Financial Conference;
c. In examining the economic and financial problems sub-
mitted to it by the Council. For this purpose a committee should
at once be appointed by the Council.
Third Resolution. — The Assembly associates itself with the
opinion expressed by the Council in its note addressed to all
the Governments following on the Brussels Conference; it con-
siders, in fact, that in the present conditions of Europe, there is
urgent need for the different Governments to apply the principles
laid down by the Brussels Conference as completely as possible
within each of their countries. The Assembly particularly
78 LEAGUE OF NATIONS
emphasizes the urgent necessity, unanimously expressed by the
Brussels Conference, that all' national wealth should be employed
in strictly productive channels.
Communications and Transit
The question of freedom of transit was the subject of a report
by M. Loudon (Netherlands) at the seventh meeting of the
conmiittee. The rapporteur said that the question has its origin
in Article 23 of the Covenant, which states that Members of the
League will make provision to secure and maintain freedom of
communications and of transit. He recalled the work of the
committee which, at the invitation of France, met last autumn
in Paris to study the manner in which the League of Nations
could execute these duties. This committee was an examining
committee, composed of delegates of the same powers which were
represented on the Committee of Ports, Waterways and Railways
of the Peace Conference and of certain others more particularly
interested in questions of communication and transit.
On February 13 last, the Council of the League of Nations
formally invited the committee to present to it proposals for the
establishment within the League of a permanent organization,
and to prepare the advance drafts of general international agree-
ments on transit, waterways, ports, and, if possible, railways.
The Council further invited the committee, pending the establish-
ment of the organization, to inform it on questions relating to
ports, waterways, railways, at its discretion. On March 17, the
committee accepted this invitatio'n. At the request of the Council
it immediately established itself as a "Provisional Committee on
Commurications and Transit." Soon after, it presented to the
Council its '•eport and the documents which it had prepared, which
recommended the establishment of a double organization: an
assembly to be called "a general conference," and a ''permanent
committee."
The ' 'general conference" was to include representatives of
all states Members of the League of Nations, that is, from all
quarters of the world. Such an assembly should possess the
quality of adaptability essential for a body which has to estab-
lish a practical system of liaison between the various states in all
TO SOLVE BUDDING DISPUTES 79
matters concerning communications and transit. This confer-
ence would have to prepare international agreements, recom-
mendations suitable for embodiment in the form of national laws,
and draft resolutions to be submitted to the Assembly.
The report contemplates in addition a smaller organization
which would always be available. This body, the permanent
committee, would also act both as a permanent bureau for the
general conference, and would have the task of preparing the
work for the conference in the intervals between the sessions,
and of supervising the results following upon its resolutions. It
would be a technical advisory body. It would assist the Council
of the League. It would call attention to anything which it
thought necessary to insure freedom of communications by means
of proposals or recommendations. It would exchange all requisite
information with the appropriate technical ministries of Members
of the League. It would try to find a solution for budding techni-
cal disputes, and to prevent such disputes from becoming em-
bittered, or assuming a political character. In this way it is more
than probable that many disputes would be settled before it had
become necessary to have recourse to the compulsory jurisdiction
provided for in the treaties of peace and' in the draft conventions
prepared by the examining committee.
The Council's resolution of May 19 last laid it down that the
rules and regulations of the conference must be adopted by the
representatives of the Members of the League represented on the
Council, and by two-thirds of the other Members of the League.
The question here arises as to whether it would not be preferable
to decide that this two-thirds majority should include all repre-
sentatives on the general conference, instead of making a distinc-
tion which would have for a consequence that the veto of any
one of the countries represented on the Council would be sufficient
to nullify the draft regulations.
In view of the draft resolution presented by the delegate of the
Argentine Republic relating to the composition of permanent
committees of all technical organizations, it would seem preferable
to reserve consideration of this subject until the general principle
has been formulated, and consequently not to allude to it in a
resolution referring to the constitution of one only of the technical
organizations.
80 LEAGUE OF NATIONS
Duties of Conference and Committee
It was decided to vote on the resolution in detail and after some
amendments were accepted, the resolution was adopted in this form:
I. — The Members of the League of Nations are hereby invited
to send special representatives to a general conference on free-
dom of communications and transit to meet at Barcelona^ as
soon as possible after the meeting of the Assembly. This confer-
ence shall be invited to:
1. Draw up, under conditions laid down in the resolution
regarding the relations between the Technical Organizations and
the Council and the Assembly of the League of Nations, the
measures which may be taken by the Members of the League in
fulfilment of that part of Article 23, e, of the Covenant which
concerns freedom of communications and transit, as well as the
general conventions on the international regime of transit, of
ports, of waterways, and of railways referred to in Articles 338
and 379 of the treaty of Versailles.
2. Determine under the same conditions whether the measures
which it elaborates shall take the form of draft conventions to
be ratified by the Members of the League or of "recommenda-
tions" to the various Governments, or of draft resolutions, to be
adopted by the Assembly of the League.
3. Regulate its own procedure, and make suitable arrange-
ments for any subsequent meetings which may be called by the
Council, by means of special rules and regulations to be adopted
by two-thirds of the representatives of the Members of the
League, including two-thirds of the representatives of the Members
of the League represented on the Council.^
4. Hold its subsequent meetings convened by the Council of
the League of Nations at Geneva unless the Council of the League
decides otherwise, for special and exceptional reasons.^
II. — The conference shall likewise be invited to organize an
advisory and technical committee, the headquarters of which
shall be in Geneva. This committee shall be a consultative and
technical body to consider and propose measures calculated to
iQn motion of M. Loudon.
2Last clause on motion of M. Loudon, as a compromise.
^Oii motion of the French and Indian delegates. The Italian delegate proposed
the reference to the Council
I
DUTIES OF COMMITTEE 81
insure freedom of communications and transit at all times, and
to assist the CounciUand the Assembly of the League in dis-
charging the functions intrusted to the League by Article 24 of
the Covenant, and by Articles 342, 377 and 378 of the treaty of
Versailles, and the corresponding articles in the other treaties.
The committee may arrange for any future conference and
prepare its agenda; it will exchange all requisite information
concerning communications and transit with the appropriate
technical ministries of the Members of the League; it will be
intrusted with the investigation of any disputes which may be
referred to the League under Articles 336, 376 and 386 of the
treaty of Versailles, and corresponding articles in the other
treaties of peace, and will endeavor to adjust such disputes
whenever possible by conciliation between the parties; in the
event of such disputes being brought before the Permanent Court
of International Justice, the committee may be called upon to
assist the court.
The committee will be composed of members appointed by
the Members of the League represented permanently on the
Council, one representative for each of those Members, together
with Members to be appointed as determined by the conference,
taking into account as far as possible technical interests and
geographical representation. The total number of members of
the committee shall not exceed on^-third of the Members of
the League of Nations.^
III. — The Secretary-General of the League of Nations will
render every possible assistance to the general conference and to
the committee; he will, with the assistance of the existing com-
mittee of inquiry on freedom of communications and transit,
take the necessary measures for the meetings of the conference,
and he will designate members of the International Secretariat to
act as secretaries of the conference and of the advisory and
technical committee.
IV. — The general expenses of the conference and of the com-
mittee, and the traveling and subsistence allowance of the mem-
bers of the committee only, shall be defrayed out of the general
funds of the League.
^This paragraph was voted on separately on the proposal of M. Hanotaux, who
accepted an amendment by the Chilean delegation to it, after which it was passed
without objection. The Chilean motion provided for eight members to be appointed
by the conference (A. D. 189).
I
82 LEAGUE OF NATIONS
The delegate of Great Britain (Mr. Barnes) proposed an addi-
tion which it was decided should figure in the minutes as a recom-
mendation to the committee for the organization of the conference,
as follows:
I, 2 (a). Take such steps, if any, as it may think expedient to consult
with representatives of any state which, though not a Member of the
League of Nations, will be directly aflFected by any conventions that
may eventually be adopted.
The report containing the resolution was read at the 17th plen-
ary meeting of the Assembly and adopted, nem, con. with the
changes indicated.
Judicial Functions Respecting Transit
A little later in the same session of the committee, M. Loudon
read a report on the judicial functions of the League as regards
transit, resulting in the adoption of this resolution :
All disputes brought before the League of Nations, under
Articles 336, 337, 376 and 386 of the treaty of Versailles, and under
analogous articles of the other treaties of peace, which are not
settled by the procedure provided in the resolution relating to
the organization of transit, shall be brought before the Permanent
Court of International Justice. Until the Permanent Court of
International Justice is in a position to deal with such disputes,
they shall be brought before a court of arbitration of three mem-
bers, appointed as follows:
One member appointed by the plaintiff or plaintiffs, one member
appointed by the defendant or defendants, one member appointed
by the Council of the League of Nations, who shall act as president
of the court.
The resolution was adopted without discussion or objection
at the 17th plenary meeting of the Assembly.
International Health Organization
The Second Committee did not find it necessary to formulate
decisions concerning the health organization, being already pro-
vided with elaborate reports. Special commissions had met on
July 29-30, 1919, and April 13, 1920, in connection with the
already established International Office of Public Health (1907),
TO STRENGTHEN EXISTING OFFICE 83
and the report of the second, accepted by the Council, had been
passed on to the Assembly (A. D. 14 and 14 A). Mr. Barnes
(Great Britain) acted as rapporteur on the subject at the 18th
plenary meeting of the Assembly. He began by saying :
We are now dealing with a matter which has already been the subject of
international organization. An organization actually exists, and we pro-
pose now to continue it and to strengthen it under the auspices of the
League. The aim of this organization is the prevention of epidemic
disease and the preservation of public health, or where disease exists the
aim is to combat it with the very best medical knowledge and skill, aided
and supported by the very wisest administrative experience. It will
continue to be the aim of the organization now under the League to link
up and co-ordinate the separate efforts that are now being made in dif-
ferent countries. All countries are now recognizing the importance of
health and vitality. All nations are realizing that life must be maintained
at its fullest efficiency and vitality. Some countries are organizing public
ministries of health and for some years these have been more or less in
contact with each other. Administrative projects have been prepared to
combat epidemics and to arrange proper safeguards to deal with diseases,
to exterminate verminous matter carried on ships, so as to prevent diseases
spreading from country to country, but there is still an absence of proper
co-operation, and it is for the purpose of better co-operation between
nations that it is now proposed that the existing office at Paris should be
strengthened and brought under the League, and its personnel added to
by setting up a secretariat here at Geneva.
Amendments having been made to make the resolution conform
to the decision taken at the 16th plenary meeting to avoid setting
up permanent organizations, and a Chilean amendment respect-
ing the composition of the committee having been withdrawn,
the establishment of an International Health Organization was
finally decreed by the Assembly at its 19th plenary meeting under
the following essential conditions :
In pursuance of the Covenant of the League of Nations, and
in order to facilitate the discharge by the League of Nations of
the responsibilities which may be placed upon it by provisions
of the various treaties of peace, the Assembly of the League of
Nations resolves as follows:
That in accordance with the provisions of Article 24 of the
Covenant, the Assembly approves of the Office International
84 LEAGUE OF NATIONS
d 'Hygiene Publique being placed under the direction of the
League of Nations, and that an International Health Organization
as hereinafter provided (of which the Office International
d 'Hygiene Publique shall be the foundation) shall carry out the
provisions of the international agreement signed at Rome, Decem-
ber 9, 1907, and also advise the League of Nations on all questions
arising out of Articles 23, /, and 25 of the Covenant of the League.
Duties of the Organization
It will be the task of the organization to deal with such matters
as affect individual countries only in their relation to other
countries.
The main functions of the organization may be summarized
under the headings which follow, and their exercise shall be
determined by the Standing Committee:
a. To advise the League of Nations in matters affecting health.
b. To bring Administrative Health Authorities in different
countries into closer relationship with each other.
c. To organize means of more rapid interchange of information
on matters where immediate precautions against disease may be
required {e. g. epidemics) and to simplify methods for acting
rapidly on such information where it affects more than one
country.
d. To furnish a ready organization for securing or revising
necessary international agreements for administrative action in
matters of health, and more particularly for examining those
subjects which it is proposed to bring before the Standing and
General Committees, with a view to international conventions.
e. In regard to measures for the protection of the worker
against sickness, disease and injury arising out of his employ-
ment which fall within the province of the International Labor
Organization, the International Health Organization will co-
operate with and assist the International Labor Organization, it
being understood that the International Labor Organization will
on its side act in consultation with the International Health
Organization in regard to all health matters.
/. To confer and co-operate with International Red Cross
Societies and other similar societies under the provisions of
Article 25 of the Covenant.
g. To advise, when requested, other voluntary organizations
in health matters of international concern.
RETAIN PARIS OFFICE 85
h. To organize missions in connection with matters of health
at the request of the Council of the League of Nations and with
the concurrence of the countries affected to the extent authorized
in subsection (a) or under the international convention signed
at Rome, December 9, 1907.
The International Health Organization shall consist of: (1)
The Office International d'Hygidne Publique, which, with cer-
tain additions set out below, will become the General Committee;
(2) a Standing Committee; and (3) an International Health
Bureau. In carrying out its duties the organization shall con-
form to the general principles laid down in the resolution of
the Council, as to the relations between the technical organiza-
tions and the Council and the Assembly of the League of Nations,
passed at Rome, May 19, 1920.
The Office International d^Hygiene Publique
The Office International d 'Hygiene Publique changed as
indicated below shall, subject to the approval of the Governments
signatory to the international agreement signed at Rome, Decem-
ber 9, 1907, form the foundation of the International Health
Organization. The headquarters of the Office International
d'Hygiene Publique shall remain in Paris.
Members of the General and Standing Committees and of the
staff of the International Health Bureau shall have the right
to use the Library of the Office International d'Hygiene Publique,
and its rooms in Paris shall be available for special meetings if
required.
The Office International d'Hygiene Publique shall undertake
such duties of a technical character as may be assigned to it by
the Standing Committee, in accordance with the resolution
agreed to by the Committee of the Office International d'Hygiene
Publique at the meeting held in Paris on October 30, 1919.
The Office International d'Hygiene Publique will, subject to
the consent of the Governments signatory to the international
agreement signed at Rome, December 9, 1907, agree to such
alterations as may be found necessary in the "Statuts Organ-
iques" of the Rome Convention of 1907 (especially Article 15)
and in the rules governing the internal administration of the
office, especially Article 8 of Part I of these rules, but no altera-
tion shall be made in Part II with regard to the "Caisses de
Retraite et de Secours," which is prejudicial to any person en-
titled to benefit therefrom.
I
86 LEAGUE OF NATIONS
The General Committee
The General Committee shall consist of the Delegates to the
Office International d'Hygiene Publique now holding appoint-
ments in accordance with the international agreement signed at
Rome, December 9, 1907, or who may hereafter be so appointed
by any country party to that agreement, together with delegates
appointed by countries not parties to the agreement of 1907 but
Members of the League of Nations. . . ,
The Standing Committee
The Standing Committee shall consist of Delegates of the
states permanently represented on the Council of the League of
Nations, of five members elected by the General Committee —
having regard to their scientific attainments and to geographical
representation, — of the President of the General Committee, a
representative of the League of Red Cross Societies and of a
representative chosen by the Governing Body of the Labor
Conference. . . .
The International Health Bureau or Personnel of the Standing
Committee at the seat of the League of Nations
This shall consist of: (a) a Medical Secretary; (6) personnel. . . .
Subject to the approval of the Council of the League, the
personnel of the International Health Bureau at the seat of the
League of Nations shall be appointed by the Standing Com-
mittee in consultation with the Medical Secretary, and, as far as
possible with due regard to the efficiency of the work of the
office, shall consist of persons of different nationalities.
The headquarters of the International Health Bureau shall
be at the seat of the League of Nations.
Conventions
The Standing Committee shall be empowered to draw up
and draft new conventions or revise existing ones.
These conventions must, however, be submitted to the General
Committee for consideration and approval, and a majority of
two-thirds of the votes of the General Committee will be required
on the final vote for the adopting of the draft convention.
In framing any convention, the committee shall in all cases
consult with the Economic and Transit Organizations of the
League of Nations where the matter is in any way likely to affect
DECISIONS TO BE RATIFIED 87
international commerce, communications or transit. If it be
decided that the draft convention shall be adopted, it shall be
signed by the President of the General Committee and the Medical
Secretary of the International Health Bureau, and then be de-
posited with the Secretary-General.
This draft conA-ention will be submitted by the Council of the
League of Nations to the Governments concerned with an in-
vitation that if they approve the convention, the convention
should, within as short a time as possible and without further
examination, be signed by plenipotentiaries.
Each country will be invited to ratify a draft convention thus
signed and deposited before one year has passed, or to signify
to the Secretary-General, before the expiration of that period,
the reasons for its decision not to ratify, and each Member of the
General Committee will be invited to keep the question of the
draft convention before the authority within whose competence
the matter lies, with the object of obtaining a decision as soon
as possible from the country w hich he represents.
Any convention so ratified shall be registered by the Secretary-
General of the League of Nations, but shall only be binding upon
the country which ratifies it.
Each member of the General Committee agrees to make special
or annual reports on the measures the country he represents has
taken to give effect to the promises of the convention to which
it is a party, and these reports shall be made when and in such
form as the Standing Committee may prescribe. Similar reports
shall be requested from countries not signatory to the conven-
tion concerned on matters afi'ecting the subject-matter of the
convention.
These reports shall be circulated to all members of the General
Committee, and shall in addition be given publicity in the press
if necessary.
Expenses
The expenses of the International Health Organization not
provided for by the international convention of Rome (1907)
shall be paid from the funds of the League. . . .
Until otherwise determined, the expenses of the Office Inter-
national d'Hygi^ne Publique shall be paid as at present by con-
tributions according to the apportionment of the international
agreement signed at Rome, December 9, 1907. . . .
The Secretary-General of the League of Nations shall render
all possible assistance to the International Health Organization.
88 LEAGUE OF NATIONS
Traffic in Women and Children
At the 24th plenary meeting of the Assembly, M. Jonescu
(Rumania) acted as rapporteur regarding traffic in women and
children. Repression of this nefarious traffic was begun in Europe
by international co-operation in 1899. A conference was held in
1902 and on May 18, 1904, a convention was signed at Paris
establishing an official system for tracing and returning to their
native countries women and girls who were victims of criminal
traffic. The United States did not participate in the earlier
moves in controlling this immoral business, but eventually
adhered to the convention of Paris, this action obligating it to pass
the so-called Mann White Slave Act. A second conference was
held at Paris on April 18 to May 4, 1910, which resulted in an
additional convention, to which the United States is not a party.
A third conference was held at Brussels, October 21 to 24, 1912.
Private organizations held a conference in London in 1913 and
additional plans for improving the system of control were about
to be made effective by the participating nations when the out-
break of the war interfered. The general supervision over the
execution of these and subsequent agreements on the subject is
intrusted to the League of Nations by Article 23 of the Cove-
nant. The Council on May 15, 1920, had passed a resolution
appointing a special officer respecting this subject:
The Council of the League of Nations having examined the memoran-
dum by the Secretary-General on the suppression of the traffic in women
and children, and the report by his Excellency M. da Cunha, the Brazilian
representative, agrees to the appointment of an officer, attached to the
Secretariat, whose special duty it will be to keep in touch with all matters
relative to the white slave traffic. No immediate steps will therefore be
taken by the League till the recommendations of the international con-
ference for the suppression of the white slave traffic have been submitted.
Mile. Henni Forchhammer (Denmark) expressed her great
satisfaction that the I./eague was assuming responsibility in this
very grave question. She proposed the insertion of the word
"especially" in the resolution so as to provide for aid to "the
women who have been deported during the War, especially the
Armenian women, but also Greek women, Syrian women and
women of other nationalities have been in captivity since 1915."
PERSIA REQUESTS TO BE INCLUDED 89
In reply M. Jonescu explained that, "This point was raised in the
committee. The reason the inquiry was limited to Asia Minor
and Armenia was that under the treaty of peace with Turkey
we have the right to institute an inquiry in Asia Minor and
Armenia, but in other countries we have not the right to do so.
Therefore the inquiry was limited to those countries where it
was expressly authorized by treaty."
Prince Zoka ed Dowleh (Persia) made a plea for the inclusion
of his country, and eventually the rapporteur accepted a phrase-
ology suggested by Sir George Foster to meet the issue.
Interested Governments Only to Attend
Dr. Nansen proposed that "all recognized Governments" be
invited to be represented in the contemplated conference. **I
think," he said, "it is quite clear that those who have not signed
the conventions of 1904 and 1910 should be asked to attend,
because it is very important to convince them of the necessity
for action in the matter. ... I do not think it would be fair
to send a questionnaire to all Governments, and afterward not
invite some of them to be present at the conference where these
questions are going to be discussed." The rapporteur in reply
stated :
The reason the present text was inserted was that we wished to be
certain we should get a reply, and that we should get representatives
from the countries we asked. The countries which signed those agree-
ments have shown their interest in the matter. Other countries have
not as yet shown that interest. Therefore we wish at present to limit the
first conference to those countries which have already shown their good-
will and desire to participate in this matter. After we have made a
beginning, other countries can come in.
Dr. Nansen withdrew his motion.
The resolution was carried without objection in the following
form (A. D. 239) :
The Assembly resolves that:
1. The Secretariat of the League of Nations shall issue a
questionnaire and the Assembly shall authorize the Secretariat
to send this questionnaire to all Governments. The Govern-
90 LEAGUE OF NATIONS
ments shall be asked what legislative measures have been taken
by them to combat the traffic, and especially what additional
measures they are proposing to take in the future.
Also that the Governments signatory to the 1904 and 1910
conventions be immediately urged to put such conventions into
operation.
The Assembly shall request the Council to invite the countries
signatory or adherent to the international conventions of 1904
and 1910 to send representatives to an international conference
to be held before the next Assembly.
This conference would co-ordinate the replies to the question-
naire received by the Secretariat and would endeavor to secure a
common understanding betwe^^n the various Governments with
a view to future united action.
2. The Council be invited to constitute a committee of inquiry
with a view to informing the Council as to the present situation
in Armenia, in Asia Minor, in Turkey and in the territories adjoin-
ing these countries, regarding deported women and children.
This committee should be composed of three members selected
from among the persons best qualified residing in the districts in
question. At least one member shall be a woman.
The expenses of this inquiry will be borne by the League of
Nations.
The Secretariat shall receive, in addition to the information
furnished by this committee, all relative information from other
countries.
Th6 Council will report to the Assembly.
Traffic in Opium
In reporting the proposals of the Second Committee on the
control of the traffic in opium. Sir William Meyer (India) dis-
cussed the current status of the question. The Hague convention
of 1911-12 sifted and expanded the preliminary conclusions
that had been arrived at at Shanghai in 1909, and formulated
them in definite and carefully conceived terms, marking a great
step in advance. It indicated the precious principle of inter-
national co-operation, which is specially necessary in regard to
opium and kindred drugs, since these, being of small compass
and great value, can be very easily smuggled. The country,
therefore, which desires to keep out opium, for example, must
obtain the assistance of those countries where opium is produced.
SEEK ASSENT OF WORLD 91
'his has been laid down definitely by Article 3 of the Hague
mvcntion, which says that where a country has forbidden the
iport of opium, opium-producing countries shall not permit the
[port of opium to that country. Similarly, too, if a country,
lough not absolutely forbidding the import of opium, only
lows it under very severe restrictions, the producing countries,
allowing their opium to be exported, are bound to see that
lese restrictions are complied with.
The entire convention marked an enormous step in advance,
It as the conference that drew it up, which had been summoned
iy the United States Government, contained representatives of
ily 12 powers, in order to make the arrangements which it had
>proved really effective, it was necessary to obtain a world
jsent. By Article 295 of the treaty of Versailles and the corre-
►nding articles in other treaties, signatories which had not
•eady adhered to the convention undertook the obligation to
so, thus practically solving the difficulty of world co-operation,
le only powers still outside being Soviet Russia and other states
rhich have arisen from the ruins of the old Russian Empire.
As to the best method for the League to carry out its functions
controlling the traffic. Sir William Meyer said there are two
Iternatives: (1) That it should work through the Council and
le Secretariat; (2) That the Council and the Secretariat should
)e assisted by an advisory committee, consisting of the Members
most closely interested in the opium traffic. After full discussion
in No. 2 Committee, the latter alternative was adopted.
China Seconds Resolution
Mr. Wellington Koo dwelt upon the fact that "China has,
within the comparatively short period of 10 years, succeeded
in eliminating the opium habit from among her people," and
seconded the resolution, which was passed without objection in
the following form (A. D. 240) :
That having regard to the duty placed on the League by
Article 23 of the Covenant to supervise the execution of arrange-
ments with regard to the traffic in opium and other dangerous
drugs, the Assembly concurs with the Netherlands Government
in its view that it will be preferable for the League to undertake
92 LEAGUE OF NATIONS
the duties placed upon the Netherlands Government by the
opium convention with regard to the collection of data and deal-
ing with disputes:
That for this purpose and for the purpose of enabling the
League to exercise its general supervision over the execution of
arrangements with regard to this traffic, the Secretariat of the
League is intrusted with the duty of collecting information as
to the arrangements made in the various countries for carrying
out the opium convention, the production, distribution and con-
sumption of the drugs, and other necessary data.
That in order to secure the fullest possible co-operation between
the various countries in regard to the matter, and to assist and
advise the Council in dealing with any questions that may arise,
an Advisory Committee be appointed by the Council which
shall include representatives of the countries chiefly concerned, in
particular Holland, Great Britain, France, India, Japan, China,
Siam, Portugal, and shall, subject to the general directions of the
Council, meet at such times as may be found desirable.
That in view of the importance of the co-operation of states
which have ratified or may hereafter ratify the opium conven-
tion, but which are not yet Members of the League, the Nether-
lands Government be requested to invite their concurrence and
co-operation in the arrangements indicated above, and that in
the event of such concurrence being given, the Council be author-
ized to add to the Advisory Committee in the capacity of member
or assessor, a representative of any such country which is specially
concerned in the traffic, and that a special invitation be addressed
to the United States of America.
That the Council be authorized, if and when they think it
necessary, to add as assessors to the committee not more than
three persons not representatives of Governments, having special
knowledge of the question; and that the traveling expenses and
allowances of such members shall be paid out of the funds of
the League.
That the Advisory Committee shall, three months before the
beginning of every session of the Assembly, present to the Council
for submission to the Assembly a report on all matters regarding
the execution of agreements with regard to the traffic in opium
and other dangerous drugs.
That the Assembly welcomes the action of the Netherlands
Government in endeavoring to secure the signature and ratification
COLLABORATION OF THINKERS 98
of the opium convention by countries which have not yet done so,
and invites it to inform the Secretariat of the League of the results
of its action.
Co-operation with Intellectual Labor
At the 21st plenary meeting of the Assembly, a motion with
regard to the international organization of intellectual labor was
introduced by Messrs. Negulesco, Rumania, Poullet, Belgium,
and Ferraris, Italy.
This proposition was referred to the Second Committee whose
report (A. D. 254) was presented at the final meeting of the
Assembly. The rapporteur, M. La Fontaine, one of the founders
of the Union of International Associations, discussed the purpose
of the motion :
"The Council has already shown marked sympathy with the
efforts of the world for the collaboration of thinkers and investigators
in the progress of humanity, and in the forwarding of the advance-
ment of civilization by creating bonds of union between all
thinkers. Great progress has been made during the past 75 years.
While nations have been striving one with another, thinkers have
been crossing the frontiers of their various countries and meeting
one another in conferences, and since 1840 a real and extraordinary
development of international relations has been apparent. From
1840 to 1850, there were only 10 international conferences called,
but between 1900 and 1910, there were no less than 1,600 such
conferences, and during the four years preceding the war there
were 500.
"These were conferences of all kinds, dealing with matters of
every nature, and the men taking part in them came from all
parts of the world. This movement should be assisted and co-
ordinated and rendered more effective. Groups of international
bodies have already been united into 400 international associations,
and an International Union of 230 associations of various kinds
has been formed or rather already formed just before the war.
The object was to give more precision and method to the formid-
able work carried out by those who labored with their heads
and not with their hands. To-day we ask the League of Nations
to do for these workers the same as they have already done for
94 LEAGUE OF NATIONS
manual workers. An International Labor Office has been estab-
lished for manual workers, and a budget was recently voted for
that office of 7,000,000 gold francs. We ask that the same may-
be done for the intellectual workers but we do not ask for the
same amount of money; we shall not even ask for many hundred
thousand francs to complete the work of such an organization.
The resolution, therefore, which I wish to put before you is as
follows:"
Passes After Discussion
The Assembly of the League of Nations, approving the assist-
ance which the Council has given to works, having for their
object the development of international co-operation in the
domain of intellectual activity, and especially the moral and
material support given to the Union of International Associations
on the occasion of the inaugural session of the International
University and of the publication of the list of Recommenda-
tions and Resolutions of the International Congresses -}
Recommends that the Council should continue its efforts in this
direction, and should associate itself as closely as possible with all
methods tending to bring about the international organization of
intellectual work.
The Assembly further invites the Council to regard favorably
the efforts which are already in progress to this end, to place
them under its august protection if it be possible, and to present
to the Assembly during its next session a detailed report on the
educational influence which it is their duty to exert with a view
to developing a liberal spirit of goodwill and world-wide co-
operation, and to report on the advisability of giving them
shape in a technical organization attached to the League of
Nations.
The English labor leader opposed the motion, moving the
previous question for various reasons:
I am opposed to it in the first place because of the form in which it
has been put before you. It is here said that 7,000,000 gold francs have
already been given to manual labor, and we are asked, therefore, to give
our support in gold francs to intellectual labor. I think that is a very
unfortunate way of putting it. Moreover, I thiak it is very unfortunate
that a distinction should be drawn between manual and intellectual
ICf. Report on the Work of the Council, IV.
I
95
bor at all. For my part, I think that the technical organizations are
the best part, or one of the best parts, of the League of Nations. I be-
lieve that they will, to a large extent, attract the mass of mankind to the
League, and strengthen the League in many respects. But you can
have too much of a good thmg. If and when the time may come when
intellectual labor has to be assisted, if and when the time comes there is
still a difference between one and the other, then I suggest that that
will be the time for considering the natural and logical development of
tlie activities of the Labor Office. I object to it, also, from a practical
point of view. Everyone knows that there has been a great deal done
already to assist intellectual labor in many phases of its activity, and
if it gets abroad that the League of Nations is going to enter the field
and subsidize intellectual labor, there is at least a chance, I think it is
more than probable, that other sources will dry up. Lastly, why en-
courage intellectual labor to come begging at all? It seems to me that
the proper course is for intellectual labor to assert itself, as manual labor
has done.
i
The President called on M. La Fontaine to reply and he said:
I think my friend, Mr. Barnes, who, like myself, represents the working
classes here, has not understood the exact intention of this proposal.
The organization of manual labor specially aims at solving problems
where conflicts arise between capital and labor. The function of the labor
organization is to examine questions of hours and conditions of work for
the worker; but the intellectual organization which I desire to see estab-
lished is rather for providing the means whereby men of learning of
every nation can collaborate, and by which the results of their work can
be collected and published. It is quite possible that the intellectual
workers of the world might wish to organize themselves in the same
way as the manual workers have done, and such a matter would be
the concern of the International Labor Office, but what we want here,
and what I propose, is to give more force and more power to human
thought.
Mr. Barnes insisted on the previous question, which motion
was lost. The committee's motion was then put and carried,
amid applause.
Children Affected by the War
The Swiss Delegation submitted a resolution on behalf of the
children affected by the war on December 2 (A. D. 160) which at
96 LEAGUE OF NATIONS
the 13th plenary meeting was read and held over under the rules
governing the inclusion of new items in the agenda. The resolu-
tion, which was accompanied by an explanatory memorandum,
follows :
The Assembly of the League of Nations, bearing in mind the misery
and hardships endured by children in the countries affected by the war
and the efforts made by both American and European organizations to
come to their assistance, invites the Council of the League to appoint a
high commissioner who shall be instructed to consider the best means
of furthering and assisting, in collaboration with existing international
organizations, all charitable work undertaken on behalf of these children.
The motion was referred for report to the Second Committee
at the 15th plenary meeting. M. Loudon (the Netherlands)
read the report at the final meetmg of the Assembly. M. Viviani
expressed himself in favor of the motion; Sir James Allen told in
detail of New Zealand's charitable gifts; M. Ador spoke gratefully
on behalf of the Red Cross, explaining that "the reason we did
not ask for the nomination of a high commissioner was that,
like M. Viviani, we feared lest there might be some confusion in
the minds of certain people and they might think that the League
of Nations was taking over the whole of this work from those at
present occupying themselves with it." The resolution was
carried in the following form :
The Assembly, being desirous of giving its support to the
urgent work of rescuing children in the countries affected by the
war, invites the Council to consider as soon as possible the means
by which the moral authority of the League of Nations might
best assist this work which is being done in the cause of humanity.
Campaign Against Typhus
Typhus in Poland^ was the subject of a statement by the dele-
gate of the Argentine at the second meeting of the Second Com-
mittee, which on his motion voted to await the return of the
Typhus Committee from Poland. This body of medical experts
was heard in a public meeting, and the committee considered the
resulting report presented by the delegate of Canada (Sir George
^Cf. Report on the work of the Council, III, 1.
I
MENACE IS WORLD-WIDE 97
oster) in the course of its sixth meeting. The report stated
that the subcommittee had heard the report^ of the medical
mission on November 24 and 26, from which it appeared
1. That tlie epidemic condition of typhus in Poland and Galicia is
very grave and constitutes a distinct menace especially to Eastern Europe
and in general to the world at large.
2. That the resources of mechanical and medical equipment of Poland,
though hitherto employed in an excellent manner, are altogether insuffi-
cient to successfully cope with the conditions in Poland itself.
3. That the infection of typhus is widely distributed in Russia and
other countries adjoining Poland and opportunities for its distribution
are constant and continually increasing.
4. That urgent necessity exists for an immediate and adequate effort,
participated in by the nations of the world, to successfully combat a
menace which is international and world-wide.
i
After relating the results of the Council's efforts to raise funds,
the report^ concluded with two recommendations, which on motion
of Sir George Foster, were adopted at the seventh meeting of
the committee for presentation to the Assembly.
Sir George Foster discussed the report at the 15th plenary meet-
ing of the Assembly. After paying tribute to Poland's own efforts
to fight the plague, of which there were 3,600,000 reported cases
in Russia alone and 300,000 deaths annually in Poland, he said :
The world is interested as well as Poland. Not only neighboring
countries, but countries which are more distant are interested, and it is
with reference to them that I make the appeal to the Assembly this
morning. Infection knows no national boundaries. Insidiously, silently,
remorselessly, it creeps from man to man, from family to family, from
village to village, from country to country. It passes all boundaries,
and makes its way, carrying desolation and distress to neighboring
countries which are still more distant. So we are called upon in a world
capacity to contribute our resources to the aid of the resources of Poland
itself. What is lacking? Almost everything. The food which is necessary
to sustain and invigorate the bodies of those who may become the victims
of disease; resources for the sanitary and medical equipment which are
necessary in order to fight the disease. Hope itself, which grows lax
and faint if it be not supported from without, when the difficulties are
^Assembly Document 124. ^Assembly Document 152.
98 LEAGUE OF NATIONS
SO great, has overpowered this country, and I make my appeal therefore
to you on three grounds :
First, I appeal for sympathy for Poland itself. . . . Peace must be
restored in those parts of Europe before peace can be made certain for
the world, and peace can not be fully restored in those sections of Europe
unless it has been cleansed of the virus of infection, and until the mental
malady has been held, until the moral malaise has been remedied and
chased away, by hope that comes springing from the distant nations
of the earth to help those spirits which are sadly drooping in these sections
themselves.
These two interests appeal to this Assembly and to the world, and I
am sure will not be unanswered. But there is something higher than
that. The spirit of humanity itself appeals to the great mass of man-
kind the world over for the helping hand and the guiding spirit toward
the renovation of this portion of the world's afflicted community. Was
not this war fought for humanity's sake.'^ Was it fought simply for
Belgium, for France, for Britain, for Italy or for Poland.? No! If it
had been simply for these, the sacrifice would have been too great. War
was but the agent of humanity, working to free humanity, to give it
peace and to give it a future when justice should prevail and when liberty
should be predominant. Now that the agency of war has been laid aside
humanity is still there, and its appeal from every afflicted community
comes strong and clear and vibrant, and will not be denied.
Political Effect of Epidemics
The Maharajah of Nawanagar warmly supported the Canadian
and made a plea for action in one of the most notable speeches
of the Assembly. In part he said :
I beseech you to rise again now in aid, not of one people alone, but
of many peoples attacked or in danger of being attacked by a more
terrible and more destructive foe than a rebellious brigand, attacked by
a fell pestilence and by all the train of social and economic perils which
accompany such a pestilence. Let us not be under any misconception.
It is not a matter alone of the disease and death of unhappy men, women
and children in a central plague spot in Europe. It is a matter of grave
and enduring social unrest and economic disruption in the very corridor
of Europe, a region vital to the peace of Europe and of the world. Let
me emphasize this social and economic danger. As I have said before,
India is disinterested in this matter, but India is by no means ignorant
of its bearings and its consequences. My country, nearly equal to all
Europe in area, with its 315,000,000 inhabitants, with its 100,000,000
NATIONS OFFER AID 99
of laborers and industrials, with its scores of great and populous cities,
has had terrible experiences of the social and economic consequences of
plague and pestilence. ... I know the aftermath of political, social
and economic dangers and diflSculties. Famine and pestilence are close
allies, and both of them are bosom friends of political turmoil. India
in tlie past has had many experiences of such dangers and diflSculties,
but we have countered and overcome them. Prompt, energetic and
skillful action has always conquered.
Dr. Nansen, asserting that "whatever work the League takes
up must be a success, proposed a motion to appoint a committee
on financing the campaign." M. Hanotaux for France stated
that the conditions had been removed from her original gift and a
bill was now pending for an appropriation of a million francs.
Mr. Balfour for Great Britain announced the removal of restric-
tions from her gift; Zoka ed Dowleh (Persia) offered £2,000;
the Netherlands made her gift unconditional; China contributed
£2,000, and Spain £40,000. Rumania, herself beset hy typhus,
promised aid. The meeting closed with the imanimous passage
of this resolution (A. D. 186):
The Assembly resolves :
1. That it will address an urgent and immediate appeal to all the
countries of the world for an adequate fund for prosecuting an
effective campaign against epidemic disease in eastern Europe,
beginning with Poland as a center, and that the Office International
d*Hygi^ne Publique, the Comit^ International de la Croix-Rouge
and the League of Red Cross Societies,^ be earnestly asked to
co-operate in the matter.
2. That the President be empowered to nominate a committee
of not more than three Delegates of the Assembly to examine
the question of the funds necessary for the campaign against
typhus, and to take any steps possible before the end of the
session of the Assembly to secure these funds.
3. The Assembly approves of the action taken by the Council
and the reports submitted by the various committees and sub-
committees of the Assembly which have considered the subject,
and, pending the result of the appeal feels that it is imperatively
necessary to make at once such a beginning of the campaign as
may be possible within the limits of the funds already promised.
^Cf . resolution of 27 of the 31 societies belonging to the League, Assembly Docu-
ment 212.
100 LEAGUE OF NATIONS
Sir George Foster (Canada), M. Loudon (Netherlands) and
M. Restrepo (Colombia) were appointed as the committee on
finance. Sir George Foster's report for this committee was read
and adopted without discussion or objection at the final meeting
of the Assembly, embodying the following conclusions:
Mr. President, the committee appointed by the President on
the authority of the resolution passed by the Assembly on De-
cember 7, 1920, in respect of the Campaign against Typhus and
kindred epidemics in Eastern Europe,. beg to report as follows:
1. They have made the fullest inquiry possible and are of
the opinion that the sum of £2,000,000 should be asked for as a
contribution to the war against epidemics in eastern Europe,
in addition to whatever may be raised by the League of Red Cross
Societies, and that the organization of the work should be left
with the Council of the League, working through the media of
the chief medical commissioner of the Typhus Campaign of the
League of Nations, and of the corporation of the above-mentioned
society. The telegram of the Assembly has been presented with
the signatures of the chairman and the three members of the
committee to the Governments of all nations of the world. ^
^The text of the telegram follows:
"At the meeting of General Assembly of League of Nations, the Assembly
resolved to address urgent and immediate appeal to all countries of the world for
adequate funds for prosecuting effective campaign against typhus epidemic
disease in Eastern Europe beginning Poland as center. Assembly in addition
invited League of Red Cross to continue to give its invaluable assistance, and
requested certain other International Red Cross and Health organizations to
co-operate in this work. Assembly empowered President to nominate committee
of three delegates to examine question of funds necessary and to take any steps
possible before end of session of Assembly to procure these funds. Assembly
approved action taken by Council and reports submitted by Assenibly com-
mittees and subcommittees, which have considered subject, and, pending the
result of appeal, feel it is imperatively necessary to make at once such a beginning
of campaign as may be possible withui limits of funds already promised. We
therefore urge in view of these resolutions and in name of General Assembly that
Government may make every possible effort to contribute generously
and immediately to fund in order that the two million pounds required irre-
spective of money raised by voluntary organizations may be forthcoming.
Contributions payable to League of Nations Typhus Commission Account,
Lloyds Bank, Westminster House, Millbank, London.
Hymans, President,
General Assembly League of Nations.
Sir George Foster, Canada.
J. Loudon, Holland.
Restropo, Colombia.
Delegates '
I
PRESS ASKIiD TO HE LP 101
2. A copy of this telegram, together with the letter signed
by the committee, has been placed in the possession of the heads
oi all the delegations represented at the League, asking them to
present the same to their Governments on their return to their
respective countries, and to urge upon their Governments a speedy
and favorable reply.
3. An appeal in more extended form has been prepared and
\N ill be at once forwarded to the Governments of all the nations
presenting the pertinent facts of the case and the urgent necessity
of generous and immediate contributions.
4. An interview was held with Dr. Norman White, chief
medical commissioner of the Typhus Campaign of the League of
Nations, and his views were ascertained as to the work to be
immediately undertaken and the general plan of the campaign
to be adopted with extensions as necessary funds are made
available.
5. Measures have been taken to procure from the press of the
w orld a sympathetic and wide publicity to the end that popular
sentiment may be enhsted in the prosecution of a great world
effort to eliminate the epidemic from among the malign forces of
world disintegration.
Passports
On the invitation of the Coimcil, the Secretary-General sub-
mitted to the Provisional Committee for Communications and
Transit a memorandum on the question of the application of
passport formalities to the officials of the League with reference
to the provisions of Article 7 of the Covenant which lays down
that officials of the League shall enjoy diplomatic immunities
and seems to imply that the officials of the League should hold
passports of a diplomatic character. The Secretary-General
pointed out that the issue, in the usual form, of diplomatic pass-
ports by the various states to officials of the League is attended
by serious disadvantages both of a practical and a general nature.
From a practical point of view, the necessity for officials of the
League — who often have to undertake at short notice journeys to
different countries on special missions with which they are in-
trusted— for obtaining a diplomatic visa on every occasion would
have a detrimental effect upon the normal working of the Secre-
tariat, and especially now, since the League of Nations has been
installed at Geneva. On the other hand, it would be contrary
102 : *• . *•'*. * -•* Iik'AGUK OF NATIONS
to the spirit of a purely international institution such as the Secre-
tariat of the League of Nations, if the fact that these officials were
intrusted with missions of an international character should
imply the consent — in the form of passports — of the state to
which the members belonged.
With this memorandum before them, the Conference on Pass-
ports, Customs Formalities and Through Tickets, decided in
October last to accept the conclusions of the memorandum and
to propose that the Secretary-General should be delegated by
states Members of the League to issue special passports to mem-
bers of the Secretariat and to officials of the League.
At the second meeting of the Second Committee, Ladislas
Polich (Serb-Croat-Slovene State) expressed the opinion that
officials of the League on duty ought, doubtless, to enjoy diplo-
matic privileges and immunities, in conformity with Article 7
of the Covenant, but that the proposal, as it stood, could, if not
modified, raise some legal and political difficulties. After discussion,
a subcommittee consisting of the delegates of France, Serb-Croat-
Slovene State, Spain and Uruguay was appointed by resolution
to submit a definite proposal to the committee. The final draft
was unanimously adopted at the sixth meeting of the committee.
M. Polich read the report at the 24th plenary meeting of the
Assembly. He said the formula proposed by the communications
committee presented difficulties of both a practical and legal
nature, continuing:
From the legal point of view the issue of a passport is an administra-
tive act, an act of sovereignty and authority. Now, it is evident that
the League of Nations is not a state possessing sovereignty of its own, as
it is obvious that there can be no *'nationar' of the Secretary-General.
On the other hand, it is not possible for states to delegate one of their
rights of sovereignty to the Secretary-General by means of a resolution
passed by the Assembly; this would necessitate a new international
agreement which would have to be submitted for ratification by the
Governments concerned.
The Assembly adopted without objection the following resolu-
tion (A. D. 245) proposed by the committee:
The Secretary-General of the League of Nations shall deliver
to members of the Secretariat and officials of the League an
PASSPORTS TO BE GIVEN 103
identity card certifying the identity of the holder and the nature
of his official duties. On presentation of this card and at the
request of the Secretary-General, the Government of which
the holder is a national shall deliver or cause to be delivered by
any of its diplomatic representatives or by its consular agent at
Geneva, a diplomatic passport permitting the official to carry
out the mission with which he is intrusted with the benefit of all
privileges and immunities provided for in Article 7 of the Cove-
, nant, and valid for the duration of such mission in the limits in-
dicated by the Secretary-General.
Diplomatic visas will be given gratuitously — whenever neces-
sary— on the request of the Secretary-General of the League of
Nations by the diplomatic or consular agents of the powers in
whose territory the official will be traveling in accomplishment
of his mission.
India and the International Labor Organization
The claim of India to be represented on the Governing Body
of the International Labor Office as one of the states of "chief
industrial importance" was on the Assembly agenda. By Article
393 of the treaty of Versailles any question on this point is to be
decided by the Council. The Second Committee of the Assembly
during its second meeting heard a report on the matter and
adopted a resolution expressing the opinion "that the Assembly
is not competent to deal with India's claim." The report from
that committee read at the 24th plenary meeting of the Assembly
recorded that fact. Sir William Meyer for India at that time
voiced a protest against the inclusion of Belgium and Switzer-
land among the eight states of chief industrial importance en-
titled to representation on the Governing Body and reviewed
the reasons given by the Council for its decision not to overrule
the selection made by the Washington labor conference, which
did not select India for the Governing Body. No resolution was
reported to the Assembly,
VI. PERMANENT COURT OF INTERNATIONAL
JUSTICE
At the 20th plenary meeting of the Assembly the report of
the Third Committee^ was presented for consideration. M.
Bourgeois made a preliminary statement:
"In February last the Council, whose duty it was in accordance
with Article 14 of the Covenant to consider the proposal for a
Court of International Justice, decided to constitute a Com-
mittee of Jurists, and it selected the most eminent jurists in the
world to prepare a Draft Scheme. I am happy to say that a
certain number of these jurists are here among us to-day, in
particular, M. Hagerup. This committee met at The Hague,
because it was thought that it should be pointed out we had not
forgotten the memories of 1899 and 1907. It was considered both
just and useful not to break the connection between The Hague
and the League of Nations. The two works, the work of the
Hague tribunal and the work of the Court of the League of
Nations, are continuous one with the other. Our jurists at
The Hague examined the whole problem and drew up a unan-
imous report, which is a work of considerable importance, and
which succeeded in solving certain difficulties which, up till
then, it had been impossible to solve, and it produced a pro-
posal which was an organic whole. This was forwarded to
the Council, and the Council considered this Draft Scheme in
the following way.
"The Council did not consider itself to be a second committee
of jurists; it did not pretend to possess the same scientific and
judicial knowledge, and all it did was to mark certain points
which might give rise possibly to a general discussion and to add
certain finishing touches to the scheme, in particular that relating
to the compulsory jurisdiction of the court. The Council then
approved the scheme with certain modifications; then it came
^Meetings were held as follows: 1, November 22; 2, November 24; 3, November
26; 4, December 8; 5, December 9; 6, December 10; 7, December 17. Other
meetings were held by the coimnittee on December 1, 7» 11, 14, 15 and 16.
COURT IS INDEPENDENT 105
before the Assembly and it was given to the Third Committee
for consideration. The Third Committee also considered that
the Hague proposal was the fundamental basis for this discussion,
and it nominated a subcommittee of ten members, five of whom
had previously served on the committee at The Hague, and five
eminent jurists who had not served on that committee. This
subcommittee of ten we thus see provided means for close collabo-
ration between those who were present at The Hague and those
who were not. By the same good fortune unanimous conclusions
^were reached. Certain points were discussed by the whole com-
littee, in particular again the question of compulsory jurisdiction,
id we reached agreement.
Essential Task of League
"The constitution of the court is an essential task of the League
Nations. A complete scheme is now for the first time placed
jfore the world. All previous difficulties have been successively
overcome — the organization, the permanence of the court, the
duration of the period of office of judges, the form of procedure,
the competence and the method of nominating the judges. A
successful solution has been found for all those problems, and
:the result is a tribunal which is above and outside political in-
fluences. A permanent court will now be established in the
rorld, with absolute independence. As regards the connection
Jtv, een the court and the League of Nations, this is very simple.
'he League of Nations establishes the court and draws up the
rules which constitute it, but once established and so far as not
modified by the Assembly, the Court is independent, and to it
all those whose rights and privileges have been violated, all those
weak states who fear the power of the strong, can refer for assist-
ance, and the method of obtaining international justice conceived
by the Covenant is now open to all."
M. Hagerup (Norway) as rapporteur introduced the subject
by calling attention to the solutions of the problems connected
with the court as presented to the Assembly. He remarked;
The first point refers to the system of nominating judges. There
hitherto all previous attempts at establishing a Permanent Court have
failed. In 1907 when the question was discussed no unanimity was
reached owing to an irreconcilable divergence of views between the
106 LEAGUE OF NATIONS
great and the small powers. The system which we propose is to use
the organization of the League of Nations, giving to the Council and
the Assembly the right and the duty to elect conjointly and on the
same footing of equality the judges. Here the Hague proposal, the
modifications introduced by the Council and our own scheme all agree.
But I would point out that it is thanks to the League of Nations that
we are on the eve of at length realizing this great idea, and this is a great
tribute to pay to the League of Nations. . . •
There was a difference of opinion here as to whether it should be the
Governments who should nominate or others. It was decided not to
leave the nomination to the Governments, because we wanted to avoid
political considerations as much as possible, and also because the
Governments are going to vote here for the judges. K they also nomi-
nated them the delegates would arrive here with their hands already
tied to the nominations already made. Therefore it was decided to
leave the nominations to the national groups of the Hague Court of
Arbitration already existing. There was a small difficulty which arose
here because certain Members of the League are not signatories of the
arbitration convention at The Hague. We therefore decided to give
them the faculty of forming the same groups of persons under the same
conditions, • • • and those national groups, when formed by the nations,
would nominate in the same way as the other national groups.
Li the former proposal the Third Committee has modified the scheme
in so far that in submitting the proposals there were only two candidates
to be included in each group. We have increased the number to four
so that each group might represent not only its own nationals, but for-
eigners of well-known reputation and confidence, and these might make
a plebiscite for the appointment of the most suitable candidates.
As regards my second point, there was a difference of view between
the Brussels scheme of the Council and the scheme as presented now.
It refers to the incompatibility of the judges, that is to say, the fact that
it is not admissible for a judge to hold certain other employment beside
his position as judge. . . . The present scheme says that persons who
exercise administrative or political functions shall be ineligible, or that
the position of judge should be incompatible with the holding or exercising
of political or ministerial functions.
The third alteration made by the latest scheme refers to disputes of
a special technical nature which may arise — in the first place disputes in
connection with labor questions. There are certain special international
functions regulating labor, and therefore on the proposal of the Inter-
national Labor Office and the British Delegation, we have made certain
provisions. It is essential in these cases that the court should have the
COMPULSORY IF SO DESIRED 107
assistance of special technical assessors, who are not to be merely experts,
but who are to sit with the judges and take part in discussions of the
case, and in fact to have exactly the same power as the judges, except tliat
they will not actually give a vote in deciding a case, but will give the
judges the benefit of their expert knowledge right up to the last moment.
Solution Respecting Competence
I now come to the last and most essential point of diflference, which
refers to the competence of the court. We thought that we should not
radically modify the alteration introduced by the Council, which re-
stricted the jurisdiction of the court to cases where it was accepted by
both parties, thus excluding for the most part compulsory jurisdiction.
We have slightly modified the article in order to make the idea clearer,
but we have introduced no essential alterations, though we have made a
very important addition to which I would draw special attention. If
we were obliged to exclude a general compulsory jurisdiction, we thought
we might leave open to such states as were inclined to accept such a
system, the method of admitting a larger measure of compulsion in the
jurisdiction of the court; and we therefore have adopted, on a proposal
of the Brazilian Delegate, M. Fernandez, a scheme which was advocated
by the Swiss delegate at The Hague in 1907. It consists in enumerating
in the article concerning competence the cases to which compulsory juris-
diction may be applied. ... It has not been possible thus to establish
compulsory jurisdiction for all for the moment, but we have established
compulsory jurisdiction for all those who are disposed to accept it.
An important question I must mention is that of the form under
which this statute should be adopted by the Assembly. There was a
difference of opinion on this point. Some, among whom I myself must
be included, maintained that in accordance with Article 14 of the Cove-
nant the statute establishing the court could be adopted here by a unani-
mous vote of the Assembly, and thus come definitely into existence.
Others, however, maintained that in accordance with the terms of Article
14 of the Covenant a vote of the Assembly was not sufficient, and that
a special protocol must be signed by the Governments, and their signa-
tures must be ratified. In order to obtain the necessary unanimity, we
have here presented a resolution which gives satisfaction to both opinions.
We propose a resolution which gives approval to the scheme which we
have submitted, and secondly we state that the statute composing the
court will be speedily submitted to the Members for due ratification,
and that the Council shall deal with the execution of this plan.
The fourth point of this resolution, to which I would refer, is that the
protocol remains open to the signature of all states mentioned in the
108 LEAGUE OF NATIONS
Annex to the Covenant. In this way it will be possible for the United
States of America to enter the court eventually if it so desires. You
will remember that a representative of the United States, Mr. Root,
took part in the discussion of the scheme at The Hague. If that party
in the United States which will soon come into power has not accepted
the League of Nations, at any rate it has said it could accept the Court
of Justice, and this in itself would be a very desirable result for the
League of Nations to obtain.
South American Point of View
M. Loder (Netherlands) followed with an eloquent eulogy of
the ideal now so near realization. M. La Fontaine (Belgium)
delivered an impassioned appeal to the nations to accept the
compulsory jurisdiction protocol. Dr. Blanco (Uruguay) said
in part:
My country agrees with this scheme, and in that is in accord with
most of the South American states. But I must make one reservation,
and express one wish. I thank the eminent statesmen who have worked
out this scheme, and in the present situation it is difficult for them to
go further than they have done, but I think the organization is capable
of elaboration in the future, and herein I hope that all the countries
of the world will join. I am sure that is the wish of South America as a
whole. In South America we have an important tradition as far as com-
pulsory arbitration without reserve is concerned, and I am in favor
of a system of arbitration with no reservations. . . . We vote for the
proposal as it is, but we intend to try and better it, and herein we hope
we shall have the co-operation of both the great and small states of the
world.
Raoul Fernandez (Brazil): "I wish to point out that a
satisfactory solution of the main problem involved in the estab-
lishment of the Court of Justice has not yet been reached, because
compulsory jurisdiction has been denied to the court. On the
other hand, in accordance with the Covenant, the Council has
compulsory jurisdiction in matters where vital interests of coun-
tries are concerned. The states who signed the Covenant have
thereby surrendered their interests in matters of vital importance
to the Council. I am not sure that the Council is qualified to
give judicial decisions on certain matters; there will always be
an element of politics in its decisions, an element which will tend
JUBIDIC EQUALITY SECURED
109
to dominate over the claims of justice. This is a great danger,
especially now that we have established provisions for enforcing
decisions such as the arrangements for blockade. We have done
that, and yet we have not established the best method possible of
preventing conflicts and preventing the necessity for the use
of such blockade. Furthermore, we have established a system
of financial co-operation between nations, and we have agreed
to a system of compulsory jurisdiction in matters concerning
labor disputes, and yet we refuse the same compulsion in the
case of matters which are still more grave; that is to say, ques-
tions where the interests of nations are vitally concerned."
M. Negulesco (Rumania) spoke to the same effect, and Dr.
Arias (Panama), referring "to the lack of any sanction in regard
to a state which refuses to comply with the decisions of the
court," proposed a new article, to read: "In the event of any
failure to carry out the decrees, the Court shall propose what
steps should be taken to give effect thereto"; but this was subse-
quently withdrawn.
M. Zolger (Serb-Croat-Slovene State) at the 21st plenary
meeting regretted the form the statute of the court was to take,
desiring to see the draft made effective by the vote of the Assem-
bly. M. Urrutia (Colombia) said:
The statute does not fully answer to the aspirations of the American
countries, who wished very much to go further. The principle of com-
pulsory arbitration is not only a principle of international justice, but it is
also a democratic principle, for it comes from the juridical equality of
all states. It is deeply rooted in the history, traditions, and the institu-
tions of the American peoples. ... In spite of these observations, I
must acknowledge that some very great progress has been accomplished.
That progress is the juridical equality of states, now recognized officially.
We hope it may be followed by further steps until we reach the real
ideal of the League of Nations.
"To-morrow We Shall Go Further"
Mr. Wellington Koo (China) wished to associate himself with
those voicing the sentiment in favor of compulsory jurisdiction.
M. Politis (Greece) paid tribute to the spirit which had marked
the elaboration of the draft; sacrifices had been made, but "it is
110 LEAGUE OF NATIONS
only a question of time before the desires of the more advanced
party will be realized." M. Cornejo (Peru) thought progress
had been slow, but "we must only hope that to-morrow we
shall go further." M. Schanzer (Italy) expressed the hope that
the court would be speedily accepted, and added:
If, as it is not possible to doubt, this court will rapidly acquire by the
wisdom and impartiality of its decisions universal authority and the
confidence of all peoples, in such a case, I am convinced, we shall rapidly
achieve the complete object to which we aspire, and transform the
competence of the court into one of absolute obligations to refer to its
decision.
M. Costa recalled that Portugal had always supported the
principle of compulsory jurisdiction. He expressed doubt as to
the efficacy of the protocol on that subject, but "I have confi-
dence in the amendments to the Covenant which are proposed
and which are to be studied — the amendments to Articles 12
and 13 proposed by the Scandinavian Government, and the
amendments to Articles 12, 13 and 15 proposed by my own
Government — and it is my hope that these amendments may be
the means of the principle of compulsory jurisdiction being
introduced. That is my wish, and in this sense I accept the
resolution of the committee."
Mr. Balfour (Great Britain) replied to the proponents of im-
mediate compulsory jurisdiction:
It is quite true that we are ardent supporters of the idea of an Inter-
national Court of Justice. It is quite true that we desire to see the appli-
cations to that Court made voluntarily and not compulsorily. That is
not because we desire to discourage the movement in which we have
taken part, not because we desire to check its extension to the furthest
practicable fields, but because we are convinced . . . that if these things
are to be successful they must be allowed to grow. If they are to achieve
all that their framers desire for them, they must be allowed to pursue
that natural development which is the secret of all permanent success
in human affairs, and not least in that part of human affairs which deals
with politics. Remember that this Court is set up to administer a system
of international law. International law itself is a changing and a growing
subject. There is no provision — fortunately, perhaps — within the limits
of the Covenant, for changing and reforming international law, and this
Court is brought into existence not to change it or to reform it, but simply
WILL GAIN CONFIDENCE 111
to administer it. Therefore you may find yourselves, or some nation in
the course of time may find itself, in the position that a rigid interpreta-
tion of what may be an antiquated system of international law, which
would never be accepted or embodied in any authoritative code or authori-
tative work if all the circumstances were understood, nevertheless has to
be administered by a Court which, in administering it with strict regard
to the laws with which it has to deal, but without any power of achieving
that larger vision which is sometimes given to statesmen and politicians,
may involve interests so profoundly affecting the very existence of that
state, that your whole machine will be destroyed rather than that state
should submit itself voluntarily to legal destruction. I do not think such
cases are likely, but who among you will venture to say that they are
impossible.'* . . . More and more you will find that as this court gains
the public confidence, the confidence of nations in all parts of the earth,
more and more classes of cases will be brought within its jurisdiction;
more and more readily will the various countries of the world be glad to
put their disputes before it, whereas if in a spirit too hasty and too im-
petuous you try and force into this mold, as yet imperfectly framed,
the whole fabric of what you conceive to be a completed and perfect
system, the result will be that the mold itself will break under the
stress of new circumstances and changing conditions. So far from having
served the interests of international justice, you w ill have inflicted what
may prove to be a fatal blow upon the greatest instrument which the
world has ever yet been able to contrive for seeing that international
justice is being carried out.
Statute Voted Marks Gains
M. Motta (Switzerland) made three points: The project pro-
claims the great principle of equality of states. As to Article 36,
which was the best possible solution, "we had two systems before.
One was to make the agreement that all states should be obliged
to have recourse to the international tribunal. This idea is not
yet possible. We can not do it. The second alternative was a
system which has been followed up to now by certain states,
namely, to have recourse by their own conventions to obligatory
arbitration. We had to choose an intermediate solution, . . .
by protocols between these states that enabled them to declare
themselves ready to submit to obligatory arbitration." Third,
the commission decided that it was necessary that the principle
of ratification should be embodied and safeguarded in the project.
M. Hagerup, the rapporteur, himself a supporter of compulsory
112 LEAGUE OF NATIONS
jurisdiction, pointed out that "the amendment introduced by
the Council into the scheme of The Hague prevents the applica-
tion of the principle of compulsory jurisdiction" :
Article 37 you will note points out that **when a treaty or convention
in force provides for the reference of a matter to a tribunal to be insti-
tuted by the League of Nations, the Court will be such tribunal." Already
a certain number of general conventions have been provided for the
submission to arbitration of certain questions, questions relating to the
interpretation of a treaty, or the rights of minorities, labor questions
or questions with regard to communications and transport. . . . There
are many conventions existing already between states, and we recognize
here the great part played by South America. . . . Several states, even
some of the great powers, have already entered into treaties involving
compulsory settlement of disputes. I would point out, however, that it
will not be possible to substitute this proposed Court ior a Court of
Arbitration without entering into some new convention providing for
this. ... It is therefore important that states which have such treaties
should amend them in favor of the new Court to be constituted, and this
will extend the obligatory jurisdiction of the Court.
After a speech by M. Bourgeois, the President put- the first
resolution, which read :
The Assembly unanimously declares its approval of the Draft
Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice, as
amended by the Assembly, which was prepared by the Council
under Article 14 of the Covenant, and submitted to the Assembly
for its approval.
The procedure was to adopt in advance the text chapter by
chapter. Only one amendment was made. The President then said :
If there is no objection on the part of the Assembly, I will proclaim
as being passed the first of the Draft Resolutions proposed by the
Committee.
M. Hagerup: I suggest, considering the importance of this matter,
that it would be advisable to proceed to take a vote by a roll call.
The President: I am quite ready to proceed with the roll call, but
that is a somewhat lengthy procedure. The resolution itself states "the
Assembly unanimously declares its approval," and I think we can con-
sider that as being a vote solemnly and unanimously expressed by the
Assembly.
Applause confirmed this opinion.
MEMBERS TO RATIFY 113
The Other resolutions were immediately and imanimously
passed :
11 2. In view of the special wording of Article 14 the Statute of
''the Court shall be submitted within the shortest possible time
to the Members of the League of Nations for adoption in the
form of a protocol duly ratified and declaring their recognition of
this Statute. It shall be the duty of the Council to submit the
Statute to the Members.
3. As soon as this protocol has been ratified by the majority
of the Members of the League, the Statute of the Court shall
come into force and the Court shall be called upon to sit in con-
formity with the said Statute in all disputes between the Members
or states which have ratified, as well as between the other states,
to which the Court is open under Article 35, paragraph 2, of the
said Statute.
4. The said protocol shall likewise remain open for signature
by the states mentioned in the Annex to the Covenant.
Independent Proposals of Jurists
The Advisory Committee of Jurists, in addition to working out
the draft scheme for the Permanent Court of International Justice,
which they were commissioned to do, drew up at the suggestion of
certain members four recommendations which were, under the
circumstances, sympathetically considered by the Council and
transmitted to the Assembly for its decision. The Third Com-
mittee, according to the statement by M. La Fontaine at the
final meeting of the Assembly, disposed of three of the recom-
mendations by adverse decisions. He said:
As to the fourth recommendation, the Committee were of opinion that
this question has been settled by Article 36, which refers to the establish-
ment of compulsory jurisdiction.
The third recommendation asks the Assembly to provide for the
establishment of an Academy of International Law, but the view of the
Committee is that this is a private association, and that it is not necessary
for the Assembly to intervene; that it is quite sufficient for the Assembly
to acknowledge the existence of the Academy of International Law, in
which the Carnegie Foundation has taken the initiative.
The second recommendation was with regard to the establishment of
a high court of criminal justice, but the opinion of the Committee is that
such a court is not required apart from a Court of International Justice.
114 ASSEMBLY IS CONFERENCE
Therefore, there is only one recommendation left, and that is of con-
siderable interest. For a long time international jurists have been asking
for an international code which would bring together all the conventions
arrived at between the states, but some jurists want to go further, and
desire the establishment of a real international law, codified in order to
unite their relations as to one another. The Committee of Jurists desired
that such a body should be re-established at The Hague to carry on the
work which was initiated in 1899 and 1907 in the Hague Peace Confer-
ence. The Committee think now that such a body would be useless.
Besides, it is the Assembly of the League of Nations whose business it is
to deal with this matter. The Committee, however, retained the sugges-
tion that the more important Institutes of International Law — ^for in-
stance, the Union Juridique Internationale, the American Institute of
International Law, the Institut de Droit International and the Interna-
tional Law Association — should be asked to point out how far they
could collaborate in the preparation of an international code, and in this
respect I consider that the recommendation of the Committee of Jurists
may be voted by this Assembly.
The proposed motion read :
The Assembly of the League of Nations invites the Council to address
to the most authoritative of the institutions which are devoted to the
study of international law a request to consider what would be the best
method of co-operative work to adopt for the more precise definition
and more complete co-ordination of the rules of international law which
are applied to the relations of states.
Lord Robert Cecil (South Africa) took the floor in opposition.
*'To my mind," he said, "we have not got to a stage yet where
it is desirable to consider the codification of international law.
This is really the first step toward codification. It is a request,
unless I have misunderstood it, to a variety of learned societies
to devote their attention to the codification of international law.
I think that a very dangerous project at this stage in the world's
history. I hope that we shall not proceed with it at the fag end
of this Assembly, or without very much more consideration. I
beg to move the previous question."
On this motion being put, it was adopted, so that the recom-
mendation was lost.
Vn. SECRETARIAT AND BUDGET
The Fourth Committee, Seflor Quifiones de Leon, chairman,
dealt with the organization of the Secretariat and the budget in
l!^ meetings which were quite the most lengthy gatherings of the
Assembly. Nothing much happened as a result of interminably
critical discussions and cross questionings of Sir Eric Drummond and
Sir Herbert Ames, chief of the Financial Section. The real accom-
plislunents of the commit tee were, first, the request to the Council to
appoint a committee of experts for preparing a thorough report on
the organization of the Secretariat; and, second, the preparations
toward establishing an equitable method of apportioning financial
quotas. For the rest, after much detailed discussion, the committee
voted the obvious and perfectly proper recommendations made
by the Council on the suggestion of the Secretariat.
The attitude which has been described was confined to the
representatives of comparatively few Members of the League
and was chiefly manifested respecting the budget, on which the
discussion was characteristically captious. The third financial
period called for an expenditure of about $4,100,000, divided into
quotas ranging from some $8,040 to nearly $201,000 according to
the classification of the paying state. Yet states spending millions
on armaments without thought of an apology to a tax-payer solemn-
ly introduced motions reducing the entire budget by $100,000 on
the allegation that the peace machine was costing too much.
When the organization of the Secretariat was imder discussion,
the salary of the Secretary-General of the League of Nations,
an international officer receiving the stipend of a second-class
ambassador of a principal power, was the biggest game stalked
by the economy hunters, who eventually gave up the chase.
Speaking of the work of the Fourth Committee at the 28th
plenary meeting of the Assembly, when its reports first came
before that body, Senor Quifiones de Leon (Spain), chairman of
the committee, said :
The task intrusted to us was of a very delicate and complex nature.
It referred entirely to the organization and tlie administrative life of the
116 LEAGUE OF NATIONS
League of Nations and the organization and functions of the budget.
The provisions of the Covenant placed us under the obHgation of creating,
or of defining all these various organizations without our being able to
rely on any constitutional indications in carrying out this most important
task. Over and above this we had the obligation laid upon us of defining
very clearly the relationship which exists on various points between the
League of Nations and the Liternational Labor Bureau. There is silence
on the part of the Covenant on all points relating to these questions and
therefore we were deprived of any definite indications as to how to solve
these problems. More than once we have found ourselves in a difficulty,
especially when we have tackled questions in connection with the relations
between these two organizations and that of the subdivision of expenses
between the various Members of the League, as well as certain fiscal
questions. We found isolated precepts, which, without establishing
complete solutions, have impeded us in deciding freely. The discussions
have sometimes been extremely long, but I am glad to be able to state
that all of us, without in any way surrendering our convictions and
without in any way giving way to other points of view, which were often
quite opposite and distinct, have found that we were inspired with a
great spirit of conciliation when it was a matter of arriving at definite
solutions, even when entirely different interests were involved.
Staff and Organization
Introducing the report on the staff and organization of the
Secretariat, Sir James Allen (New Zealand), who as rapporteur
had been one of the most critical members of the committee,
commented :
I suggested in my original report that an independent inquiry should
be held in order to ascertain whether the staff was properly paid, whether
there were sufficient members, and whether it was efficient. At that time
the Committee did not think it wise to adopt this suggestion; but later on,
after further examination of the facts, the Conunittee did come to the con-
clusion that it was essential that a body of experts should be set up to
inquire into the organization and pay and allowances, and so on. ... It
has, practically speaking, been replaced in the report on the budget.
The other portion which was excised dealt with the question of pensions.
I believe that it is most important that this League should conserve, if it
can, any pension rights that any of its officers have earned during their
previous service, whether in other Governments or elsewhere, in order
that when they retire from the service of the League they may retire
with something in the way of a competence. . . . The Committee did
MANY NATIONS REPRESENTED 117
not see their way to adopt this proposal; but I am quite certain that
later on it will be necessary for the League to consider retiring or pension
allowances for their servants. It is to my mind essential that no one
should come into the service of the League without feeling that either he
himself is able or that we are able and willing to make some provision for
him when he retires because of old age after long service. There are only,
of Government civil servants in the employment of the League, some
twenty-eight, nineteen in th^ Secretariat and nine in the Labor OflBce. It
seems to me that in the course of time these numbers will increase, that the
numbers drawn from civil services in other countries will grow, and that
therefore the question of pension rights will become a more prominent one.
The question of nationalities was raised during the course of the de-
bate. I desire here to congratulate the staff, the directors, and the
S( cretary-General and the Director of the Labor Office upon the extraor-
dinary way in which they have been able to secure the services of so
many members of different nationalities. There are no less than eighteen
nationalities represented in the Secretariat, and there are sixteen different
nationalities represented in the Labor Office. I think that this is a very
great result to achieve. Indeed the whole organization is a magnificent
piece of work both on the part of the Secretary-General and on the part of
the Director of the Labor Office. I do not say that it is by any means
perfect. We shall know more about that after the experts have reported.
With regard to the cost of living, the cost of living is higher in Geneva,
so far as I have been able to ascertain, by some 35 per cent than it is in
London. In that cost of living there is included not only rents and rates,
but food, lighting, heating and cooking and certain miscellaneous things
like pleasure and traveling.
The rapporteur suggested an amendment to his fourth clause,
making it read as follows :
Members of the staff of the Secretariat and the staff of the International
Labor Office, and certain temporary employees, shall be appointed for a
period not exceeding five years; at the termination of each employment
period, they may be appointed for a further period not exceeding five
years, due regard being given to efficiency, and to the retention of suffi-
cient officers to enable the work of the League and of the International
Labor Office to be effectively maintained.
Discuss Tenure of Office
Mr. Millen (Australia) suggested that this should be dropped
because the recommendations respecting the budget now
118 LEAGUE OF NATIONS
contained a proposal for a committee to inquire into all matters
relating to the Secretariat. The rapporteur accepted the sugges-
tion and withdrew theinotion.
This was pleasing to Mr. Barnes (Great Britain) who, however,
criticized the first resolution on the ground that it referred to
appointments for a period of five years. *'I want," he said, "in
the staff a promotion of international solidarity. I want the
promotion of a spirit of internationality. You will not get it by
this. On the contrary, the men whom you take on for five years
will have in their minds all the time that at the end of that five
years they may have to go back to the offices of their own particu-
lar national, and during the five years they are with you they
will have the interest of their own country at heart rather than
the interests of the League of Nations. It is for these reasons
that I think we ought to delete all reference to the question of
termination of office and really begin to build up a staflf which
will be attached to the League of Nations and which will feel
that they have here a life office, if they like to stop at it, providing
always they are efficient."
Sir James Allen had previously presented the other view:
There is good reason for appointing officers in the first instance for
five years, and making subsequent appointments for five years, because
it is essential that the idea should not be allowed to grow up on the
part of officers that they are there for a life-time, an evil which exists in
the civil service and in the offices of many Governments, and also that
there should be an opportunity for officers, if they wish, to dispose of
their services elsewhere; also, which is a very important thing, it would
enable us to get rid from the civil service of any inefficient officer.
Sir William Meyer (India) satisfied Mr. Barnes by securing the
consent of the committee to making the phrase in the first resolu-
tion read "for a period of five years or more." He also obtained
acceptance of the suggestion that the three resolutions should
apply to the International Labor Office. The resolutions were
then passed, Australia opposing the first, in the following form
(A. D. 260):
1. That all members of the Secretariat and of the International
Labor Office appointed for a period of five years or more by the
Secretary-General or the Director of the International Labor
TO PRINT OFFICIAL LIST 119
Office shall, in the case of dismissal, have the right of appeal to
the Council or to the Governing Body of the International Labor
Office, as the case may be.
2. That a list of the staff of the Secretariat and of the Inter-
national Labor Office, showing nationahties and salaries and
allowances by classes be published yearly, with the addition to
the first and second issues of a list containing an account of the
previous services of certain of the higher officials; and that a
further list be prepared and attached to the annual budget,
showing the nationality, salary and allowances of each individual
member of the staff, and containing a schedule showing the travel-
ing allowances for each class with the amounts paid.
3. That information regarding vacancies on the staff of the
Secretariat and of the International Labor Office be made as
public as possible and that, in filling the various posts, while hav-
mg special regard for efficiency, at the same time consideration
be given to the international character of the League.
Budget
Sir George Foster (Canada) acted as sole rapporteur on the
budget, owing to the absence of M. Van Eysinga (Netherlands),
at the 29th plenary meeting of the Assembly. His discussion of a
difficult and much-debated problem was so lucid that it gives a
better idea of the questions involved than the debates in the
Fourth Committee, which were both fragmentary and character-
ized by many pointless inquiries. Sir George said in part:
In the first place, with reference to the financial foundation of tlie
League of Nations, everyone will agree that this financial foundation is
a very important element, and, in fact, is the main factor as a moving
power in the operations. It is a different financial basis from tliat of
Governments; it has some advantages; it has very many disadvantages.
It is, in fact, a contribution allocated on a certain basis to tlie different
nations who are Members of the League. That allocation becomes in
the end a voluntary contribution to be voted under the auspices
of the Governments by the legislatures to which these Governments
are responsible. It is therefore of the utmost importance that tlie Mem-
bers of the League, from the very start, should consider that this con-
tribution which is asked should be promptly and loyally paid at the
very earliest possible moment. It constitutes the only fund that the
League has at its disposal for its operations. If the contributions come
120 LEAGUE OF NATIONS
in tardily, funds are not there at the time they are required, and conse-
quently banking operations have to be undertaken and interest has
to be paid, and in that way those who are prompt in their payments
have to bear the proportion of the burdens of those who are lax. It is
therefore of primary importance, or should be, in this League of Nations,
that the contributions which are distributed should be promptly paid
and loyally given. I am convinced that as this League progresses in its
work, that will come to be the opinion of its Members, and that in a
short time difficulties due to tardiness of payment will entirely disappear.
With reference to the allocations paid for the first period, all have been
paid except for three countries. Paraguay has not yet had her allocation
received by the League, but it is on the way at the present time. Salvador
has not yet paid hers, but that has arisen from certain defects in com-
munication. These have been made right, and her contribution is ex-
pected in a very short time. There remains one country which has not
yet paid any of the first allocation, and that is the Argentine. Argentina
is being communicated with, and has received through her Government
four different applications. She acknowledged one of them in April last.
She has acknowledged no application for payment from that time until
the present, and her quota remains still unpaid for this first period.
For the second period the accounts stand in this way, that whereas
about 10 millions of gold francs, in round numbers, were allocated, only
about 43^ millions have as yet been paid in. That leaves 5^/2 millions
still to be paid. Of the Members of the League 7 have paid all their
subscriptions; 8 have paid part of their subscriptions; 28 have as yet
paid none of their subscriptions. That makes up a total of 43 Members,
the whole of the League. The Council having been advised of this, it
seems to me it is necessary for the Council to take such steps as are
required to establish a rule which shall hold with regard to Members of
the League who are lax in their payment of the allocations made.to them,
and it is the opinion of the rapporteurs that the matter should be left in
that way.
Problem of Fair Payments
Having established the principle that the funds of the League are to
be made up by allocations and votes of the different Governments of
the states Members of the League, it becomes of the first importance
that the basis of allocation should be a fair and just one. For whatever
reason the present existing basis of apportionment was chosen, it is
acknowledged generally, I think, to be an unreasonable and an unfair
one. We will never have accordant and prompt payments until we get
a basis of allocation which is generally acknowledged to be a fair and
reasonable basis. • • • At present, under Article 6 of the Covenant,
ASSEMBLY TO CONTROL Wl
tlie basis of allocation is that which has been adopted by the Universal
Postal Union. We seem to be tied to that unless there is an amendment
to the Covenant. The mode which is proposed in the report is that a
committee of five be appointed, that this committee pursue the negotia-
tions already initiated with the Universal Postal Union, that they pre-
pare a schedule for the approval of the Council, and that that schedule
be passed on to the Universal Postal Union with a request that they
should adopt it as the basis of allocation for their expenses. If they
do, and the matter is finished by July 1 next, then it becomes the basis
of allocation for next year. K it is not perfected by July 1 next, or if
any Members of the League object to the proposal, which shall have
been distributed to all the Members of the League previously, then the
whole matter will be placed on the agenda of the Assembly for the year
1921, and will be there authoritatively settled.
The Committee and the rapporteurs were up against an organization
already formed, an organization formed outside of the will or the mandate
of the Assembly, in actual operation. It was absolutely unpossible for
that Committee or the rapporteurs to make themselves absolutely and
certainly acquainted with all the workings of the Secretariat and of the
Labor Organization under the system which already obtains. Conse-
quently, after having arranged that these controls should be established
for the future, it is recommended that a small committee of experts shall
make a thorough examination into the organization, methods of work,
the efficiency, the number, the salaries and allowances and the general
expenses at the Secretariat and Labor Organization and report to the
Council, and that this report shall be in the hands of the Members of
tlie League by June 1, 1921. And in the opinion of the Committee the
Assembly should reserve its perfect, uncontrolled right to make such
changes as may be deemed necessary in accordance with and after the
reception of the report of these experts upon the various operations of
the Secretariat and of the Labor Organization. Mind you. Gentlemen,
ni making this recommendation there was no effort and no thought of
passing a vote of censure upon the work which has already been carried
out under either the Secretariat or the Labor Organization. But it was
felt that the Assembly had a perfect right, and must insist on that right,
to have a thorough examination made by these experts into the working
of the whole machine in order that if there were weaknesses they might
be detected, and that if there were better methods which might be
applied such methods might then be put into operation.
Swedish and South African delegates urged the importance of
changing the scheme for allocating expenses, and Sir James Allen
122 LEAGUE OF NATIONS
announced his intention of opposing the system by his vote,
beside launching an attack for the third time at the salary of
the Secretary-General. Mr. Balfour closed a defense of this
salary with these words: "I venture to say that those criticisms
are ill-founded, and it' will be a very evil day for this Assembly
if they pronounce to the world that the salary it gives its chief
official is too high, though it is far lower than that which great
firms, great men of business, give to the brains which make those
businesses profitable."
The Maharajah of Nawanagar in a speech read at the previous
session by Sir Ali Imam had proposed treasury officers appointed
by the Assembly to supervise expenditures. Sir William Meyer,
also of the Indian delegation, had introduced se^ en amendments
to the committee's report which he now proceeded to discuss.
He withdrew his first inquiring for information respecting
1,725,000 gold francs allocated *'for the creation of worlving capital
or reserve'* in the latter part of 1920, and being applied to other
objects because of the statement of the rapporteur that the
tardiness of receipts from the Members of the League really
explained what took place with reference to that amount.
He postponed till the next Assembly the proposal embodying
the idea of the Maharajah of Nawanagar. Another reducing the
budget by 500,000 gold francs in respect both of the Secretariat
and of the Labor Organization was retired in view of the con-
templated appointment of a committee and the Assembly's
reservation of the right to cut the budget.^ The fifth related to
^The Fourth Committee voted down at its eighth meeting a proposal by Sir
James Allen, Delegate of New Zealand, "That the budget estimate of expenditure,
20,955,000 gold francs be reduced by 500,000 gold francs as an indication that
(a) the salaries, wages and allowances of the higher paid members of the staff of
the Secretariat and of the International Labor Office should be reduced; and (/.»)
the expenditure of the International Labor Office on publication is too great."
Voted for: India and New Zealand; abstained: Australia, South Africa, Panama
and Siam; voted against: Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Colombia, Czecho-
slovakia, Denmark, France, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Norway, Serb-
Croat-Slovene State, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Uruguay and Venezuela.
Also, after much discussion of detail, the committee defeated a motion by
the Maharajah of Nawanagar: "That the Committee is of opinion that the total
expenses of the Secretariat are too high and can be usefully reduced." Voted
for: South Africa, Australia, India and New Zealand; abstained: Siam; voted
against: Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Colombia, Czecho-Slovakia, Denmark,
France, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Serb-Croat-
Slovene State, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Uruguay, Venezuela.
MOTIONS THAT WERE LOST 128
the expenses of technical organizations, stipulating that they
should not exceed 2,000,000 gold francs altogether. On Sir
George Foster's assurance that this would not occur, the Indian
proposal was withdrawn.
The committee accepted Sir William Meyer's amendment to
its first recommendation respecting measures regarding states
dilatory about paying quotas.
The last Indian amendment came to a vote and was lost:
That the special committee appointed to consider amendments to the
Covenant shall also consider an amendment to Article 6 which shall
make future contributions of states to the League expenditure depend
not on the quotas adopted for the purpose of the Universal Postal Union
but on some independent principla such as net revenue.
If this had passed it would have superseded Article 13 of the
committee's resolution. The question of allocation had been
discussed at the International Financial Conference at the request
of the Council and had been the subject of studied resolutions
(A. D. 41). The principles there laid down were applied in a
memorandum (D. 18) by the Secretary-General to the allocations,
and this document had been much discussed in committee. Sir
Reginald Blankenberg (South Africa) now moved as amendment
to the committee's Article 13:
The demands for the year 1921 should be based as a provisional measure
on Document No. 18.
The motion was lost and the whole report was then carried
without objection, except for Sir Reginald Blankenberg 's adverse
vote on Article 13, in the following form :
First Resolution
The Assembly of the League of Nations hereby adopts the
general budget of the League for the first financial period ending
June 30, 1920, together with the budget for the second financial
period ending December 31, 1920.
124 league of nations
Second Resolution
The Assembly of the League of Nations hereby adopts the
annexed general budget for the year 1921.^
RECOMMENDATION 1
The Assembly of the League of Nations requests the Members
of the League to take the necessary measures to insure that their
contribution should be paid at the earliest possible date. Each
Member should in any case inform the Secretariat on January 1,
1921, on what date it may expect payment to be made.
The special committee to be appointed to consider modifications
in the Covenant should also consider what steps should be taken
with reference to states which have not paid their quotas within
a specified period.
RECOMMENDATION 2
The Assembly of the League of Nations requests the Council
to be guided by the principles embodied in the following articles
in regard to the financial administration of the League, and, if
experience proves that this could be strengthened and improved,
to prepare a draft resolution upon this subject for the annual ses-
sion of the Assembly of 1921.
Article 1. Three months at least before the annual session of the
Assembly, the Secretary-General shall submit to the Council a general
draft budget of the League for the following year (expenditure and
income), as provided for in Article 399 of the treaty of Versailles, and
this shall be at once communicated to each Member of the League.
Article 2. Draft budgets for the Labor Office and for other organiza-
tions, offices and commissions, etc., of the League, and also detailed
explanations, lists of officials, their salaries, allowances, and nationalities
shall be attached to the general budget as annexes. The Secretary-
General shall notify the organizations, offices and commissions, etc.,
referred to, of the date in each year on which these data are to be
received.
iSir George Foster (Canada) moved the approval of the 1921 budget at the
eighth meetmg of the Fourth Committee, the motion prevailing by the following
vote: Voted for: Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Colombia, Czecho-Slovakia,
Denmark, France, Jtaly, Japan, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama,
Siam, Serb-Croat-Slovene State, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Uruguay, Vene-
zuela; abstained: South Africa and Australia; voted against: India and New
Zealand.
PAYMENTS BY WARRANT 125
Article 3. The Council shall see that the budget, as approved by it,
with detailed explanations, shall be in the hands of the Members of the
League of Nations at least one month before the annual session of the
Assembly.
Article 4. Upon the adoption of the budget by the Assembly, with
or without amendment, the budget shall be operative up to the limit of
each appropriation for the purposes and services, and for the period
specified therein.
Article 5. Supplementary estimates, which may become necessary
from any cause, shall be submitted with explanations and lists, as pro-
vided for in Article 2, at the earliest practicable moment to the Assembly,
which during the session then current, shall consider and approve the
same, subject to such amendment and alteration as it deems proper.
Article 6. Expenditure can only be incurred by virtue of a warrant
signed by the Secretary-General or one of his deputies, duly authorized
thereto. This warrant shall mention the fiscal period and the appropria-
tion to which the expenditure is charged. Unforeseen expenditure can
only be incurred under the last item of the second Chapter (item 27)
if it is authorized by a special resolution of the Council, which must be
immediately communicated to all the Members of the League of Nations.
During the year 1921, transfers from one item to another of the same
Chapter can be effected by virtue of a special resolution of the Council,
which must be immediately communicated to all the Members of the League
of Nations. This action is not to be taken as establishing a precedent.
Article 7. Except as regards recoverable advances, expenditure which
has not been provided for in the general budget can not be paid from the
special working capital fund.
Article 8. At the beginning of each year, the Council shall engage the
services of the auditors of a Government chosen by it from the Members
of the League.
Article 9. The Secretary-General, or in the case of the Labor Or-
ganization, the Director of the International Labor Oflfice, shall, at the
latest three months after the close of the budgetary period, submit to the
auditors all documents necessary for their reports.
Article 10. Three months at least before the annual session of the
Assembly, the auditors shall present to the Council, or in the case of the
Labor Organization to the Governing Body, a report on the correctness
of the accounts and of the bookkeeping. These reports shall be circulated
to all the Members of the League.
Article 11. The Director of the International Labor Office shall trans-
mit the audited statement of his accounts, together v;ith a copy of the
126 LEAGUE OF NATIONS
auditors' report, to the Secretary-General of the League (Art. 399 of the
Versailles treaty), who will submit this, together with the accounts of the
Secretariat, to the Assembly.
Article 12. The Assembly shall finally pass the accounts for expendi-
ture and income.
Article 13. a. While the existing allocation must from a juridical
point of view be observed for the year 1921, the Assembly recommends
to the Council the immediate appointment of a special committee of five
members, including the Swiss delegate to the Universal Postal Union,
to investigate the question of the allocation of the expenditure of the
League, with a view to an equitable scheme of allocation being devised.
b. The committee shall at the earliest possible moment, and in any
case not later than March 31, 1921, report to the Council the scheme of
allocation which it recommends. The Secretary-General shall, as soon
as possible, transmit a copy thereof to each Member of the League.
c. The committee shall place itself in communication with the authori-
ties of the Universal Postal Union, in order to bring into force at the
earliest possible date the scheme of allocation which, with the approval
of the Council, it recommends.
d. If the scheme of allocation recommended by the committee is not
adopted by the Universal Postal Union prior to the 1st July next, or if
any of the Members of the League express disagreement with it, the
question of the allocation of expenditure shall be placed on the agenda
of the Assembly of 1921.
e. The allocation for 1922 shall be so arranged by the Assembly of
1921 that Members, who shall have contributed in 1921 more than they
would have done if the new scheme had been in force, will in 1922, pay a
corresponding amount less than their quota, and vice versa,
RECOMMENDATION 3
The Assembly of the League of Nations requests the Council
to take the necessary steps to appoint, as soon as possible, a small
committee of experts to consider all factors connected with the
organization, methods of work, efficiency, number, salaries, and
allowances of the staff, and with the general expenditure of the
whole organization, as well as with all other points necessary to
enable the Assembly to form a fair judgment in respect thereto,
both as regards the Secretariat and the International Labor Office.
The report of this commission should be in possession of the
Members of the League by June 1, 1921.
INITIAL EXPENSES 127
Audited Account for the First Fiscal Period
(May 5, 1919— June 30, 1920; Doc. 20/31/81, p. 11)
expenditure
Direct: £ s. d.
To salaries, wages and allowances 90,978 2 9^
To traveling expenses 10,850 10 G}/^
Meetings of Council 388 9 10
To maintenance account in London 6,499 13 11^
To office expenses 3,822 16 10
To Official Gazette ; 104 14 6
To unforeseen expenses 522 0 11
Loan interest charges, bank charges, check books,
etc 286 3 0
To depreciation 219 9 2
Indirect:
To advances :
International Labor Office 60,305 19 2
International Financial Conference 1,244 14 5
Russian Commission of Investigation 602 2 11
International Health Conference expenses ........ 53 17 10
International Court of Justice expenses 59 9 9
Commission for the Repatriation of Prisoners of
War 868 18 6
To balance, being excess of income over expendi-
ture for the first fiscal period ended June 30,
1920 114,271 11 83^
£291,078 15 10
INCOME
By contribiUions received: £ £ s. d.
Class I (25)— Canada, France (£5,000),
Great Britain, India, Italy,
Japan, Poland, South
Africa 16,234 each 118,638 0 0
Class II (20)— Spain 12,988 " 12,988 0 0
Class III (15)— Belgium, Brazil 9,740 " 19,480 0 0
Class IV (10)— Denmark, Norway 6,494 " 12,988 0 0
Class V (5)— Chile, Peru 3,247 " 6,494 0 0
Class VI (3)— Bolivia, New Zealand, Siam,
Uruguay 1,948 " 7,792 0 0
Class VII (1)— Liberia 648 " 648 0 0
Total contributions received £179,028 0 0
128 LEAGUE OF NATIONS
By contributions receivable: £ s. d.
Class I (25)— Australia,France (£11,234) 16,234 each 27,468 0 0
Class III (15) — Netherlands, Rumania,
Sweden, Switzerland 9,740 " 38,960 0 0
Class IV (10) — Czecho-Slovakia, Portugal,
Serb-Croat-Slovene State . 6,494 " 19,482 0 0
Class V (5) — ^Argentine Republic, Co-
lombia, Greece 3,247 " 9,741 0 0
Class VI (3)— Cuba, Ecuador, Guate-
mala, Panama, Paraguay,
Persia, Salvador, Venezuela 1,948 " 15,584 0 0
Class VII (1)— Hedjaz 648 " 648 0 0
Total contributions receivable £111,883 0 0
To bank interest to date 167 15 10
£291,078 15 10
Budget for the Second Fiscal Period
(AprU 11— December 31, 1920; Doc. 20/48/83)
expenditure
I. Direct: Gold francs
1. Salaries, wages and allowances 1,600,000
2. Traveling expenses of League officials :
a. Ordinary 80,000
b. Attendance at Council meetings 160,000—240,000
3. Expenses of Council sessions 15,000
4. Meeting of Assembly 500,000
5. Property Account:
a. Installation at permanent seat (nonrecurring) 100,000
b. Maintenance at temporary seat 150,000
c. Furniture and fittings 200,000
iThe Council of the League decided at the Rome meeting on May 19, 1920, that
"the first or preliminary period of the work of the Secretariat should be regarded as
having ended on March 31, 1920." Thereafter it was determined to make the
fiscal year of the League of Nations coincide with the calendar year, as this is the
practice followed by the majority of the Members. Consequently the budget for
the second fiscal period covers the period from April 1 to December 31, 1920.
Owing to the delays in the coming into force of the treaty of Versailles, less
money was spent up to March 31 than was anticipated when the first budget was
prepared, and it was decided to add to the budget for the organization period an
estimate covering the first three months of the second period. The expenses of
these three months were incorporated in the second budget, and this procedure
will enable the League to carry forward a certain sum of money from year to
year. This was believed to be very necessary, as states are often not in a position,
owing to unavoidable delays in passing a vote of credit through Parliament, to
make their contribution immediately when the request is received.
COST OF ACTIVITIES 1189
Gold francs
6. Branch office, Paris 50.000
7. Removal to permanent seat 50,000
8. Office expenses, printing, stationery and small stores. . . . 100,000
9. Library account, books, periodicals, etc 70,000
10. Official Gazette: Publication and distribution 30,000
11. Interest charges 10,000
12. Unforeseen expenses of the Secretariat 100,000
Total direct expenditure 3,275,000
II. Indiredy Under Control:
1. Administrative commissions and minorities questions
(advances reimbursable) 200,000
2. Commission of inquiry to Russia 5,000
3. General Conference on Freedom of Communications and
Transit: Preliminary action 80,000
4. International bureaus and commissions (Art. 24) 80,000
5. International Financial Conference and subsequent action 575,000
6. International Statistical Commission: Preliminary action. 100,000
7. Permanent Advisory Commission for Military, Naval and
Air questions: Secretariat and meetings of commission. 100,000
8. General bureau for the regulation of the arms traffic 25,000
9. Permanent Court of International Justice: Hague advisory
committee and subsequent action 150,000
10. Permanent International Health Organization: Executive
committee and secretariat 40,000
11. Permanent Mandates Commission: Secretariat, cost of
meetings of commission 50,000
12. Repatriation of prisoners of war : Expenses of Dr. Nansen,
etc 75,000
1 3 . Campaign against typhus in Poland : Organization expenses
(reimbursable) 20,000
14. Unforeseen expenses 250,000
Total indirect expenditure 1,750,000
HI. International Labor Office:
Total of advances to be made by Secretariat to International
Labor Office 3,250,000
IV. Working Capital:
Amount required for reserve 1,725,000
Total budget 10,000,000
130 LEAGUE OF NATIONS
INCOME RECEIVABLE
(478 units of 20,920 gold francs each, or 9,999,760 gold francs)
Gold francs
Class I (25) — ^British Empire, Canada, Australia, South
Africa, British India, China, France, Italy,
Japan and Poland 523,000 each
Class n (20)— Spain 418,400
Class III (15) — Belgium, Brazil, Czecho-Slovakia, Nether-
lands, Rumania, Sweden and Switzerland . . 313,800
Class IV (10) — Denmark, Norway, Portugal, Serb-Croat-
Slovene State 209,200
Class V (5) — ^Argentine Republic, Chile, Colombia,
Greece, Peru 104,600
Class VI (3) — ^Bolivia, Cuba, Guatemala, Haiti, New
Zealand, Panama, Paraguay, Persia, Salva-
dor, Siam, Uruguay, Venezuela. 62,760
ClassVn (1)— Liberia and Hedjaz 20,920 "
Third Budget
(Annex to Assembly report; Assembly Document 213)
I. Direct expenditure of the Secretariat:
Gold francs
1. Salaries, wages and allowances:
a. Secretariat 4,200,000
b. Household staff 200,000
2. Traveling expenses of oflficials of the League 150,000
3. Meeting of Assembly at Geneva 750,000
4. Property account :
a. Installation at permanent seat of League 25,000
b. Maintenance 219,420
c. Expenses of offices in London and Paris 100,000
5. Traveling and subsistence expenses of auditors 5,000
6. Further removal expenses (nonrecurring) 25,000
7. Publication department 100,000
8. Office expenses, printing, stationery, cablegrams, telegrams,
postage, etc 550,000
9. Official Journal : Publication and distribution 100,000
10. Interest charges 75,000
11. Unforeseen expenses of the Secretariat 55,580
12. Inquiry as to the organization of the Secretariat }/2 of 20,000 10,000
Total of Chapter 1 6,565,000
PROVIDES FOR HOUSING 131
II. Indirect expenditure under the control of the League of Nations:
Gold francs
IS. Administrative commissions and minorities questions
(recoverable)
14. Freedom of Communications and Transit Organization:
General conference at Barcelona and subsequent ex-
penses arising therefrom 500,000
15. International bureaus and commissions 100,000
16. International Financial and Economic Organization 760,000
17. Permanent Advisory Commission for Military, Naval and
Air Questions 200,000
18. Central Bureau for the Regulation of Arms Traffic 50,000
19. Permanent Court of International Justice 650,000
20. Permanent International Health Organization 400,000
21. Permanent Mandates Commission: Cost of meetings of
commission 100,000
22. Repatriation of prisoners of war: Expenses of Dr. Nansen,
etc 150,000
23. Organization for the supervision of the opium traffic 50,000
24. International Blockade Commission 75,000
a. Armaments 100,000
b. International co-operation on traffic in women and
children 100,000
c. Commission of inquiry as to the situation in Armenia 50,000
25. Unforeseen expenses: Special commissions of inquiry, etc.
(subject to special vote of Council) 500,000
Total of Chapter II 3,785,000
ni. Capital Expenditure:
Swiss francs
26. Payment on account of balance of purchase
price of Hotel National, Geneva 1,332,000
27. Payments to maintain the options on adjoining
Properties^ 21,667
28. Furniture 500,000
29. Library mstallation 235,000
30. Printing office (if installed by League) 250,000
31. Additional installations of permanent character. 48,477
Total in Swiss Francs 2,387,144=2,000,000
^This amount to be deducted from price should it be decided to buy within S years.
132 LEAGUE OF NATIONS
IV. Balance: GoM francs
32. Balance required for special working capital fund.... 1,890,000
V. Labor Organization:
33. Estimated expenditure for 1921 according to budget
passed by International Labor Office (resolution of
October 7, 1920) 7,000,000
34. Expenses for inquiry (J 2 oi' 20,000) 10,000
Total gold francs 21,250,000
INCOME RECEIVABLE
[510 units of 41,6661 gold francs ($8,089.72) each, or 21,249,9961
gold francs ($4,100,262720).]
Gold francs Dollars
Class I (25) — South Africa, Australia, British
Empire, Canada, China, France, British
India, Italy, Japan, Poland 1,041,660 each 200,993.00
Class II (20)— Spam 833,334 " 160,794.40
Class III (15) — Belgium, Brazil, Netherlands,
Rumania, Sweden, Switzerland, Czecho-
slovakia 625,000 " 120,595.80
Class IV (10) — Denmark, Finland, Norway, Por-
tugal, Serb-Croat-Slovene State 416,666 " 80,397.20
Cla,ss V (5) — Argentine Republic, Austria, Bul-
garia, Chile, Colombia, Greece, Peru 208,333 " 40,198.60
Class VI (3) — ^Bolivia, Costa Rica, Cuba,
Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Luxem-
burg, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Panama,
Paraguay, Persia, Salvador, Siam, Uruguay,
Venezuela 125,000 " 24,119.16
Class VII (1)— Albania, Liberia 41,6661 *' 8,039.72
VIII. ADMISSION OF NEW STATES
The chairman of the Fifth Committee, Sefior Huneeus of Chile,
prefaced the Assembly's discussion of admission of new states
with a summary statement:
"In their work, the Committee was imbued with the spirit that
all further states which offered adequate guaranties and deter-
mination to observe international obligations should be admitted.
It is fundamental principles which enable the League to grow
and not to weaken, and this is the true spirit in which the Com-
mittee has worked and which it has applied to the application of
every state, whether ex-enemy state or otherwise. We have not
been arrested in our work by purely juridical conditions, but we
have taken the widest outlook in every possible way in each
consideration and decision we»have taken.
"W^e commend to the Assembly the admission of five states,
and in this connection, the Assembly will have to establish a
date from which these states are to be considered Members of
the League. I do not think it will be creating a precedent if we
proceed in this manner. We then refer* to a certain number of
states, the admission of which the Committee thinks the Assembly
should postpone, because certain of those states do not appear
to have reached their full maturity and full personality, and we
feel we can not admit them now. But on the other hand w^e
feel very strongly that we must not, by rejecting or postponing
them, discourage them in any way, and bring about perhaps a
discouragement of their ideals. Therefore the Committee suggest
imd recommend to the Assembly that it should express in some
form our sympathy with them.
"We have also taken into account the question of minorities
and their rights.
H "Let me say that in all our work we have been inspired by
IByie loftiest motives and by the greatest of ideals; further,
PHnat our debates have always been of the most cordial nature,
•and I may say that most of our resolutions were practically
carried unanimously. . . . Let me say in closing that all our
134 LEAGUE OF NATIONS
decisions have been inspired by principles of right and principles
of humanity."
M. Benes (Czecho-Slovakia) supplemented these remarks with
a detailed discussion of which the significant portion was that
devoted to ex-enemy states. In that connection, he said :
We investigated the matter to try and find a fundamental criterion
that might help us in this work, and we arrived at two fundamental
factors: (a) Had they complied with their obligations; and (b) had they
since the armistice shown any sincere desire to comply with them? It is
very difficult in this connection to have a really objective criterion. We
were able to verify that certain states had a really sincere intention of
complying with their obligations. In order not to multiply instances, or
make the discussion too lengthy, let me just take the example of Austria.
Czecho-Slovakia was interested in seeing in what measure Austria had
complied with her obligations. We were on the whole disposed to favor
her admission, and yet certain obligations, such as those inherent to the
rights of minorities, had not been fully honored.
In spite of this, we think that the admission carries with it, on the other
hand, a responsibility for the state which is admitted, and, further, that
the atmosphere of the League and of the Assembly and of the committees
will naturally weigh upon the shoulders of any state that is admitted.
This is a very important factor to be taken into account. There are also,
in our opinion, other reasons why ex-enemy states should be admitted,
reasons which are inherent to their positions and the relationships, es^
pecially their economic relationships, with neighboring countries. There
are, of course, certain risks in admitting a state, but we must look upon
the other side of the picture and see what the risks are, or would be, if the
state were not admitted, and we must weigh the arguments for and
against, and see in which direction the general interest lies. Having so
weighed these various points, we have decided to recommend the ad-
mission of certain ex-enemy states, and I would advise the Assembly to
adopt the report which is submitted to it by the Committee.
Sir Reginald Blankenberg (South Africa) reviewed the makeup
of his country*s population, and concluded: "We strongly feel,
however, that the League must not rest until every state is fully
represented in this body and we hope that the Assembly will
give the most sympathetic consideration to Germany and also
to other states who are capable of assuming membership when
they submit their applications to this Assembly."
Prince Zoka ed Dowleh (Persia) pleaded for the admission of
APPEALS TO PRECEDENT 135
additional states, especially Azerbaijan, which was part Persian,
and closed with this declaration :
I wish to declare in the name of my Delegation that I will vote for the
admission of the various states which have been recommended to us, and
I would vote for many others, and I wish that next year I could welcome
the representatives of all the states of the world.
Minorities in States Admitted
Before the actual balloting a motion (A. D. 204) first proposed
by Lord Robert Cecil at the 18th plenary meeting respecting
guaranties for minorities was considered. This motion had been
referred to the Fifth Committee, which had adopted a formula
(A. D. 233) . The author of the idea explained its purpose at the
25th plenary meeting:
As far back at any rate as 1878 at the Congress of Berlin it was laid
down that before any new state could be recognized by the comity of
naticms or the selection of them that was assembled at the Congress of
Berlin and before any existing state received any considerable accession of
territory, they were to enter into obligations to respect the linguistic,
religious and racial minorities in their states. I take a personal interest
in that proposition because it was laid down on the suggestion of the late
Lord Salisbury. It was supported by M. Waddington for France and by
M. de Launay for Italy and in fact by Prince Bismarck for Germany.
That principle was fully recognized at the recent Peace Conference.
Obligations to protect minorities were agreed upon with the following
states: Czecho-Slovakia, Serbia, Poland, Rumania, Greece, Armenia, and
also Austria and Bulgaria. It seemed to the Committee that it was
desirable not to make any break in that policy if it could be avoided and
although they were not prepared to impose any new condition of ad-
mission, thinking that that would be of doubtful legality under the
Covenant, and not advisable as a matter of policy, yet they were pre-
pared to express a recommendation to any state that applied for admis-
sion to this League that they should enter into the same kind of obliga-
tion as had been entered into by the states whose names I have just read
out. That was passed, not indeed absolutely unanimously, but by a very
large majority in the Fifth Committee.
The recommendation (A. D. 244/1) was carried without objec-
tion, as follows:
In the event of Albania, the Baltic and Caucasian states
186 LEAGUE OF NATIONS
being admitted to the League, the Assembly requests that they
should take the necessary measures to enforce the principles of
the minorities treaties, and that they should arrange with the
Council the details required to carry this object into effect.
New admissions of states occupied the full time of the Fifth
Committee, of which Senor Huneeus of Chile was chairman.
The committee began work with a general discussion of the
problem of admission, resulting in a decision upon the tests to
be applied and the division of work among subcommittees. The
following subcommittees were appointed:
Subcommittee No. 1. The requests for admission of Finland, Es-
thonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxemburg.
Chairman : M. Poullet. Members : Mr. Fisher, M. Max Huber, Baron
Hayashi, M. van Karnebeek, M. Octavio, M. Zahle.
Subcommittee No. 2. The requests for admission of Austria, Bulgaria,
Albania, Liechtenstein.
Chairman: Lord Robert Cecil. Members: M. Branting, Sir George
Foster, M. Osusky, M. Pagliani, M. Viviani, M. Winiarski.
Subcommittee No. 3. The requests for admission of Georgia, Ar-
menia, Azerbaijan, Ukraine, Costa Rica.
Chairman: Dr. Nansen. Members: M. Jonescu, Mr Millen, M.
Palacios, M. Politis, M. Spalaikovich, M. Tang-Tsai-Fu.
The following were the questions in respect of each applicant
which the subcommittees must investigate :
(a) Is its application for admission to the League in order?
(6) Is the Government applying for admission recognized de jure or
de facto and by which states?
(c) Is the applicant a nation with a stable government and settled
frontiers? What are its size and its population?
{d) Is it fully self-governing?
(e) What has been its conduct, including both acts and assurances,
with regard to (i) its international obligations; (ii) the prescriptions
of the League as to armaments?
ADMISSIONS GRANTED
a. Austria
At the second meeting of the committee, Lord Robert Cecil
(South Africa) read the report of subcommittee B dealing with
GOODWILL TOWAKD AUSTRIA 137
Austria. The application^ was in order, and the Austrian Govern-
ment was recognized de jure by the other Governments almost
without exception. It was a stable government established
within well-defined frontiers. Austria had a free system of
government; she had expressed her desire to observe her inter-
national obligations, and declared that she had given proof of
this by her conduct. The neighboring Governments did not
question her good faith. Her military forces had been reduced
below the limits laid down by the treaty of St. Germain. The
subcommittee had been informed of the motion put forward by
M. Motta, proposing that the Vorarlberg, in the event of Austria
being admitted to the League of Nations, should have the right
"to determine freely its own future if at any time the Austrian
state should undergo a fundamental transformation." The
subcommittee considered that the admission of Austria into
the League would not affect this question in any way. If the
opposite view were taken it would imply a false interpretation
of Article 10. It had to be remembered that Article 10 does not
guarantee the territorial integrity of any Member of the League;
it limits itself to condemning any foreign aggression upon the
territorial integrity, or political independence, of a Member of
the League, while making it incumbent upon the Council to
recommend means for resisting such aggression.
M. Spalaikovich (Serb-Croat-Slovene State) drew attention
to the widespread desire to see the abolition of the traces left by
the War, and of the universal mistrust which the War had caused.
In spite of the existence of feelings, the strength of which it was
necessary to realize, the time had come, as far as Austria was
concerned, to blot out the past. Even though her former Govern-
ment had been responsible for terrible misfortunes, her present
Government was doing all in its power to carry out the treaty.
The Serb-Croat-Slovene State, for its part, had endeavored to
assist the Austrian peoples, and looked forward to maintaining
neighborly relations with them in the future. He would vote in
favor of admission.
M. Benes (Czecho-Slovakia) . Czecho-Slovakia was the country
most concerned with the present situation of Austria in view of
^Assembly Document 20/48/53. Letter from the ministry of foreign affairs of
the Austrian Republic, November 9, 1920.
138 ' LEAGUE OF NATIONS
I
the strife which had separated the two countries in the past.
Having embarked upon a policy of reconstruction in Central
Europe, the Czecho-Slovak Government had endeavored to lend
economic and financial aid to Austria. A series of agreements
signed in the preceding year with the Chancellor Renner had
enabled them to send food and coal to Vienna, and partially to
revive her trade, and by means of a private understanding they
had forestalled the decisions of the Reparation Commission.
To-day no rivalry existed between Austria and the Czecho-
slovak State. Austria had not yet begun to fulfil her obligations
with regard to the treatment of minorities, but it was impossible
to ignore the existence of real material difficulties. Moreover, in
the interests of the minorities themselves, it was preferable that
Austria should enter the League of Nations, as this would provide
her with additional reason for respecting her engagements.
M. Benes added that he only mentioned this point for purposes
of information, and that he would vote for the admission of
Austria in the interests of the pacification and consolation of
Central Europe.
M. Zoka ed Dowleh (Persia) said the Persian Government asso-
ciated itself with the opinions which had been expressed. The
new Austria did not deserve to be treated as if she was responsible
for the former misdeeds of that country. The Persian repre-
sentative welcomed the mutual desire to extinguish old hatreds
as an earnest of the advent of perpetual peace.
M. Motta (Switzerland) explained his point of view with
regard to the Vorarlberg. He was quite satisfied with the declara-
tion contained in Lord Robert Cecil's report with regard to
Article 10. Switzerland wished to see the present Austrian
state maintained, but they must not lose sight of the disagree-
able possibility that its integrity might be endangered. The
Vorarlberg immediately after the war expressed its desire of
union with Switzerland in a plebiscite showing a majority of
80 per cent in favor of union. Switzerland had been touched by
this result, although, if the Swiss people had been consulted by
a referendum, it would undoubtedly have shown a majority against
admitting the Vorarlberg into the Confederation. He only
desired to insert a reservation with regard to the future of
the Vorarlberg in case Austria underwent some fundamental
TERRITORY NOT GUARANTEED 139
t ransformation. The interpretation given by Lord Robert Cecil to
Article 10 of the Covenant was suflficient to insure that its future
sliould not be prejudiced.
At the third meeting of the committee, Mr. Rowell (Canada)
observed that according to the terms of the treaty of Versailles
the Members of the League of Nations and of the International
Labor Organization must be the same and that at the Labor
Conference held last year at Washington/ Austria had been
admitted, on the understanding that this admission was merely
in anticipation of her admission to the League of Nations. Had
Austria, he asked, fulfilled the conditions necessary for admission
to the League of Nations? The subcommittee has replied in the
affirmative. In consequence of the latter's report and of the
decision taken at Washington, it appeared right to admit Austria
at once. Mr. Rowell emphasized the importance of the declara-
tion contained in the report with regard to Article 10 of the
Covenant, which had been £0 incorrectly interpreted in America.
It was clear that Article 10 did not guarantee the territorial
integrity of all the states Members of the League, but that
it merely promised them the assistance of the League in case
of external aggression in the manner provided for by the
Co^'enant.
M. Pagliano (Italy) said that the Italian Government felt
bound to point out that Austria had not entirely fulfilled the
military and aerial clauses of the treaty of St. Germain; never-
theless, the Italian Government considered that by her request
for admission to the League of Nations, Austria was making a
fresh promise to fulfil completely and promptly the engagements
which she had undertaken in consequence of the treaty; and also
that one of the clauses of this treaty, namely, that relating to
demobilization, which from a political point of view appeared to
iThe resolution of this conference of October 30, 1919, reads in part:
"The International Labor Conference, acting in full agreement with the decisions
of the Allied and Associated Powers,
"Resolves that in anticipation of their admission into the League of Nations
and in consideration of their clearly expressed desire to collaborate in the work
of the International Organization of Labor, Germany and Austria shall at once
be admitted as Members of the International Labor Organization, with the same
rights and obligations as those which arise for the other Members of this Organiza-
tion from the provisions of the treaties of peace signed at Versailles on June 28,
1919, and at St. Gcrmain-en-Laye on September 10, 1919."
140 LEAGUE OF NATIONS
be one of the most important, and which was at the same time
one of the fundamental conditions for admission into the League
of Nations, was now being completely carried out. For these
reasons the Italian Government felt sure that the Government
of the Austrian Republic would issue the necessary orders to the
authorities concerned, to insure that the clauses of the treaty of
St. Germain should be carried out in their entirety. The Italian
Delegation asked that the League of Nations would be good
enough to communicate to Austria these observations. Subject
to this reservation, the Italian Delegation declared itself willing
to vote in favor of the admission of Austria.
M. Jonescu (Rumania). The essential difference between
Austria of to-day and the ancient empire of the Hapsburgs was
that Austria was now separated from Hungary, which had been
the evil genius of the monarchy.
Mr. Millen (AustraUa) said the favorable testimony of the
neighbors and former enemies of Austria had convinced him;
but he would like to make one reservation; Germany appeared
inclined to put forward claims to the Pacific Islands, which should,
according to the treaty, be placed under an Australian mandate.
Australia, who did not wish to take the risk of having enemies
established at her door, would like to know what would be the
attitude of Austria toward this question once she was admitted
to the League. Subject to this reservation, Australia was entirely
favorable to the admission of Austria.
M. Winiarski (Poland) said that Poland would vote for the
admission of Austria and begged to point out that the reservations
which certain members had made were expressions of individual
opinion. M. Benes had complained of the failure to execute t»he
minorities treaty; in their opinion that treaty did not apply to
recent immigrants.
Before the motion was put, M. Benes (Czecho-Slovakia) asked
that the reservations made by Czecho-Slovakia, Italy and Aus-
tralia should be annexed to the text of the resolution or trans-
mitted to Austria by the Secretariat. The Chairman expressed
the view that, except where reservations were formulated as
motions, they would be sufficiently recorded by inclusion in the
minutes. M. Benes stated that he would be satisfied if an oppor-
tunity were given him of stating before the Assembly the reserva-
PREFERS GERMANY AS MEMBER 141
tion which he had made, so that public opinion in his country
should be informed.
The following resolution, proposed by Mr. Fisher (Great
Britain) and generally seconded, was unanimously adopted :
The committee, having received and noted the report of the sub-
committee on Austria's request for admission to the League of Nations,
refers this request to the Assembly, expressing itself at the same time
in favor of this admission.
This recommendation, with a full report (A. D. 174), was placed
before the Assembly at the 25th plenary meeting.
President Motta of the Swiss Republic in an eloquent speech
found that the interpretation of Article 1 had been broad-minded
and noted that the imminent admission of Austria did not prejudge
the question of Vorarlberg. He also said ;
We must be fearless; we must recognize that there are points which
have not been quite met in the Covenant. The fact that the United
States, Russia and Germany are not Members of the League is significant
in this respect, and I trust that in a few months* time some measures will
be found, some conciliations made and concessions arrived at, in order
that these nations, or rather, especially, that opulent and great democracy
the United States of America, should become a Member of our League.
... As for Germany, Germany asked at the Peace Conference to be
admitted, but the conference did not see its way to agree to this request.
I^t me say with all sincerity that if we understood the point of view that
was adopted we did not agree with it. To-day we limit ourselves to
expressing the hope that soon the moment may come when those most
important questions will be considered in all equity. The League must
be imiversal, and if it is not universal it will bear within itself the seed
of slow but sure disintegration.
In an impassioned reply, M. Viviani said :
Is it possible that the United States shall not join »;he League of Nations?
All will agree that the United States must eventually join the League of
Nations. We appeal to the United States. We appealed before, and the
United States came into the battle, and in their disinterested position raised
the standard of Right. . . . We will give the United States any explana-
tions which she may desire to enable her to come in. The United States
represented force in the cause of right, and all her history shows it. . . .
With regard to Germany, M. Motta spoke with great courage. As I
have said before, in the eyes of France the League of Nations must be
142 LEAGUE OF NATIONS
universal. But let us be strictly accurate. The position of the League of
Nations to Germany may be best defined by a legal parallel. We are
the defendants and Germany is the plaintiff. It is Germany's duty to
show that she is fit to come in, that she will comply w ith the terms of
Article 1. That is for her to prove. She must have a free Government.
She must be able to give guaranties of her sincere intentions of respectinf?
her international obligations. How wise was Article 1? It not only
demands sincere intentions — for who can prove those? It also demands
effective guaranties. Germany will enter the League when she has given
effective guaranties of her intentions.
The ballot resulted: 35 states voted; 35 states voted mje; 7
abstentions.
b. Bulgaria
The subcommittee's report on Bulgaria, read at the third meet-
ing of the committee, included the following observations :
Bulgaria's request is found to be in order. Her Government is recog-
nized de jure by all the Governments. She has a stable Government and
well-defined frontiers. Her near neighbors appear to entertain doubts
as to her willingness to abide by her international undertakings, but the
reprasentatives of Bulgaria insist on the complete change of policy
which has taken place in their country, the head of the Government,
M. Stamboluski, having been imprisoned throughout the war on account
of his opposition to the policy of King Ferdinand. Serbia complains of
the non-execution of the reparation clauses and also of the clauses refer-
ring to punishment for crimes. Rumania complains of cruelty to prisoners.
The Bulgarians reply that they have commenced to make reparations
and to punish the guilty. The subcommittee is of opinion that Bulgaria
is disposed to abide by her undertakings. Similar comments have been
made with regard to the military clauses, but from information received
from the Italian, French and English war ministers, and from the Con-
ference of Ambassadors, it appears that Bulgaria is making every effort
to execute the disarmament clauses loyally.
Mention should be made of the fact that according to the statement
made by the Representatives of Rumania and Jugo-Slavia, opinion in
these countries is unanimously against the admission of Bulgaria.
Recollections of the War should not cause us to deviate from the path
of strict justice, which imposes upon us a duty to act as though we were
judges intrusted with the task of administering the text of the Covenant.
Naturally, indignation against the acts of cruelty committed by the
Bulgarian armies or the treachery of their king should not alter our
OUGHT TO INCLUDE ALL 14S
judgment. The subcommittee is unanimously agreed upon the facta
which form the subject of this report.
Mr. Fisher said that the British Government had considered
with great care the application of Bulgaria, a state which had
fought against the Allies. As a result his Government was in-
clined to favor the application for the reasons given in the report.
He regretted the attitude taken by Serbia and Rumania, though
it did not surprise him. Regarding the matter impartially, they
must acknowledge the good faith of the new Bulgarian Govern-
ment. The admission of Bulgaria would be in the interests of
general peace. M. Zoka ed Dowleh (Persia) thought that Bulgaria,
having got a democratic Government and having given good
evidence of a change of heart, ought to be admitted to the League.
Baron Hayashi (Japan) said that he would vote for the admission
of Bulgaria.
M. Branting (Sweden) thought that Bulgaria fulfilled the
required conditions. He hoped that the League would open its
doors to a state which possessed the elements of peace and sta-
bility. Mr. Millen (Australia) regretted that he was again in
opposition to what would most likely be a majority of the com-
mittee, but he was unable to vote for admission. The evidence
collected by the subcommittee regarding the present attitude of
the Bulgarian Government was not sufficient to show that the
spirit of the people had changed.
At the fifth meeting of the committee, M. Spalaikovich (Serb-
Croat-Slovene State) observed that the League of Nations ought
to include all the nations of the world as soon as possible, and
that the subcommittee had been guided by this view in its exami-
nation of Bulgaria's application. He was anxious not to bring
up any accusations against the old Bulgaria, but asked the League
of Nations to see that Article 1 of the Covenant was strictly
carried out. He would have been glad to have taken the initiative
in proposing the admission of Bulgaria, and he would vote for her
admission as soon as he considered it possible; but the moment
had not yet arrived. Out of the four questions which the Com-
mittee had to answer only two, in his opinion, should be answered
in the affirmative. Bulgaria had a recognized Government, and
she also had clearly defined frontiers. He considered it pre-
144 LEAGUE OF NATIONS
mature to say that Bulgaria had shown that she had given proofs
of her sincere intention of fulfilling her international engagements.
With regard to this point, he was of opinion that the League
should not be satisfied with declarations or evidence of a personal
nature, but should appoint a committee of inquiry to carry out
complete and detailed investigations. He regretted that the
application for admission should have been received too late to
permit them to collect the data necessary for a serious examination
of the question. He, himself, was going to bring forward argu-
ments agamst admission, but he did not ask the Committee to
accept them on his word.
M. Spalaikovich urged his colleagues to be cautious. They
had not yet had time to satisfy themselves as to the intentions
and the good faith of Bulgaria, and the time for her admission
to the League of Nations had not yet arrived. On behalf of his
Government M. Spalaikovich asked the committee not to take
a decision which would prejudice Serbia both materially and
morally, and recommended that the Council of the League of
Nations should be instructed to carry out investigations on
the spot, at Sofia, and at the capitals of the neighboring states.
M. Politis (Greece), while paying homage to the impartiality
of the subcommittee's report, thought it his duty to point out
that it had been incorrectly informed. He therefore supported
the motion of M. Spalaikovich. He maintained that Bulgaria
had not given the guaranties provided for in Article 1 of the
Covenant.
Dr. Nansen (Norway) protested that it was unjust to bring
accusations without giving a hearing to the person against whom
they were brought. If those states which had ill-treated their
prisoners were to be excluded from the League of Nations, there
were at the present time certain Members of the League to
whom this act of exclusion would apply. The assertions made
by M. Politis regarding the 300 children were correct, but* these
children would be sent back to their native land before the winter.
The delay ought not to be imputed to any unwillingness on the
part of the Bulgarian Government, but to its lack of efficient
administration.
Dr. Nansen added that several accusations brought against
the Bulgarian Government appeared to him unconvincing.
I
FOR BULGARIAN ADMISSION 145
M. Stamboluskl had been accused of being opposed to the war
only because he was a Socialist, and not on account of his sym-
pathies with the Allies. In his opinion, it would be preferable
that M. Stamboluski should be opposed to war on principle.
If Bulgaria were to.be excluded for the reasons just put forward,
the result would be deplorable as regards the prestige of the
League. They should encourage Bulgaria to keep on in the
right path: by acting thus, the League would exert a good in-
fluence on that country.
M. Jonescu (Rumania) declared that not a single Member
of the League of Nations was animated by a spirit of hatred
toward the vanquished. It was for quite other reasons that
certain of his fellow-countrymen had asked that Bulgaria should
not be immediately admitted to the League.
Lord Robert Cecil (South Africa) desired formally to support
the admission of Bulgaria to the League. It had been proposed
that the question be postponed, and that a committee of inquiry
should be appointed to undertake fresh investigations. It would
be preferable to refuse admission quite frankly, and to allow
Bulgaria to re-submit her application. M. Politis reproached
them for not having requested the inter-Allied military authorities
to supply the information required; they had done so. The answer
of the Conference of Ambassadors was as follows: *'The Govern-
ment so far appears to have co-operated loyally with the com-
mittees."
It was not possible to form any opinion from the study of
details, but only by a general consideration of Bulgaria's intentions.
The subcommittee was convinced that Bulgaria intended to
carry out her international engagements. France was of the
same opinion, as also was Great Britain. If Bulgaria did not
carry out her engagements the League could always expel her.
It was an undoubted fact that the Balkans had been a hotbed
of turmoil in Europe for half a century, and he would ask the
committee to facilitate the process of pacification. He called
UfKDn neighboring countries to aid in this pacification, and to
make what was for them an undoubted sacrifice, by voting for
the admission of Bulgaria.
M. Viviani (France) said that a system of jurisprudence was
beginning to grow up with regard to the admission of states to
146 LEAGUE OF NATIONS
the League of Nations. The League was a new organism and
its rules had yet to be drawn up. A nation could not be admitted
regardless of its past history. It had been said that a state would
be less dangerous in the League than outside it; the adoption of
this point of view would create the following situation: at every
session there would be interminable discussions between plaintiffs
and defendants — to use legal language — instead of a united effort
to reorganize the world on a basis of justice, and to safeguard the
nations from the recurrence of the acts of violence of the past.
Has Bulgaria given effective guaranties of her sincere intention?
He admitted that on this point the situation was most confused.
Would it be possible to obtain accurate information during the
present session? The speaker hoped to be able to come to an
agreement with Lord Robert Cecil on this point: he did not ask
that the matter should be adjourned until September.
The Chairman said that the committee had two proposals
before it: First, the one presented by Lord Robert Cecil which
contemplated admission; the second, presented by MM. Spalaiko-
vich, Jonescu and Politis, read as follows:
The ccHBinittee, having considered the conflicting arguments which
have been presented to it regarding the fulfilment by Bulgaria of her
international obligations, feels that it ought to obtain more complete
information on this point by means of an inquiry which should be carried
out under the authority of the Council of the League of Nations.
The Chairman proposed to vote first on the motion of MM.
Spalaikovich, Jonescu and Politis.
The following motion, proposed by Lord Robert Cecil, was
finally adopted unanimously:
The decision on this point is adjourned in order to allow the sub-
committee to receive further evidence and to submit a report before the
end of the present sitting of the Assembly. ^
At the seventh meeting of the Committee a memorandum was
read stating that the subcommittee had received further informa-
tion from the Conference of Ambassadors and the Interallied
Military Council; ^ in the unanimous opinion of the subcommittee
this information in no way affected the conclusions previously
1 The documents are published in Assembly Document 205.
PR0P06BB ADMISSION 147
arrived at by the subcommittee as regards the sincerity of Bul-
garia's intention to carry out her international obligations.
M. Politis (Greece) stated that he had agreed with his Serbian
and Rumanian colleagues in demanding a further inquiry as
regards the admission of Bulgaria; the three Delegates had de-
clared that they would abide by the decision of the Interallied
Military Council and the Conference of Ambassadors. On its
own responsibility the Interallied Military Council declared
that Bulgaria had shown no bad faith, that the cases of non-
execution were due to force majeure such as the difficulties of
communication, etc. Moreover from the Council's reply, they
had learned what they did not previously know, namely, that
the period of three months laid down by Article 65 of the treaty
of Neuilly had been extended for another period of three months.
Further, the Allied Council had declared "that it was only right
to recognize that up to the present time and except for some purely
local attempts at fraud, the Bulgarian Government had afforded
every assistance to the investigations of the commissions of control."
Under these circumstances they were satisfied that they could
regard Article 1 of the Covenant as having been applied.
In these conditions they had the honor to propose the motion
to the Committee.
M. Viviani (France) recalled his suggestion that it might per-
haps be preferable to wait a little and to adjourn the question
for ten months, which, after a war of five years, would seem but
a small matter; but they must keep their word. He was only
speaking in order to explain his vote. He was obliged to refrain
from voting. The documents which had been produced did not
seem to him of such a nature as to remove his doubts.
No other members of the Committee wishing to speak, the
motion of M. Politis was unanimously adopted by all the dele-
gations present, with the except on of the French delegation,
who abstained.
The Greek motion came before the Assembly as the recom-
mendation of the Committee at the 27th plenary meeting in the
following form :
The Committee after a very full inquiry as to the execution of
the treaty of Neuilly by Bulgaria is of opinion that she has given
effective guaranties of her sincere intention of observing her
148 LEAGUE OP NATIONS
international engagements. Being in addition of opinion that
these guaranties can but become more binding by the admission
of Bulgaria into the League of Nations, the Committee expresses
itself in favor of this admission.
The ballot resulted: 35 states voted; 35 states voted aye;
0 states voted no; 7 abstentions.
M. Viviani (France) abstained, being "not sufficiently en-
lightened on the matter." M. Jonescu (Rumania), had he been
present, would have voted aye.
c. Costa Rica
Dr. Nansen (Norway) read his report upon the application sub-
mitted by the Republic of Costa Rica at the fourth meeting of the
committee. The committee reported in favor of admission. Lord
Robert Cecil (South Africa) recommended that Costa Rica should be
admitted under the conditions which had been stipulated in the case
of the admission of the Austrian Republic. He was supported by
the Delegates of Great Britain, Brazil, Nicaragua, and Norway.
The proposal was unanimously adopted.
During the 27th plenary meeting of the Assembly Dr. Restrepo
(Colombia) explained why the applicant country, which was a
belligerent, had not signed the treaty of Versailles. He said :
Costa Rica was then governed by Senor Alfredo Gonzalez, an eminent
statesman, who named General Tinoco chief of police. General Tinoco
took advantage of this position to effect a coup d'etat — ^a thing common in
other comitries and other contiaents also. Li that way Costa Rica be-
came the victim of this coup d'etat^ and the United States of America,
mider the influence of President Wilson, ruled that they would not
recognize de facto any revolutionary Government in South America. The
consequence was that Costa Rica found itself with no international status
and therefore could not ask to be admitted to the League of Nations.
General Tinoco, upon this, in a true patriotic spirit, withdrew and recom-
mended general elections and the setting up of a proper constitutional
Government. We should, therefore, admire this country, which has,
after a revolutionary condition of affairs, returned to a proper and well-
governed order, and has complied and does comply with the requirements
laid down for admission to the League of Nations.
. The ballot resulted: 38 states voted; 38 states voted aye;
0 states voted no; 4 abstentions.
I
ACCEPra MINORITY RIOHTS 149
d. Finland
M. Octavio (Brazil), rapporteur of the first subcommittee, read
the conclusions of its report to the sixth meeting of the com-
mittee. Finland presented all the characteristics of an inde-
pendent state with a free government and with historic frontiers
confirmed by recent treaties with its neighbors. She fulfilled,
therefore, the general conditions for admission. Finally, he sub-
mitted a proposal favoring the admission of Finland.
Mr. Fisher submitted the following resolution:
The committee having taken cognizance of the report of the sub-
committee as to the admission of Finland, recommends to the Assembly
the admission of this country to the League of Nations, without preju-
dice to the decision which the Council may take concerning the question
of the Aaland Islands.
Dr. Nansen (Norway) supported this resolution, which was
unanimously adopted.
M. Poullet (Belgium) as rapporteur at the 26th plenary meet-
ing made a short statement in requesting hearty support for Fin-
land's admission. His important point was the recommendation
adopted by the Assembly with regard to the guaranties of the
rights of minorities. "Finland accepts this and agrees to give
these guaranties, and she has put it on record in a letter which
the Finnish Delegation has addressed to Lord Robert Cecil. The
important passage of that letter reads: *In requesting to be ad-
mitted as a Member of the League of Nations, Finland desires to
collaborate effectively and most sincerely in the realization of the
lofty objects that the League has in view, and therefore in regard
to the principles which are generally recognized by the League
for the protection of minorities.* "
The ballot resulted: 39 states voted; 39 states voted aye; 0
states voted no.
e, Luxemburg
Senhor Octavio (Brazil) read the report on Luxemburg at the
sixth meeting of the committee. He found that the request for
admission was in order and concluded by making certain observa-
tions in favor of the admission of Luxemburg.
Mr. Fisher (Great Britain) asked whether the small size of
I
150 LEAGUE OF NATIONS
Luxemburg did not raise an objection to the unconditional
admission of the Grand-Duchy. He proposed to postpone the
admission and to refer the consideration of this special case to
the Council. He concluded by moving that the question should
be referred to the next session of the Assembly, in order that in
the meantime the Council may be in a position to consider the
question whether a minimum should be laid down with regard
to the extent and population of states to be admitted to the
League of Nations, and to present a report to the Assembly.
MM. Poullet (Belgium), Van Karnebeek (Netherlands),
Politis (Greece), and Lord Robert Cecil (South Africa), opposed
the resolution brought forward by Mr. Fisher, and proposed to
recommend to the Assembly the admission of Luxemburg. They
pointed out that this state had played an important part with
regard to the equilibrium of Europe, that Luxemburg had partici-
pated on a footing of equality with the other states at the Peace
Conference at The Hague in 1907. The admission of Luxemburg
could not create a precedent which could affect any decision which
might be taken concerning area and minimum population as a
condition for admitting states.
Mr. Fisher having withdrawn his proposal, the Chairman, after
consultation with the committee, declared it to be unanimously
in favor of recommending to the Assembly the admission of
Luxemburg.
M. Poullet (Belgium) introduced the application of Luxem-
burg at the 26th plenary meeting of the Assembly. After referring
to its stability as a small state, he added {cf. A. D. 179) :
The original request made by Luxemburg contained a reservation con-
cerning her neutrality. This neutrality is of a twofold nature. It exists
by international law and by internal legislation. Internationally it was
recognized by the treaty of 1867. The treaty of Versailles altered the
dispositions of that condition, but Luxemburg still retained its neutrality
in virtue of its internal legislation. The case is different from that of
Swiss neutrality, because Swiss neutrality is an armed neutrality, and
one, therefore, which Switzerland is enabled to defend. In the case of
Luxemburg the condition is entirely different. There is no army, and
therefore Luxemburg would not be in a position to defend its neutrality.
However, Article 16 of the Covenant provides for the passage of troops
through territories if ordered by the League of Nations. This passage
POWERS AND ALBANIA 151
of troops Jthrough a neutral country is incompatible with the idea of
neutrality. Luxemburg, however, has agreed to this condition, and it
has accepted the obligations which fall on every Member of the League
under Article 16 of the Covenant. The original reservation has been
withdrawn in a letter which was addressed to the Committee, and, further,
the Luxemburg Delegation undertake to see that the internal legislation
will be altered to bring it into line with the requirements of the Covenant,
and in particular with the requirements of Article 20 of the Covenant.
The ballot resulted: 38^ states voted; 38^ states voted aye;
0 states voted no; 4^ abstentions.
/. Albania
At the sixth meeting of the committee, Lord Robert Cecil
read the report of the subcommittee on Albania's application for
admission. The international status of that country resulted
from the treaty of London in 1913, and from the decisions arrived
at by the conferences held in London and Florence in 1914.
Albania received recognition de jure at that time, but under the
Government of the Prince of Wied. This status appeared to
have been modified by the secret treaty of London in 1915, which
contained certain provisional agreements, by the terms of which
the sovereignty of Albania would have ceased to exist; but the
Italian Government had entirely renounced its claims on Albania,
and the future status of that country had not yet been deter-
mined by the powers. It appeared, therefore, that the Albanian
Government now in power had not been recognized de jure or
de facto by any of the powers. Lord Robert Cecil was in favor
of the admission of Albania.
M. Viviani (France) observed that the situation was a delicate
one. As the belligerent powers had not yet decided on the status
of Albania, the Assembly in coming to an immediate decision
would risk running counter to the will of the great powers. He
moved the following resolution :
That the committee after having examined the report of the sub-
committee should postpone the admission of Albania to the League of
Nations until such time as the international status of Albania should
^The figure 38 is given in the detailed vote as published in Journal 34 and A.D.
251. The President of the Assembly announced the vote as 39.
152 LEAGUE OF NATIONS
have been decided upon by an agreement replacing the agreements
drawn up in 1913 and 1914, which agreements have now lapsed.
M. Pagliano (Italy) agreed with the proposal submitted by
M. Vivian i, since it does not amount to a refusal of the request
and since it really sums up the matter in a suspension proposal.
He desired to make this publicly known, in order to contradict
affirmations that Italy is opposed to the admission of Albania.
On the contrary, as he had occasion to state before the sub-
committee, Italy wishes to pursue in this matter a clear line of
conduct with a very liberal program in conformity with ideas of
international justice. Italy considers that the admission of these
states will encourage the democratic development of their insti-
tutions, and assure a more thorough performance of their inter-
national engagements.
M. Tang-Tsai-Fu (China) would welcome the admission of
Albania to the League, but it did not seem possible to admit a
state not recognized de jurCy whose frontiers were not defined,
and whose territories were still occupied in parts by foreign
troops. M. Spalaikovich (Serbia) would gladly welcome the
development of Albania, but, as she was as yet only in the em-
bryonic stage, he would agree to the motion for postponement.
Lord Robert Cecil declared that M. Viviani's motion did not
appear to him to be acceptable in its present form. The Assembly
could not admit that its decision should be subordinated to those
of a group of powers.
Mr. Rowell explained the reasons which induced him to vote
in favor. The country possessed frontiers which had been fixed
by an international convention. Neither the secret treaty of
London nor the occupation of Albanian territory had been able
to deprive it of its position as an independent state.
Mr. Fisher recognized that they were confronted by a de facto
situation. Albania had not been recognized by the powers;
neither the committee nor the Assembly could anticipate the
decision of the powers in this matter.
M. Viviani^s motion was put to the vote and carried by 13
votes to 8.
Following this inconclusive vote. Lord Robert Cecil asked
M.Viviani if he would agree to the suppression of the last part of
ADMISSION PROPOSED 153
his motion, that the final decision should be referred to the great
powers. M. Viviani consented, on condition that the postpyone-
ment should be retained. He had mentioned the great powers to
put them in a position to take a speedy decision.
The Chairman endeavored to obtain unanimity, but was unable
to succeed. Lord Robert Cecil stated that he wished to reserve
liberty of action, in order to be able to raise the question in the
Assembly. He remarked that during the vote only 21 members
of the committee had been present.
The Chairman then read M. Viviani's motion in its definite
form:
The committee after having examined the report of the subcommittee
on Albania, is of opinion that the admission of this state should be post-
poned until the international status of Albania has been definitely fixed.
At the 28th plenary meeting of the Assembly, Lord Robert
Cecil, who had introduced a motion ^admitting Albania, spoke
as rapporteur. He said that a different view had prevailed in
the committee owing to misunderstanding. In substance he
argued :
Two difficulties were raised. There was, of course, the difficulty raised
by Article 10. That, however, was not much relied on, and for very
good reasons. In each of the cases we were considering yesterday there
were states, or territories rather, on the borders of the applicant state
who were not Members of the League and not amenable to the influence
of the League — Bolshevist Russia, Azerbaijan, and so on. But that,
of course, is not the case with Albania. Her neighbors are Serbia, whom
I am sure we can rely upon to carry out the wishes of the League, and
Greece, about whom the same may certainly be said. It was said that
Albania was not recognized. There are two kinds of recognition. When
you recognize the Government of a state for the first time, you do bring
it into the comity of nations, and thereafter that state exists, unless it is
extinguished by general consent or by conquest. The Governments
1 The Cecil motion (A. D. 196) was:
"After consideration of the report of Committee V as to the admission of Albania
to the League, the Assembly.
*'l. Declares that nationalities like those of Albania Rave a right to national
existence if they so desire it;
"2. Is of opinion that Albania is a state within the meaning of Article 1 of the
Covenant and has complied with the other conditions of that article;
"3. Decides to admit Albania as a Member of the League."
154 LEAGUE OF NATIONS
may or may not be recognized from time to time, but the state remains,
and that is the case even with some states here; they are recognized
as states though the Government of them does not happen to be recog-
nized as yet. Now I apply all that to Albania. Albania was fully con-
stituted by the six great powers in 1914 and recognized dejure by practi-
cally the whole of the civilized European states. That was the position
when the war broke out. In the course of the war Albania was occupied
by armies, not by hostile armies, for Albania was not, as far as I know,
a belligerent in the war, but she was occupied. I do not think there is
anyone here who will suggest that the occupation of the territory of a
state puts an end to that state unless she is also conquered, of which
there was no trace in the case of Albania, for she was not even a belliger-
ent. It would be a disastrous thing for the representatives of Belgium
and of Serbia present in this Assembly if we were to suggest that occupa-
tion by foreign armies put an end to the existence of a state. Various
transactions took place among the Allied Powers as to the settlement of
Europe, and it was suggested in the course of those transactions that
some new arrangement of Albania should be made. That was a mere
suggestion. It was never carried out, and I venture to submit with some
confidence to the Assembly that a suggestion made by a certain section
of powers can not juridically be admitted for a moment to upset a solemn
treaty entered into by a number of other powers besides those powers
themselves. If we gave any kind of countenance to such a doctrine we
should cut at the very foundations of international law.
Mr. Rowell (Canada) in supporting the motion dilated upon
the latter point referring to the so-called secret treaty of London.^
On this point he commented :
If the treaty of London had been executed, if Albania had been parti-
tioned, then Albania might cease to exist as a state, but as the treaty
was not executed, Albania continues to exist. . . . Since that time, it
is quite true, a proposal was made for the partitioning of Albania in order
to adjust difficulties between Italy and Jugo-Slavia. That was not
executed either. Therefore Albania continues in the condition which
she held so far as any effect of this treaty is concerned. I should, however,
add this one fact, that the Government of Italy has publicly and expressly
disclaimed all right to a protectorate over Albania, which was suggested
under the convention of London, and in a declaration made by the present
prime minister of Italy in the Chamber of Deputies at Rome, he declared
himself in favor of the independence of Albania.
iFor text see British Parliamentary Papers, Miscellaneous No. 7 (1920). Cmd. 671 .
JOINS CROSS AND CRESCENT' 155
H. A. L. Fisher (Great Britain), speaking as one of the majority
in the committee, stated: *'The British delegation has very
carefully reviewed the situation since the report of the committee
was presented to the Assembly, and we are now prepared to
accept the suggestion of Lord Robert Cecil, and to vote for the
admission of Albania."
Sir Saiyid Ali Imam (India), in support, made a significant
point:
Albania is a country in which the population is divided between the
two great religions of the world — Christianity and Mohammedanism.
Mohammedans are perhaps in a considerable majority there. It is one
of the happiest signs of the time that this petition of Albania to be
admitted into the League of Nations is supported by the Whole popula-
tion of the country, Mohammedans and Christians alike. ... I hope
and trust that this unique exhibition of the joining of the Cross and the
Crescent in this Assembly will receive every possible encouragement.
The inclusion of Albania in the Assembly will produce a great impression
in quarters where perhaps the League, in time to come, will require to
produce more and more impression in order to make it a world-league.
France, Italy and Rumania announced the intention of voting
for admission. The ballot resulted: 35 states voted; 35 states
voted aye; 0 states voted no; 7 abstentions.
Admission to Technical Organizations
"We now come," said the President to the 26th plenary meet-
ing of the Assembly, "to the group of states whose admission as
Members is not proposed, but who may be admitted to take
part in the technical organizations of the League. These states
are five in number: Armenia, Esthonia, Georgia, Latvia, and
Lithuania."
In the committee the proper disposition of these states had
resulted in a general discussion resulting in decisions applicable
to all of them as being formerly parts of the Russian Empire.
The requests for admission of the Baltic states, Lithuania,
Esthonia, and Latvia, were discussed at the sixth meeting of the
committee. M. Octavio read the report of the subcommittee.
Without wishing to anticipate a decision, the report concluded
by suggesting to the committee that it would be necessary to
156 LEAGUE OF NATIONS
arrive at a decision on the general question as to whether states
not recognized de jure by the Members of the League of Nations
can be admitted. M. Octavio added that he had endeavored in
formulating his conclusions not to malve any observation which
might discourage candidates, so as to leave the committee abso-
lutely free to form an opinion.
M. Benes (Czecho-Slovakia) drew attention to the fact that
the unstable elements in the situation of the states under con-
sideration resulted from the proximity of Soviet Russia. If it
were to admit these states at once the League of Natior^s would
run the risk of finding itself confronted with a very difficult
problem. Lord Robert Cecil proposed the following motion,
which would equally apply to the Baltic and Caucasian states:
In view of the fact that these states have on their borders territories
occupied by populations in a condition of disorder and not amenable to
the influence of the League, the Assembly declares that in the discharge
of the obligations of Members of the League under Article 10, regard must
be had to this circumstance. Subject to this declaration, the Assembly
admits Esthonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Georgia, and Armenia to the League.
M. Benes replied that the motion raised the legal question of
the conditional admission of states. Did the Covenant allow of
an admission of this nature? He made the following motion:
The Committee, without wishing to express final conclusions on the
admission or non-admission of the Baltic states in the present political
situation of Eastern Europe, suggests to the Assembly that those states
might be invited to take a part in certain technical organizations, so that
as soon as general political conditions will allow it, they may be formally
considered as Members pleno jure of the League of Nations.
Mr. Rowel! (Canada) shared the opposition expressed by
Messrs. Benes, Branting, and Van Karnebeek to conditional
admission. Mr. Fisher proposed a compromise. The representa-
tives of the Netherlands, Bolivia, and Cuba supported this proposal.
M. Huneeus, Chairman, proposed discussion of the following
motion by Mr. Fisher:
That the subcommittee which has reported on the Baltic states be
asked to consider the suggestions made by Lord Robert Cecil, Mr.
Rowell and Dr. Benes in the course of this discussion and to report to
the committee.
CO-OPERATION ADOPTED 157
After debate, the committee adopted Mr. Fisher's proposal,
modified in accordance with the vote already taken on M. Viviani's
proposal to add Georgia and Armenia to the countries which were
to form the subject of the report.
The supplementary report, read at the seventh meeting of the
committee, recommended that the Assembly should inform the
Governments of these countries:
a. That their requests for admission had received sympathetic con-
sideration, but that circumstances did not yet allow of any final decision
being taken.
b. That these states, while awaiting a further decision on the part of
the Assembly, shall be free to co-operate in the technical organizations
of the League of Nations, which deal with questions of general interest.
Lord Robert Cecil proposed the motion of conditional admis-
sion which he had made previously. M. Viviani (France) con-
sidered that the proposal had grave drawbacks. He doubted
if it would be possible to admit states to the League to -whom
it could not offer help in case of need. He did not consider
it admissible for a state to be able to say that it would waive
its right to benefit by this or that article of the Covenant. Now
it "was a question of Article 10; on another occasion it would be
another article.
The Chairman pointed out that the adoption of the sub-
committee's test would imply the rejection of Lord Robert
Cecil's motion. The vote was by roll call and the subcommittee's
draft was adopted by 17 votes to 5, with 3 abstentions. The
vote was understood to include Esthonia and Latvia.
M. Van Kamebeek (Netherlands) suggested that the following
paragraph should be added to the second paragraph of the resolu-
tioa of the subcommittee which in a revised form read :
The Committee proposes to the Assembly that the International Labor
Conference should be recommended to consider whether it would be
possible to admit these states, should they request it, to the International
Labor Organization.
The motion was adopted.
Lord Robert Cecil proposed that the following should be added
at the end of the committee's resolution: "And that they may
be authorized to assist at the meetini^s of the Assembly and to
158 LEAGUE OF NATIONS
speak therein if permission is granted to them.'* Dr. Nansfen
supported this proposal. MM. Branting and Fisher opposed it,
as it would create a dangerous precedent. A vote was taken and
the proposal was rejected by 9 votes to 6; 5 abstentions.
After the rejection of Armenia at the 26th plenary meeting of
the Assembly, the question came upon the proposal of the com-
mittee to admit that country into certain technical organizations
set up by the League. Mr. Barnes (Great Britain), as a member
of the committee that dealt with the technical organizations,
wanted to offer a protest. He said:
Nothing was said to that Committee about the admission of states to
the technical organizations. Further, in so far as Armenia is a self-
governing state and recognized, she can come into the conferences held
by signing the various conventions. Take, for instance, the health
convention. By signing that she can come into the conference. By
signing the other conventions she can also come into the other confer-
ences. I should like to know if they are bringing Armenia or other
states into the technical organizations in a fuller sense; if so, in what
sense, because we have heard a great deal about the expenses of the
technical organizations. Are you going to bring these small states in,
and thereby Add to the expenses, or is this question of the admission of
small states into the technical organizations a mere matter of dishonest
window-dressing? It presents itself to me merely in that light.
After a parliamentary discussion in which it appeared that
Mr. Barnes desired to prevent the question from coming to a
vote, he accepted a proposal of M. Viviani that the matter be
referred back to the committee, which was voted without
objection.
The following recommendation, newly reported from the
Fifth Committee to the 27th plenary meeting of the Assembly,
was brought to a vote and adopted without objection as regarded
Esthonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Georgia:
Pending a further decision of the Assembly, it is desirable
that Esthonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Georgia should, on pre-
senting a request to that effect, he treated on the same footing
as states Members of the League as regards their participation in
the work of the technical organizations of the League.
To the President's suggestion that this formula be applied to
ALBEADY A MEMBER? 159
Armenia, Lord Robert Cecil asserted it appeared to offer that
country only "a puff of smoke" in place of bread.
a. Armenia
Dr. Nansen read the report regarding the request for admission
submitted by Armenia at the fourth meeting of the Fifth Com-
mittee.
The Armenian Republic of Erivan had been formed in March,
1918. There could be no doubt that its Government really did
represent the Armenian people, even if it could not be regarded
as a stable government. The report laid special stress on the
fact that the Armenian Government appeared genuinely desirous
of respecting its engagements, and that Armenia was a signatory
to the treaty of Sevres concluding peace with Turkey.
The subcommittee was unanimous in its sympathy for the
Armenian people, but pointed out that it could not give complete
answers to certain questions of fact which had been put to it.
Ren^ Viviani (France) proposed the admission of Armenia to
the League. M. Politis (Greece) thought that the Armenian
Government might be regarded as stable, and that its international
loyalty was beyond question. Lord Robert Cecil would vote for
the admission of Armenia. All Members of the League had not
been hitherto formally pledged to furnish support to Armenia;
the admission of Armenia would entail for them all the obligation
of co-operating in the defense of that country against external
aggression.
At the eighth meeting of the Committee, a resolution postponing
the admission of the country was adopted, 9 to 2.
Dr. Nansen, in bringing forward the report (A. D. 209) on the
admission of Armenia at the 26th plenary meeting of the Assembly,
defined the current situation of that country :
It is now in a very diflScult situation. A great part of the country is
taken by her enemies, and the Government can not be called quite a
stable one. The frontiers have not yet been determined. Armenia is
one of the signatory powers to the treaty of Sevres, and if that treaty is
ratified it is a question whether she is not a Member of the League from
that moment. There is also another question, namely, whether at this
moment it was to the benefit of Armenia actually to become a Member,
160 LEAGUE OF NATIONS
because that would exclude the possibility of finding a mandatory power
for Armenia. We can not find a mandatory power for a Member of the
League.
The ballot resulted: 29 states voted; 8 states voted aye; 21
states voted no; 13 abstentions; 20 quorum of two-thirds.
States which voted aye: Canada, Peru, Portugal, Rumania,
Salvador, Switzerland, Uruguay, Venezuela.
States which voted no: Australia, Bolivia, Brazil, British Em-
pire, Chile, Colombia, Cuba, Czecho-Slovakia, Denmark, Greece,
India, Italy, Japan, Liberia, Netherlands,. New Zealand, Norway,
Panama, Paraguay, Serb-Croat-Slovene State, Sweden.
Mr. Rowell (Canada), after consultation with members of the
committee and after submitting the matter to the Chairmen of
the committee and the subcommittee, had moved before the
vote that the following be added to the resolution :
The Assembly earnestly hopes that the efforts of the President
of the United States, energetically supported by the Governments
of Spain and Brazil and by the Council of the League, will result
in the preservation of the Armenian race, and in securing for
Armenia a stable Government, exercising authority throughout
the whole of the Armenian state as the boundaries thereof may be
finally settled under the treaty of Sevres, so that the Assembly
may be able to admit Armenia into full membership in the League
at its next meeting.
A motion to refer this back to the committee was opposed by
the Assembly, which then carried the proposal, nem. con.
b. Baltic States: Esihonia, Latvia^ Lithuania
The debate on the requests of the Baltic states, Esthonia, Latvia,
and Lithuania, "began in the Assembly at the 27th plenary meeting.
After a preliminary development of the facts by the rapporteur,
M. Octavio (Brazil), M. Restrepo (Colombia) began a speech
which outran his 10 minutes and which was completed in 22
minutes during the discussion on Latvia. He opposed the com-
mittee view, and moved that the Baltic states be admitted without
delay. He said in part:
There is no difference between a small and a great state. The only
difference we must bear in mind is good reasons and bad reasons. We
RECOGNITION DISCUSSED 161
must recognize tliat the states in question do comply with the conditions
laid down in the Covenant. Since the Committee on its own shov.ing
admits that these states comply with the conditions of the Covenant
and comply with their international obligations, I ask. Why are they
rejected? Another condition has been added to the admission of states,
and that is the condition of circumstance. I submit that this constitutes
an amendment to the Covenant. What is the circumstance? It is the
Bolshevik condition of Russia, which has recognized this state, but Bol-
shevik Russia is not itself recognized, and we are awaiting the recon-
stitution of that monster to consider the application of these states.
M. Chagas (Portugal) referred to recognition as a condition
for a state's admission, saying: "I would like to point out that
the question of de jure recognition being an essential condition
for admission to the League of Nations has been submitted to
jurists for consideration, and that their advice has not been
unanimous, but has fallen into two divisions: those who considered
that admission was equal to and automatically corresponded with
de jure recognition, and those who held the opposite view. It is
my opinion, in view of this result, that de jure recognition does
not constitute an essential condition of admission." He moved:
Whereas the de jure recognition of a state is an act by which individual
relations are established between the recognizing state and the recognized
state; and whereas such relations have to be defined by traditional in-
ternational law and are not necessarily quite the same as collective re-
lations arising from membership of the League of Nations,
The Assembly decides to give a favorable answer to the application
for admission of the Republic of Esthonia, subject to the reservation
contained in the present resolution.
M. PouUet for the committee opposed the motion. '*De jure
recognition," he said, "implies diplomatic relations; but ad-
mission into the League of Nations is a more serious matter than
simply the suspension of diplomatic relations or the fact that
diplomatic relations have not begun. The prestige of admission
into the League of Nations is most important. Admission im-
plies duties and responsibilities. It is quite comprehensible that
new states would highly prize the honor of admission into the
League of Nations; but we must not forget the responsibility of
keeping the obligations of the Covenant, particularly Article 10,
where we guarantee the territorial integrity of other members of
162 LEAGUE OF NATIONS
the League. Therefore it is not advisable in my opinion to adopt
the proposal,"
The Rumanian and Polish delegates explained the reasons for
their intended votes, as did the Swedish representative, who com-
mented .
Esthonia, Latvia, and Lithuania are stretching out their hands to the
free peoples of Europe, and all of us know that after long discussion it was
agreed, according to the terms of Article 10, that a new state shall have
the same rights as all of us and shall have the same right to be defended
by all of us against any aggression. At this moment these states are not
recognized by all the great powers. The situation is confused and obscure
and there is a risk, a very grave risk, for us who keep our engagements in
taking on new engagements at this moment, especially with regard to
those states which are exposed, particularly by their geographical situa-
tion, to attack by a power whose future intentions none of us knows.
Prince Zoka ed Dowleh (Persia) pleaded for the admission of
the Baltic states.
The ballot on Esthonia resulted: 32 states voted; 5 states voted
aye; 27 states voted no; 10 abstentions; 22 quorum of two-thirds.
The ballot on Latvia resulted: 29 states voted; 5 states voted
aye; 24 states voted no; 13 abstentions; 20 quorum of two-thirds.
The ballot on Lithuania resulted: 29 states voted; 5 states voted
aye; 23 states voted no; 14 abstentions; 20 quorum of two-thirds.
c. Georgia
The application of Georgia was first discussed at the fifth meet-
ing of the committee. Dr. Nansen read the report. The Govern-
ment was stable. The frontier could not be regarded as finally
determined though certain agreements had been made between
Armenia and Georgia. The Government had been recognized
de facto by France, England, and Italy, and de jure by the Argen-
tine Republic, the Russian Soviet Government, and Germany.
Georgia was an ancient state which had only been incorporated
in the Russian Empire last century and the recognition of Georgia
would be of great assistance to Armenia.
Mr. Fisher (Great Britain) asked for an adjournment in order
that the case of Georgia might be considered together with that
of the other states which formed part of the ancient Russian
Empire and was supported by the delegates of Persia, France,
TREAT LEAGUE SERIOUSLY 163
and the Netherlands. The subcommittee subsequently reported
in favor of the postponement of the question. A motion by Dr.
Nansen at the eighth meeting of the committee that Georgia
should be admitted despite the conclusions just reached resulted
in the committee upholding the subcommittee's report, 9 to 6,
with 4 abstentions.
Dr. Nansen at the 27th plenary meeting of the Assembly for
the third time moved that Georgia be admitted. Lord Robert
Cecil said in support of Dr. Nansen :
The only solid difficulty in our way is that presented by Article 10.
That is an important difficulty, but I do not think we must press it too far.
It is said to those who support the admission of any state: "Would you
be prepared to march to its assistance?" Well, if that test is to be applied
I do not know that South Africa would be prepared to send a force to
protect Bulgaria or to protect Austria or to protect Luxemburg or to
protect Costa Rica, yet we have admitted those states. The truth is that
these obligations, like all obligations, must be construed reasonably. We
undertake to preserve the territorial integrity of these states, but the
obligation to do so is qualified by what follows, namely, that in case of
danger it is for the Council to decide, or rather to advise, what is a reason-
able means of carrying out our obligations. Therefore, it really comes
back to this: What is the practical risk, what is the practical extent of the
obligation that we undertake in each case? Apply that to Georgia. The
obligation is not a heavy one. She is not threatened seriously by any of
her neighbors, considering her strength. There is no reason to suppose
that she will be subject to grave danger from attack.
Mr. Fisher (Great Britain) argued against both previous speakers:
Dr. Nansen advanced no claim on behalf of Georgia which is not sub-
stantially accurate in point of fact. But nothing that he has said and
nothing which Lord Robert Cecil has said invalidates the strength of the
argument which was put before the Assembly in the short and brilliant
speech of M. Viviani. We must either treat the League of Nations
seriously or not. If we treat the League seriously we must treat the
Covenant seriously, and if we treat the Covenant seriously, we must
treat our obligations under the tenth article of the Covenant seriously.
It is because I do treat the Covenant seriously that I earnestly ask the
Delegates in this Assembly to consider, when they are voting on the
admission of a new state, whether they are prepared to take the respon-
sibility of advising their respective Governments to come to the assistance
of that state in the hour of need. We must vote not as sentimentalists
but as responsible statesmen.
164 LEAGUE OF NATIONS
The ballot on Georgia resulted: 24 states voted; 10 states voted
aye: Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Italy, Norway, Paraguay, Persia,
Portugal, South Africa, Switzerland.
13 states voted no: Australia, British Empire, Canada, Cuba,
Czecho-Slovakia, Denmark, France, Greece, India, Netherlands,
New Zealand, Serb-Croat-Slovene State, Spain.
18 abstentions; 16 quorum of two-thirds.
Decision as to Very Small Countries
The committee took up the Principality of Liechtenstein at its
fourth meeting. The report began by pointing out that the
request for admission raised only one question. Its very small
area and population,^ and the fact that it would consequently
be impossible for it to fulfil all the international obligations which
it would incur under the provisions of the Covenant, made it,
perhaps, desirable that the solution proposed by M. Motta in the
subcommittee should be considered. M. Motta (Switzerland)
proposed the following resolution to the committee:
That the application of Liechtenstein can not be granted under present
circumstances. The Assembly, however, expresses the wish that the
special committee, appointed by the Council to consider proposals with
reference to amendments to the Covenant^ should also consider whether,
and in what manner, it would be possible to attach to the League of
Nations sovereign states which, by reason of their small size, could not be
admitted as ordinary Members.
Lord Robert Cecil, MM. Benes, Jean Hennessy, Dr. Nansen
and M. Politis supported this proposal. The committee adopted
it unanimously.
The ballot on admission at the 28th plenary meeting of the
Assembly resulted.
28 states voted; 1 state (Switzerland) voted aye, 27 states voted
no; 14 abstentions and absent; 20 quorum of two-thirds.
The Motta recommendation was immediately carried without
objection in this form:
The Assembly expresses the wish that the special committee appointed
by the Council of the League of Nations to consider proposals with ref-
erence to amendments to the Covenant should also consider whether, and
^The area is 157 square kilometers, and the population numbers about 8,500.
STABIUTY NOT ATTAINED 1(55
in what manner, it would be possible to attach to the League of Nations
sovereign states which, by reason of their small size, could not be admitted
as ordinary Members.
This decision would appear to cover also the applications of the
Principality of Monaco, dated April 6, 1920 (A. D. 7); that of the
Republic of San Marino, dated April 23, 1919 (A. D. 27) ; and that
of the Government of Iceland, dated July 2, 1919 (A. D. 28).
Unfavorable Votes
a, Azerbaijan
Dr. Nansen read his report upon the request for admission
submitted by the Republic of Azerbaijan at the fourth meeting
of the committee.
The application was submitted by the Azerbaijan delegation
appointed by the Government which had been in power at Baku
until April last. It was difficult to form an opinion as to the
extent of territory over which the Government which had been
exiled from Baku still exercised authority. Another Govern-
ment was in power at Baku. The frontier disputes with Georgia
and Armenia made it impossible to ascertain with certainty
whether the boundaries of the state of Azerbaijan could be
considered as definitely established. This state obtained de facto
recognition from England, France and Italy in January, 1920.
In consequence, M. Nansen raised the question as to whether it
would be possible to admit to the League of Nations a state
which did not appear to fulfil all the conditions laid down in the
Covenant, in particular, those concerning stability and territorial
sovereignty, and which, further, had not been recognized de jure
by any Member of the League of Nations.
M. Benes (Czecho-Slovakia) moved that Azerbaijan be not
admitted under present conditions. Lord Robert Cecil supported
M. Benes' motion. The President announced that he had received
a telegram from the Azerbaijan delegation which gave details
of the Government's position, not of such a nature as to modify
the facts already known to the subcommittee. M. Benes' motion
was unanimously adopted by the committee in the following terms:
The committee, after having considered the report of the subcom-
mittee with regard to Azerbaijan's request for admission to the League
166 LEAGUE OF NATIONS
of Nations, reports unfavorably with regard to its admission and refers
the question back to the Assembly.
At the 28th plenary meeting of the Assembly the report (A. D.
175) that "the Azerbaijan does not appear to have a stable
government whose authority extends over the whole territory'*
was put to the vote on the question of admission without dis-
cussion. The ballot resulted:
29 states voted; 0 states voted aye; 29 states voted no; 13
abstentions and absent.
6. Ukraine
Dr. Nansen read his report on Ukrainia's request for admis-
sion at the fourth meeting of the committee.
The request for admission submitted by Petliura's Government
was found to be in proper form. This government was at present
in power in Volhynia; but another government is in existence in
the territory claimed by TJkrainia. The independence and the
frontiers of the state which had applied to the League of Nations
did not appear either stable or clearly defined; it had only been
recognized de facto by Poland, Finland and Latvia. The sub-
committee was of opinion that the government in question could
not be considered as stable and capable of furnishing the guaran-
ties demanded by the Covenant, and could not, therefore, recom-
mend the admission of the Ukraine to the League.
Mr. Fisher (Great Britain) and M. Politis (Greece) moved
the adoption of an unfavorable motion in terms identical with
those adopted in the case of Azerbaijan, which was unanimously
adopted.
The question of nonadmission brought from the Ukrainian
representatives a dispatch (A. D. 234) arguing the stability of
the Petliura government. The Assembly voted upon the matter
at its 28th plenary meeting as follows:
24 states voted; 0 states voted aye; St4t states voted no; 18 ab-
stentions and absent.
IX. ECONOMIC WEAPON: ARTICLE 16
The discussion of the measures to be taken to insure the effec-
tive use of the economic blockade began at the fifth meeting of
the Sixth Committee. After the debate a subcommittee con-
sisting of Lord Robert Cecil, Messrs. Motta, Negulesco, Adels-
ward and Polich was appointed by a show of hands, Australia
dissenting, to report upon the questions which had arisen in the
course of the conversation.
Lord Robert Cecil opened the meeting with notes supplementary
to the memorandum of the Secretary-General.^ He said in part:
The Council has recommended the formation of an international
commission to determine in what way these forms of economic pressure
can be best exercised against an oflFending state, and for the considera-
tion of some departments of that pressure such a commission would be
useful. But more direct forms of pressure are quite simple and can be
applied directly. For instance, if a state is an island, or is surrounded
entirely by members of the League, it can be cut off from all intercourse
with the outside world simply by the Members of the League declaring a
blockade of it and issuing a decree of nonintercourse between their na-
tionals and those of the blockaded state. It is only where one of the
neighbors of the blockaded state is not a Member of the League that
any great complication arises, apart from questions of indirect financial
pressure, which are much more difficult. It seems, therefore, that there
is no reason why a very considerable amount of economic pressure could
not be applied by the League to almost any offending state, even as
things stand, without the creation of an international commission. All
that seems necessary is machinery by which the Members of the League
can be informed that an occasion for the exercise of economic pressure
has arisen, and that they are in consequence bound to take the necessary
measures for that purpose, and this machinery might be, as far as I can
see, of the simplest kind. . . . For this purpose it would not seem to be
necessary to do more than to have a special department or even a special
official of the Secretariat charged with the duty of watching for jhe occur-
rence of such an emergency, and to intrust him with the duty of immedi-
ately calling the attention of the Members of the Council to the fact that
it had arisen. The Council would then hold a meeting summoned with
ICf. Official Journal, 308-310.
168 LEAGUE OF NATIONS
the least possible delay, and if they were satisfied that the emergency
had arisen, they would be bound so to inform the Members of the League,
and call upon them to fulfil their obligations under Article 16. ... I
therefore venture to suggest that this committee should recommend,
first, the creation of the necessary machinery to ascertain when an occa-
sion for economic pressure has arisen, and to inform the Members of the
League that it has arisen, and to call upon them to exercise such pressure;
secondly, the immediate appointment of an international commission as
recommended by the Council.
He added that two other matters wobld have to be considered
by the proposed international commission :
1. The case of those countries which would incur grave danger
by enforcing a blockade, and the support to be given by Mem-
bers of the League to one another in financial and economic
measures to minimize the loss and inconvenience resulting from
such action.
2. The question of how far it would be possible to issue licenses
to certain powers allowing them to derogate from the duties
imposed upon them by the Covenant.
Status of Foreigners
M. Lange asked what measures were to be taken in the case
of nationals of the blockading state domiciled in the blockaded
territory, and in the case of nationals of the blockaded country
living within the territory of the blockading state? M. Motta
(Switzerland) said that Switzerland's proportion of foreigners
was higher than in any other country, while a very large number
of Swiss subjects live abroad. He hoped, therefore, that the sub-
ject would be very carefully considered. M. Fock (Holland)
insisted that every state should have the right to decide for itself
whether the facts were really such as to justify the Council in
instituting economic measures, and to refuse to take part in such
measures if they appeared to be unjustifiable. Mr. Fisher (Great
Britain) was in favor of the formation of the proposed international
commission on blockade, but expressed the hope that the British
Government would be allowed to nominate its own delegate.
M. Bourgeois (France) contested the formation of any organiza-
tion of a permanent nature, and maintained that such an organiza-
tion ought to be purely consultative, the sole power of enforcing
ICANT PBOBLEMS POSED 169
the provisions of Article 16 being left in the hands of the Council.
Lord Robert Cecil referred to the organization of a sea blockade,
and the question of what powers should be called upon to exer-
cise it. It would, for instance, be unbusinesslike to ask Australia
to send a ship to blockade a small European state. The sub-
committee should deal also with the question in regard to aliens.
A Member of the League was bound to prohibit intercourse be-
tween its nationals living abroad and the convenant-breaking
state, and the country in which they lived must be left to enforce
that prohibition. Nationals of the covenant-breaking state living
in their borders should be treated as alien enemies and put under
such restraint at least as would prevent them from sending assist-
ance to their conationals.
M. Schanzer opposed the creation of a permanent committee,
which had not been provided for by the Covenant. He thought
there was some danger in allowing each state to decide for itself
whether or not to carry out the blockade, when ordered by the
Council to do so. He also pointed out a discrepancy between the
Brussels report and that of the Secretary. The former proposed
a committee consisting of an equal number of members of the
Council and members of the Assembly; while the Secretary-
General proposed an international commission, to be instituted
by the Assembly.
M. Polich called attention to the following considerations,
which should be dealt with by the subcommittee: 1. What would
happen if the covenant-breaking state were a Member of the
Council, in view of the fact that unanimity among the Council is
necessary? Could paragraphs 6 and 7 of Article 15 be held to
justify the exclusion of the covenant-breaking state for the time
being from the Council? 2. If, after the exclusion of the cove-
nant-breaking state, the Council were still unable to achieve
unanimity, what measures could then be taken?
Lord Robert Cecil (South Africa) introduced the report at the
18th plenary meeting of the Assembly with some remarks which
follow in substance:
"Every Member of the Assembly knows the vital importance
in the Covenant of the economic weapon. It is quite true that
by far the most powerful weapon at the command of the League
of Nations is not the economic weapon or the military weapon
170 LEAGUE OF NATIONS
or any other weapon of material force. By far the strongest
weapon we have is the weapon of public opinion. I have not
myself the least doubt that the action of the League will depend
upon the efficacy of public opinion far more than upon any other
consideration. In the case of almost every nation the fact that
public opinion has declared itself against them would be con-
clusive; but just as in individual society you will find some in-
dividuals who are so determined on wrongdoing that the dis-
approval of their fellows will not restrain them, so maybe we shall
find as we go on nations of the same character. Therefore by
Article 16 it is provided that if a nation contrary to its covenants
insists upon going to war without giving proper opportunity for
consideration and discussion, then such a nation is to be deemed
to have committed an act of war against all the other nations of
the society, and in the first place they are to put in force against
that nation all the economic pressure that they are capable of
exercising. . . . Though you have got that solemnly enacted in
the Covenant no means, no machinery, is provided for carrying
it into execution. The Sixth Committee were of opinion that
some means should be provided. Their attention indeed was
called to it by a resolution of the Council, and the principle upon
which this report proceeds is a very simple one. Certain quite
simple machinery is provided in order to enforce the elementary
parts of the economic pressure, those actions and proceedings
upon which there is general agreement, such as the interruption
of intercourse between the Members of the League and the de-
linquent state. There are a number of other difficult questions
which will arise, questions which are referred to in this report,
and probably many other questions. Those must be the subject
of careful consideration. Nothing must be done which affects
after all the interests of the whole of the Members of the Society
without the most careful consideration."
M. Motta for Switzerland emphasized that "each state is free
to decide for itself whether it shall apply the blockade or not";
called attention to the provision of the report that it is the "resi-
dents," not the nationals, of the covenant-breaking state to
whom the rupture extends. Respecting the first point the rap-
porteur stated that a Member had the right to say for itself
"whether a breach of the covenant has taken place or not."
CALLS FOR COMMISSION 171
That being determined, its duty is clear. He said that the report
was confined to laying down for the present the principle that
the blockade should apply between state and state only.
Decisions Accepted
The report, after being amended by agreement in certain
particulars, was adopted without opposition. It is in the nature
of a resolution, which after referring to the consideration of the
subject by the Council and rejecting its proposal for a mixed
committee, recommended that:
The Council should be asked to appoint an International
Blockade Commission to consider the application of Article 16
of the Covenant; the committee will report to the Council, which
shall place the conclusions before the Assembly at its next session,
for their acceptance, rejection, or amendment, without prejudice
to any action that may have been provisionally taken upon them.
The committee should not exceed eight in number, with power
to summon experts to advise them, and not less than half its
members should be persons representing states which have not a
right to permanent membership of the Coimcil.
The report went on to say:
(2) It will be observed that in this recommendation the Inter-
national Blockade Commission are to consider what steps are
necessary to bring into full effect the provisions of Article 16.
But the subcommittee were also instructed to consider what
steps should be taken immediately to render as effective as pos-
sible the Economic Weapon of the League under Article 16.
The Committee are aware that under that article it is the duty
of every Member of the League in the case of any Member resort-
ing to war in disregard of its covenants under Articles 12, 13 or
15, to subject it to:
"The severance of all trade or financial relations, the prohibition
of all intercourse between their nationals and the nationals of the
covenant-breaking state, and the prevention of all financial,
commercial or personal intercourse between the nationals of the
covenant-breaking state and the nationals of any other state,
w hether a Member of the League or not."
That is a duty which now actually rests upon every Member
of the League, but there are two difficulties in the way of its
172 LEAGUE OF NATIONS
performance. In the first place, it may easily be uncertain
whether a state has resorted to war in breach of the Covenant,
and no machinery has been provided for ascertaining the facts.
In the second place, there are considerable difficulties which
were pointed out in the discussion before the Committee on a
previous occasion in carrying out to the full what may be, for
shortness, described as the blockading operations contemplated
by the article.
To obviate these difficulties we propose provisionally and
subject to review at the next Assembly on the report of the
International Blockade Commission:
o. It shall be the duty of the Secretary-General to call the
attention of the Council to any facts which in his opinion show
that a Member of the League has become a covenant-breaking
state within the meaning of Article 16.
b. Upon receiving such an intimation the Council shall, on
the request of any of its members, hold a meeting with the least
possible delay to consider it, and shall send a copy of the pro-
c6s-verbal of the meeting to all the other Members of the
League.
c. As soon as a Member of the League is satisfied, in conse-
quence of the communication of the proc^s-verbal of the Council,
that a breach of covenant within Article 16 has occurred, it is
its duty to take measures for the purpose of carrying out the
first paragraph of Article 16.
d. These measures should include the breaking-off of all
diplomatic relations.
e. The prevention of any commercial or other intercourse
between the residents within its borders and those residing in
the covenant-breaking state. For this purpose the necessary
legislation preventing intercourse between the residents of the
two states should be immediately passed, according to the consti-
tution of each Member of the League. Relations which exist for
purely humanitarian purposes may be maintained with the
covenant-breaking state.
/. Where the covenant-breaking state has a seaboard, it will
be necessary to institute an effective blockade thereof, and the
Council should forthwith consider which Members of the League
can most conveniently be asked to discharge this duty.
QUESTIONS TO BE STUDIED 173
The rest of the report as passed dealt with questions to be
studied by the commission.^
IThe text reads:
**3, Beyond this it is a matter for consideration what further steps ought to
be taken to carry out Article 16, and this should be referred to the International
Commission. For instance:
"a. It is very desirable that identity of action by all the Members of the League
against the covenant-breaker should be secured.
"6. Further, there are questions as to relaticms between nationals of the covenant-
breaking state and those of other Members of the League which require con*
sideration.
**c. It is also desirable to consider, in accordance with the propogals made by
Denmark, Norway and Sweden, what measures, if any, should be taken in the
case of Members of the League who, from smallness of their resources and their
geographical position, might be in serious danger if they carried out to the full
their obligations under the first paragraph of Article 16 against a powerful cove-
nant-breaking state. This is a matter which may have to be considered at any
moment from a practical point of view if the necessity for coercion of a covenant-
breaking state should arise. In that case the Council would have to take what-
ever measures it thought suitable for the emergency.
"But, both in this last case and in the others before alluded to, the questions
involved were thought by the subconunittee to be too complicated for them to
deal with, and they shoiild, therefore, be referred to the International Blockade
Commission, with other diflBcult questions, such as:
"rf. How the blockade can be enforced where a state not a Member of the
League is a neighbor of the covenant-breaking state, and
"e. What restrictive measures of a financial character can and ought to be
taken?
"4. a. With regard to the states not Members of the League who have been
invited under Article 16 to accept the obligations of membership, and have acceded
to that invitation, the observations and recommendations in this report apply to
them as if they were ordinary Members of the League.
"b. Where a state has been invited and has refused to accept the obligations
of membership, and has resorted to war against a Member of the League in dis-
regard of any procedure such as that provided for by Article 15, the Members of
the League must treat it in precisely the same way as if it were a covenant-break-
ing Member of the League within Article 16.
*'c. Where either party to a dispute is a Member of the League, and they
both refuse to accept the obligations of membership of the League for the pur-
poses of that dispute. Article 16 does not apply, and the Council are left tp take
such measures as they think right. But in this last case, if the measures recom-
mended by the Council should involve action by any other Member of the League,
it has a right to be summoned to the Council with the position of a full Member
for the consideration of the proposed meastu-es, and consequently none of them
affecting it can be adopted without its consent.
"5. Any proposal which the International Blockade Commission may recom-
mend, and which is of a nature to require amendment of the Covenant, will natur-
ally be referred to the committee that is to be set up for consideration of all amend-
ments to the Covenant."
X. ARMAMENTS*
a, TRAFFIC IN ARMS
Introducing the discussion on armaments at the 22nd plenary
meeting of the Assembly, M. Branting, chairman of the Sixth
Committee, reviewed its work: "We first held a public sitting,
at which the general outlines of disarmament were explained by
reports from two speakers, reports of different natures, one of
which insisted on the importance of realizing our position, and
the other insisting on the difficulties which lay before us in so
doing. We then held sittings in private, and a subcommittee
was nominated under Mr. Fisher as rapporteur. This subcom-
mittee set busily to work to discover a formula which might be
accepted by all, considering the difficulties, but showing a way to
the realization of our hopes. The subcommittee in due course re-
ported to the committee, and up to the last moment we have been
very busily engaged on questions of drafting, so that the report is
only just now ready to lay before you. I would point out that we
must set to work now at once, not only because militarism is in my
opinion barbarism, but because it is also more than ever necessary
to reconstruct the world at this moment, and this will be impossible
if we continue the present system of a peace under arms."
Mr. Fisher (Great Britain) read and discussed the report and
the resolutions in a lucid speech, in which he said;
The object of the report which I am about to present to you is to
assist in the fullest measure compatible with the circumstances of the
time the realization of the objects of Articles 8 and 9 of the Covenant.
The Committee is fully aware that there is no subject upon which it is
easier to arouse the passions and susceptibilities of nations, no subject
more delicate, no subject to which misplaced diplomacy is capable of
working so much injury, no subject with respect to which so many
diplomatic failures have to be recorded, as the subject of the limitation
or the reduction of armaments. The Committee has noted the fact
that Europe is still in a state of unstable equilibrium. Large areas are
still disturbed. Many powers, possessing great actual or potential mili-
ICf. Report on the Work of the Council, I, 6.
WHO EXPORTS ARMS 175
tary strength, still stand outside the orbit of the League, and it is neces-
sary that the military clauses of the treaties of peace should be executed
in full, and that there should be some adequate security for their observa-
tion before the continent of Europe will be restored to a full sense of
mutual trust between nation and nation. Nevertheless, it would be
the height of unreason to conclude that because everything which we
desire can not be obtained at once, therefore nothing is possible and
nothing should be attempted. The members of the Committee realize
that much has been already achieved. They realize that drastic measures
have already been taken, and are still being taken, to reduce the arma-
ments of central Europe. The Committee realize that the stem force
of economy itself is promoting reductions in many powerful states, but
nevertheless the report is written under the impression that the progress
of disarmament, though sure, though steady, must necessarily be gradual.
We can not hope to achieve the common object which every member of
the League has in view at this moment and with complete success.
Surpliis Weapons Are Problem
The Committee first directed its attention to the subject of the arms
traffic convention, which was concluded at St. Germain on September 10,
1919. The object of the convention was to limit the traffic in arms, and
more particularly to prevent the vast surplus of munitions of war which
had been accumulated in recent years from passing into the disturbed
regions of the world, and so creating fresh embarrassment and trouble.
It is to be remembered that as the result of the War, there has been a great
expansion in the machinery for the manufacture of arms and munitions, and
in consequence a special danger that the demand for armaments may be
stimulated by the enterprise of firms desirous of disposing of their surplus
stock to the best advantage. Your Committee was profoundly impressed
with the value of the arms traffic convention as a civilizing instrument.
Mr. Barnes (Great Britain) in discussing the resolution ex-
pressed satisfaction at the attitude of the committee and quoted
from the annex to the report * 'without comment except the ex-
pression of sincere regret'*: "The full execution of the convention
and the protocol has been hindered by the absence of the neces-
sary statutory authority over the control of exports of arms
in the United States of America, a country where arms are manu-
factured on a large scale.'* And he added:
That does not absolve other Governments from ratifying the con-
vention and giving full effect to it. It is at the same time a matter of
176 LEAGUE OF NATIONS
sincere regret that the United States Government and the United States
people are exporting arms to such an extent as to justify that reference.
After a general discussion on the report as a whole, the com-
mittee's resolution was carried by a vote covering other resolutions
in the form which follows :
1. The Committee, having received a report of Sir Cecil Hurst
on the convention for the control of the trade in arms and am-
munition, which was signed at Saint Germain on September 10,
1919, by the United States of America, Belgium, Bolivia, the
British Empire, China, Cuba, Ecuador, France, Greece, Guate-
mala, Haiti, Fiji, Italy, Japan and other powers, and being greatly
impressed by the value of this convention as an instrument of
civilization, and by the evils which would ensue from its non-
observance, are anxious that the signatory powers should pro-
ceed without delay to ratification and to the establishment of
the International Office of Control contemplated by the con-
vention.
2. The Committee notes that the signatory Governments
declared in a protocol that it was contrary to the intention of
the high contracting parties and to the spirit of this convention,
that, pending the coming into force of the convention, a con-
tracting party should adopt any measure which is contrary to its
provisions.
3. The Committee notes, however, that it has not been pos-
sible for the powers to give full effect to their protocol, and that
up to the present time, the convention of Saint Germain has
had no effect save upon the traffic in arms to the certain special
areas specified in the convention.
The Committee would therefore urge that the Assembly should
declare its high sense of the gain to civilization which would
ensue from a strict control of this traffic, and should invite the
Council to urge upon all Governments without delay, speedy
ratification of, or adhesion to the convention.
b. PRIVATE MANUFACTURE OF ARMS
Mr. Fisher's references to the private manufacture of arms in
his report to the 22nd plenary meeting of the Assembly were the
only comments on that question except a few words by Mr.
Barnes to the effect that the motion would give "a little stimulus
to the Council to get on with putting that declaration in the
CONDEMN PRIVATE MANUFACTURE 177
Covenant into operation so far as it is possible to do so.** Mr.
Fisher*s comments were:
Here we are clearly confronted with a problem of great difficulty.
Nobody doubts that there are special evils attaching to the private
manufacture of armaments. Nobody doubts, also, that the prohibition
of the private manufacture of armaments would create difficulties in those
states which at present obtain their supply of armaments by importation
from abroad. In the limited time at its disposal your Committee was
unable to explore this question to its foundation, and accordingly it has
decided to refer it to the consideration of the Permanent Military Com-
mission.
The resolution was passed, along with others, at the gSrd plen-
ary meeting, as follows :
Whereas the Covenant formally denounces the evil eflFects of the
private manufacture of munitions and of war material, the Committee
suggests that the Assembly should request the Council to invite the
Commission referred to in the following resolution to investigate without
delay this serious problem. They also suggest that attention be given
to the question as to whether the International Office of Control for the
Traffic in Arms^ when erected could not also be utilized so as to obviate
the evils arising from the private manufacture of arms to which reference
is made in the Covenant.
C. STEPS TOWARD REDUCTION
Mr. Fisher as rapporteur introduced the third resolution of the
Sixth Committee with a discussion of the composition and charac-
ter of the Permanent Military Commission set up in conformity
with Article 9 of the Covenant to advise the Council on military,
naval and air questions generally. He described it and the rest
of the third resolution:
This commission, as at present constituted, is a body of 24 members,
three contributed by each of the powers at present represented on the
Council. Every power contributes three members, one an expert on
military matters, another on naval matters, and a third on aerial war-
fare. The committee, in other words, is a strictly technical committee,
a committee of distinguished officers enjoying the confidence of their
respective Governments, and the advantage of a committee so consti-
iThe International Office referred to is the instrument to be set up by Article 5
of the treaty of St. Germain.
178 LEAGUE OP NATIONS
tuted is that it enables the Council to keep in close contact with re-
sponsible military opinion in the states which are represented upon it.
, . . Your Committee was impressed by the fact that the problem of the
reduction of armaments is not a purely military problem. It involves
other aspects; it involves political, social and economic aspects which
fall outside the natural and appointed scope of military and naval experts,
and the suggestion accordingly is that the Council should from time to
time as occasion demands avail itself of the advice of temporary com-
mittees specially appointed to assist it in the nonmilitary aspects of the
problem which it has before it. Let me furnish to you an example of
the kind of inquiry which is contemplated in this recommendation. Let
us assume that it is desirable to examine the problem as to whether or
not a reduction of armaments can best be effected by a proportionate
and simultaneous reduction in military budgets. That is clearly a
financial problem. A satisfactory scheme can only be worked out by a
careful scrutiny of the manner in which public accounts are kept in the
different nations of the League. It is possible, of course, that an item
which in some states appears in the military budgets, in other states
may appear on the educational or agricultural budgets, and here, clearly,
is a problem the solution of which requires special financial experience.
Accordingly the Committee recommends:
"On the other hand, the subcommittee were of the opinion that ques-
tions would from time to time arise upon which the Council would rightly
and properly desire to supplement the technical advice of its Permanent
Military Commission by expert information of another kind, e. g.y in
the sphere of politics, economics or social science. The subcommittee
are of opinion that the Council might make use of the Economic Section
of the Secretariat, and that it might appoint special civilian committees
ad hoc to examine from an economic, social or political standpoint such
problems connected with disarmament as might from time to time be
convenient to submit to it."
The Committee also took account of the paragraph in Article 8 of the
Covenant which provides for the interchange of full and frank information
as to the scale of armaments, and on this topic it invited evidence from
the Military Commission. The subcommittee ascertained that the Mili-
tary Commission had already been asked by the Council to consider
plans for obtaining military information and that a questionnaire had
already been prepared and would probably be submitted to the Council
before the Assembly rises.
No Revision of Laws of War Now
Another question which came before the consideration of the Com-
mittee was the question as to whether or no it was desirable that the
"ceased to be menace" 179
Permanent Military Commission should be asked to suggest amend-
ments in the laws of war. "The subcommittee took into consideration
the question as to whether it was desirable for the Council to invite the
Military Commission to undertake the duty of reviewing or revising the
laws of war. The subcommittee noted that the question of gas warfare
had already been referred to the Military Commission, and that the
commission had reported upon it. While the subcommittee are of
opinion that the question of defining the sphere of legitimate warfare
and of attempting to limit the use of barbarous weapons is of great
importance, it is inclined to hold that the more immediate task of the
Military Commission is to prepare the way for the reduction of arma-
ments, and that this task is so formidable and complex that the com-
mission should not at present be invited to deal with the revision of the
laws of war, a matter which involves other than strictly military problems."
Mr. Barnes (Great Britain) approved the broadening of the
consideration of the military problem provided for and the atti-
tude toward the laws of war, but declared that the principles of
the resolution were in the wrong order :
The first declaration is that in order to reduce armaments through-
out the world the first thing to be done under the responsibility
of the powers signatory to the treaties of peace is the complete fulfil-
ment of the reduction of armaments imposed by the above-mentioned
treaties upon certain of those powers. What does that mean? It means
the ex-enemy powers. I respectfully submit to this Assembly that the
ex-enemy powers have ceased to be a menace to the world for the next
generation, and that we ought to concerm ourselves more with first put-
ting our own house in order, and getting some means by which there must
be concurrent and simultaneous reduction of armaments, not on the part
of the ex-enemy powers who are now very largely disarmed, but upon
the part of all the Members of this League.
The following part of the resolution was put to the vote and
adopted at the 23rd plenary meeting of the Assembly, along with
those which precede, without objection :
The Committee, being convinced that the maintenance of
peace demands the reduction of armaments, in accordance with
the principles set forth in Article 8 of the Covenant and in the
preamble of Part V of the treaties of peace of Versailles, Saint-
Germain and Neuilly, which declare that the disarmament of
certain powers signatory to those treaties be provided for "in
order to render possible the initiation of a general limitation of
180 LEAGUE OF NATIONS
the armaments of all nations;'* and associating itself with the
pronouncement of the Supreme Council on March 8 last that
**in order to diminish the economic difficulties of Europe, armies
should everywhere be reduced to a peace footing, that arma-
ments should be limited to the lowest possible figure compatible
with national security, and that the liCague of Nations be in-
vited to examine proposals to that end without delay;" and with
the resolution of the International Financial Conference at
Brussels "recommending most earnestly to the Council of the
League of Nations the desirability of conferring at once and
agreeing with the several Governments concerned with a view
to securing a general reduction of the crushing burdens which,
on their existing scale, armaments still impose on the impoverished
peoples of the world, sapping their resources and imperiling their
recovery from the ravages of war;" realizing on the other hand
that a complete and comprehensive scheme of disarmament
depends upon the following conditions: first, under the responsi-
bility of the powers signatory to the treaties of peace, upon the
complete fulfilment of the reduction of armaments imposed by
the above-mentioned treaties upon certain of these powers;
secondly, upon the exercise, as occasion may demand, of the
right of investigation accorded by these treaties to the Council
of the League of Nations, in order to maintain this reduction; and
lastly, on the collaboration of the other great military powers which
have hitherto remained outside the League; invite the Council:
(a) To request the Permanent Advisory Commission for
Military, Naval and Air Questions rapidly to complete its techni-
cal examination into the present conditions of armaments;
(6) To instruct a temporary commission, composed of persons
possessing the requisite competence in matters of a political,
social and economic nature, to prepare for submission to the
Council in the near future reports and proposals for the reduction
of armaments as provided for by Article 8 of the Covenant;
(c) To form within the Secretariat a section to serve as a center
of information for the Commission in question and also as a
channel for the publication and exchange of the information
referred to in the Covenant;
(d) To consider the mechanism by means of which the military
information to be exchanged under the provisions of Article 8
of the Covenant can be verified in the event of the principle of
mutual verification by Members of the League being confirmed
by an amendment to the Covenant.
STAGES OF DISAJEIMAMENT 181
d. LIMITATION or BUDGETS
The Sixth Committee's report (A. D. 199) on armaments con-
tained this discussion of reduction :
6. Finally, the subcommittee desire in the most solemn way possible
to register their belief in the vital necessity of reducing the burden of
armaments in the world; and of influencing public opinion to this end,
through concerted effort of popular education in the various countries
of the League. The subcommittee are aware that a comprehensive
scheme of disarmament^ based on a thorough feeling of trust and security
as between nation and nation, can not be looked for at once. They
do not ignore the fact that the world is still disturbed and that a com-
plete and comprehensive scheme of disarmament depends upon the
following conditions: first, upon the complete fulfilment, under the
responsibility of the powers signatory to the treaties of peace, of the
reduction of armaments imposed by the above-mentioned treaties upon
certain of these powers; secondly, upon the exercise of the right of in-
vestigation accorded by those treaties to the Council of the League of
Nations, in order to maintain that reduction; and lastly, upon the col-
laboration of the other great military powers which have hitherto re-
mained outside the League.
The subcommittee are aware that progress must be effected in suc-
cessive stages. The first stage would be reached if a general agreement
could be framed between Members of the League not to exceed their
present scale of armaments save at the request of the League, or in
circumstances recognized as exceptional.
A further measure of progress would be realized if a general agree-
ment was reached for a proportionate and simultaneous reduction either
in the scale of armaments or in the existing military budgets of the
Members of the League. The third stage would be the acceptance of
disarmament, by which term the subcommittee understand a scientific
and comprehensive reduction of armaments under the supervision of the
League to the lowest figure compatible with national security. Li other
words, the subcommittee draw a distinction between limitation of arma-
ments, reduction of armaments, and disarmament, and regard these as
three successive stages in the journey which has to be accomplished.
Though the subcommittee are aware that in the present disturbed
state of the world progress along this road can not be as fast as the
Members of the League would desire, they are nevertheless of opinion
that many useful steps in the right direction can and should be taken
at once.
182 LEAGUE OF NATIONS
The resolution was reported as part of the third resolution of
the committee to the 22nd plenary meeting of the Assembly.
A discussion of some extent followed in which it developed that,
while all delegates were favorable to the text, several of them
felt that they could not bind their Governments by their votes.
It was therefore agreed that the declaration should be passed in
the form of a recommendation, which, as a matter of procedure,
required only a majority vote. On this being done, the ballot
resulted :
In favor: Australia, Belgium, Bolivia, Canada, China, Colom-
bia, Cuba, Czecho-Slovakia, Denmark, Great Britain, Guate-
mala, Haiti, India, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand,
Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Persia, Portugal, Salva-
dor, Serb-Croat-Slovene State, South Africa, Spain, Sweden,
Switzerland, Venezuela — 30.
Against: Brazil, Chile, France, Greece, Poland, Rumania,
Uruguay — 7.
Siam abstained.
The recommendation thus passed read:
Pending the full execution of the measures for the reduction of
armaments recommeded by Article 8 of the Covenant, the Assembly
recommends to the Council to submit for the consideration of the
Governments the acceptance of an undertaking not to exceed, for the
first two financial years following the next financial year, the sum total
of expenditure on the military, naval and air services, provided for in
the latter budget, subject, however, to account being taken of the
following reservations:
(1) Any contributions of troops, war material and money recom-
mended by the League of Nations, with a view to the fulfilment of
obligations imposed by Article 16 of the Covenant or by treaties
registered by the League.
(2) Exceptional conditions notified as such to the Council of the
League of Nations in accordance with the spirit of paragraphs 2 and 6
of Article 8 of the Covenant.
XI. MANDATES: ARTICLE 22
The question of mandates came before the Assembly by report
from the Council. It was not the expectation of the Assembly
to handle the matter except under the condition which had been
determined from the outset that "either body may discuss and
examine any matter which is within the competence of the
league." During the meeting of the Assembly the press reports
exaggerated the current difficulties of the problem into a conflict
between the two bodies. It appears from the proceedings, how-
ever, that the Assembly simply exercised its undoubted right
of suggesting certain principles based upon world opinion for the
guidance of the Council.
Confusion respecting the question was facilitated by its com-
plications. The basic facts may be summarily stated. The
mandatory system became a necessity during the Paris Peace
Conference because public opinion everywhere was opposed to
imperialistic exploitation, because it aided the forced consent
of Germany to relinquishing her overseas possessions, and be-
cause the lesser allied belligerents were unwilling to see the five
great powers increase their territory outright. Nevertheless, by
the treaty of Versailles, "Germany renounces in favor of the
Principal Allied and Associated Powers all her rights and titles
over her oversea possessions." Thus, the United States, France,
the British Empire, Italy and Japan secured these, subject to the
conditions of Article 22 of the Covenant. Their allocation of the
affected territories among themselves was uncontrolled by the
League of Nations, and the beneficiary powers displayed no
haste in making the League a party to the arrangements. After
waiting until last August the Council called for copies of the
draft mandates prescribed by the Covenant, declared its right to
decide upon their terms and took steps to organize the Permanent
Commission. The powers replied that they had not agreed on
the draft mandates and, in any case, that they were to be re-
garded as confidential when transmitted. They unsuccessfully
tried to secure a majority membership of the Permanent Com-
184 LEAGUE OF NATIONS
mission. The Council, faced with these dilatory tactics, early
announced to the Assembly that its report on mandates would
be delayed in the hope of obtaining the required information, at
the same time emphasizing to the Assembly that the problem
was essentially that of the Council, in accordance with the Cove-
nant. Late in the Assembly meeting some mandates arrived in
draft from the powers concerned, without the desired release for
pubhcation. The Council, therefore, stipulated in transmitting
them to the Assembly subcommittee that their contents should
not be discussed in the report.
During the Assembly, consequently, the whole situation was
in a state of change, and the Assembly devoted itself to airing the
tmsatisfactory features of the situation with a view to letting the
mandatory powers know that the world expected frankness and
direct dealing in the premises. The Council was furthermore
informed by the discussion of the spirit to which it was expected
by the world at large to be responsive in dealing with the question.
Publicity Urged
Lord Robert Cecil acted as rapporteur of the Sixth Committee
at the 30th plenary meeting of the Assembly. The report was a
summary of the rather negative result of efforts to secure com-
plete information through the Council, and contained certain
definite principles which the Assembly was asked to enunciate.
In introducing these recommendations, addressed to the Council,
he referred particularly to publicity:
The last recommendation is as follows: "Finally, they trust that if
any further delay in the preparation of the mandates should unfortu-
nately take place, the draft mandates will be forthwith published."
That raises, in my judgment] the most important issue raised by this
report. It is in this report necessarily confined to the question of man-
dates, but it extends far beyond the question of mandates. It is the
question which I have urged once or twice before this Assembly — the
question of publicity. I know that unhappily there are some Members
of the Assembly who think my views are unpractical in this connection,
but I want, if I may, to ask their very careful and their favorable con-
sideration for what I am about to say. I believe that the League is
about to enter into what is perhaps the most difficult period of its exist-
ence. Hitherto we have been necessarily and properly occupied mainly
ENEMIES OF THE LEAGUE 185
in questions of internal organization. . . . Now the League will be
called upon in the coming months undoubtedly to deal with the various
international problems as they arise, and the League will be faced by this
dilemma — the danger of doing too much and the danger of doing nothing.
. . . We must therefore be ready to take our part with courage. Do not
let us underrate the dangers and difficulties that confront us. We have
enemies — bitter enemies. There are those who are militarists and who
inevitably believe that there is only one way of settling international
disputes, and that is by war. There are bureaucrats who can not bring
themselves to believe that the system in which they were brought up is
one that is unsuitable for modem conditions. There are the reactionaries,
who are frightened and alarmed at anything new, and there are the
revolutionaries — in some ways most formidable of all our enemies —
who see in the League, and see rightly, a great obstacle to their
design, a great barrier against revolution, a great force of stability,
and who would wish for nothing better than its enfeeblement or
destruction.
And what of our friends? They are in the first place, let us say so
frankly and candidly, all the great religious forces of mankind, and
in the second place they are that great mass of central opinion, which
loves righteousness and hates evil, which loves peace and hates war.
That is the great mass of opinion on which we must rely. Do not, I
pray you, let us discourage them! They will be told, constantly told,
that the League is useless, or that it is dangerous, that it is plotting some-
thing in secret or that it is doing nothing at all. Suspicion will be the
great weapon which will be used against us; and it will not be difficult
to excite it in view of the vast difficulties and dangers which beset the
world and which will tax the energy and ability of even the best of us
to confront and to deal with. How are we — with what weapons are we —
to fight our battle in the coming months? . . .
You must go boldly and with faith to the peoples of the world; you
must take them into your confidence. You must be ready to run some
risks. You must frankly publish not only what you have done, but
what you are doing, not only the achieved result but the reasons which
are leading you toward that result. Without that you will not secure
their support, you can not hope to achieve the vast ends which we have
in view. That is why, without wishing in any way to be controversial,
I profoundly regret the decision to which the Council came not frankly
to give to the Committee and to the world the draft mandates
upon which they were engaged. I am sure they would have lost
nothing if they had done it; I am sure that their hands would have
been strengthened to do right. I hope even now they will reconsider
their decision.
186 LEAGUE OF NATIONS
Hopes Called Forth
M. Doret (Haiti) expressed a hope:
There are, I know, many good colonial administrators who pay the
utmost attention to the welfare of the natives; but there are also some
frankly bad ones, and although they belong to countries possessed by
wide and generous ideas, yet they exploit the territory of which they
are put in charge as though it were a feudal domain and they maintain
the worst ideas of the Middle Ages in that territory, ideas which are a
shame to civilization. They do this because they know that they are
far from central control. Now I ask the League of Nations to exercise
this central control.
M. Loefgren (Sweden) spoke eloquently of Scandinavian ex-
pectations :
People have asked me why we little folks in the North seem to be
so ifiterested in this Article .22. It may be because of its guaranteeing
our freedom of trade with the colonies. Yes, of course. We think free-
dom of trade to be a good thing and monopolies a bad thing from our
commercial point of view. But 1 know that I have a right to say, and
I am proud to state, that this is not for us the essential thing. No.
To establish a world-wide culture, to preserve a lasting peace — such are
the reasons for our peoples* interest in Article 22. Have we not shown
such moral interest for the natives for instance in Africa?
I will also remind you that we should not forget that for hundreds of
years poor, simple-minded people all over Europe sacrificed their small
savings for missionary work, anxious to share with the inhabitants of
Africa and elsewhere the best gift they knew of, their religion. Let us
not lose the grip of that state of mind. It is more narrow but not less
deep than the great spirit of our Covenant, and it springs from ^.he
same source of humanity. We only expect to see the national and sec-
tarian rivulets swallowed in the mighty stream of a universal movement
of culture, of civilization, directed by Article 22 independent of race
and religion, and liberated from the evils of civilization, militarism and
alcoholism. This is what the peoples expect and what the Covenant has
promised them.
Mr. Doherty (Canada) referred to the origins of the mandatory
system, adding:
There will be no more effective test of the sincerity that inspired the
provisions for the bringing into existence of those mandates, and of the
FIDUCIARY IN CHARACTER 187
sincerity of this League itself, than will be found in the execution of
those provisions with regard to these mandates, and the faithful fulfil-
ment of the trusts those mandates carry with them. And just because
that is so, this matter of mandates was perhaps as important a subject
as the nations here gathered together could have sat down to study,
and as I have said, I am satisfied that there will be a feeling of disappoint-
ment that the opportunity of that study has been inadequate. However,
the fact that it has been so, and that because it has been so, the responsi-
bility for the terms of those mandates must now rest practically, if not
entirely, on the Council of the League, justifies us, I think, in respect-
fully calling the attention of that body to the importance of the task
with which they are at present concerned, and in pressing upon them
that with regard to all these mandates, of whatever class they be, the
great and important thing is that their terms should bring out the fiduci-
ary nature of the holding of the territories confided to them by the
mandators.
An Opinion from the Council
Mr. Balfour (Great Britain) discussed with great frankness the
Assembly's relation to the question :
Eventually behind the actual recommendations of the subcom-
mittee there is the view that this Assembly is really the responsible body
under the Covenant for dealing with these diflficult questions of mandates.
No such assertion is explicitly contained in the report, but I think the
speeches, the formulated recommendations and the general spirit of
most of those who have preceded me at this tribune, clearly show what is
the view. I believe that that view is technically erroneous. Let us be
careful, therefore, not to run into what is perhaps the greatest of all internal
dangers of our League organization, namely a conflict between the two or-
gans by which the will of the Members of the League is to be carried out.
I do not wish to appear as opposing these resolutions, because that
would be interpreted by many as meaning that I set myself in antagonism
to the spirit by which those who framed the resolutions were animated.
At the same time it is quite impossible for me as a member of the Council
to accept these amendments without the clearest and most unmistakable
reserve. The responsibility has been left to the Council to deal with this
situation, and if I do not formally oppose the policy recommended by the
rapporteurs, it must be under a reserve about which no mistake should
be allowed, which is (speaking for myself and for my Government) that
I consider those who take my place in the future on the Council as repre-
senting Great Britain are absolutely free to regard each of these problems
on its merits and to consider it purely in itself — to take account of course.
188 LEAGUE OF NATIONS
of all valuable opinion, and to read with the respect it deserves, the report
of the subcommittee. But I can not allow it to be supposed that I, or those
who succeed me, in any way limit our liberty of deliberation or action by
anything which the Assembly does to-day or on any other day. The
attributions of these two great bodies are different. Nothing but injury
will come to the League by confusing them.
Success will really depend upon how the committee and the Council
work the machine. I believe they will work it well. I believe they will
work it in the interests of the population; but I do not believe that their
labors will be lightened, I do not believe their success will be more assured,
by approaching the subject in the somewhat jealous spirit which seems to
me to animate now and then some of the speakers in this Assembly. It is a
great practical question that has to be solved. What is done in the
mandated territories will unquestionably have its reaction upon those
other colonies which are not mandated and over which neither the Council
nor the Assembly have the slightest authority. The great object we must
have in view is to bring all these colonial powers into a common spirit
of co-operation for the benefit of races which are not, and perhaps can
not in the course of any historic future that we can look forward to, be
put on an equality with those whose duty and pride it ought to be to
guide them as far as possible upon the upward path.
To which Lord Robert Cecil replied :
No member of the Committee, whatever view he may hold as to the
true construction of the Covenant — no member of the Committee, I
say so advisedly, desired in any way to substitute the Assembly for the
Council. What they did desire to do was to furnish to the Council,
which after all is not perhaps quite infallible, some suggestions which
might be of assistance to it in dealing with the very difficult problems
that it has to solve. The subcommittee thought that they were acting
in strict accordance with the invitation of the Council and the purpose
that the Council had themselves expressed by sending the question of
mandates to be considered by the Assembly and by asking a Committee
to consider it, by sending a further report explaining that they were send-
ing all valuable documents to the Assembly. After all, it was Mr. Balfour
himself who accepted on behalf of his Committee in the Assembly only
the other day this proposition: "Neither body" — that is, neither the
Assembly nor the Council — "has jurisdiction to render a decision in a
matter which has been expressly committed to the other organ of the
League." I most heartily agree. "But either body may discuss and
examine any matter which is within the competence of the League."
What have we done more.?^ We do discuss it. We discuss and examine a
matter which is expressly sent to us to discuss and examine by the Coun-
I
189
cil, and we present, not decisions, not rulings to the Council, but ex-
pressions of opinion which we ask them to take into their consideration.
I must say I do not see how we ofiFended.
Recommendations Passed
M. Bourgeois (France) closed the debate :
I am very glad to have heard the words at the end of Lord Robert
Cecil's speech in which he declared that this was not a debate on the
question of the respective competence of the Council and the Assembly
but simply the making of certain suggestions for the Council to consider
when it discusses this question with the full right to come to a decision
on this matter. I also entirely agree with the words of Mr. Balfour.
The powers intrusted to the mandatory powers have a judge. That
judge is the Council, and it is before that judge that they must present
their arguments. Here we have only to agree to the proposal that the
Council will give consideration to the points which we have brought for-
ward. I am sure that the Council will do this.
Let us not be skeptical and let us not be impatient. Remember that
the League of Nations is a new-born child and wants time in order to
acquire strength for the tasks of the future. I would remind Lord Robert
Cecil that in his own country a colt is not put to work until it is at least
three years old. Therefore I ask for patience and not for skepticism.
Lord Robert Cecil said that there were many men in the world who are
looking upon this Assembly and looking upon us now with a hypercritical
view, that not a single point of difference of opinion between any of the
Members is missed by those men. As soon as they suspect any little
difference of opinion they immediately start to w rite to the world's press
and distribute hundreds of telegrams to the various countries saying that
the League of Nations is in danger and that it is in process of dissolution.
I say that the League of Nations is not in process of dissolution. On the
other hand, these writers, when they are faced with a unanimous vote
make little count of it, and they much prefer to emphasize our tiny,
insignificant points of difference. Let the skeptics smile; but let us be
sure that the fruit of our deliberations will soon be placed before the
public and then the number of people that have confidence in us will
increase. Let us be assured of the perfect harmony which exists between
the Council and the Assembly. Nothing can divide them. With this
certainty of agreement between the Council and the Assembly we may
express our confidence in all those who have dealt and are dealing with
this diflBcult question of mandates, and we may be sure that those young
peoples who will be administered by the mandatory powers will be ad-
ministered with due regard for their welfare and their future prosperity.
190 LEAGUE OF NATIONS
The recommendations were adopted without objection in this
form (A. D. 266):
a. Recommendation8 regarding the Mandates Commission.
1. The members of the Commission should not be dismissed
without the assent of the majority of the Assembly.
2. The Commission should contain at least one woman.
3. The mandatories should be asked to present to the Com-
mission a report on the recent administration of the territories
now confided to their care.
b. Recommendations as to Mandates **A,**
4. The mandatory should not be allowed to make use of its
position to increase its military strength.
5. The mandatory should not be allowed to use its power
under the mandate to exploit for itself or its friends the natural
resources of the mandated territory.
6. An organic law should be passed in the mandated territories
as soon as possible, and before coming into force should be sub-
mitted to the League for consideration.
c. General Recommendation.
7. Future draft mandates should be published before they
are decided on by the Council.
As a conunent on the effectiveness of this decision of the
Assembly, it should be noted that draft of mandate A was pub-
lished by the British Government on February 1, 1921, and
conformed to recommendations 4-7.
XII. MEDIATION IN ARMENIA
Lord Robert Cecil at the fifth meeting of the Assembly in
discussing the report of the Council's work reviewed the situation
of Armenia and moved that the Council be requested to "present
for the consideration of the Assembly proposals for averting
the danger which now threatens the remnant of the Armenian
race, and also for establishing a permanent settlement of that
country." At the eighth meeting M. Tittoni (Italy), on behalf
of the Council, summarized the action which had been taken
by it respecting Armenia, in order that the delegates might be
informed/
Lord Robert Cecil accepted an amendment by M. La Fontaine
(Belgium) at the ninth plenary meeting "to nominate a committee
of six Members to consider what steps, if any, could be taken to
put an end to the hostilities between Ainenia and the Kemalists.**
Dr. Spalaikovich (Serb-Croat-Slpvene State) suggested that
the Parliaments of the Principal Powers be requested to act
together to the fullest extent of their abilities. M. Branting
seconded the Cecil-La Fontaine motion.
Mr. Balfour supported the proposal, calling attention to the
practical difficulties. "Good intentions," he said, "are the founda-
tions of good policy, but good intentions by themselves are per-
fectly useless unless means can be found for carrying them into
effect." He continued: "The machinery of the League as em-
bodied in the Covenant was not contrived to deal with the sort
of situation with which we are confronted in Armenia. The
condition of things the framers of the Covenant had in view was
organized states with clearly marked frontiers, open to the action
of the public opinion of the civilized world and in the last resort
open to threats of economic pressure. . . . But observe that not
one of these conditions is fulfilled by the state of things with
which we have got to deal in Armenia at the present mo-
ment. . . . What does Mustapha Kemal care about the opinion
of the League of Nations, or the opinion of the civilized world,
^ Report on the Work of the Council, II, B, 1, League of Nations, III, 275.
192 LEAGUE or NATIONS
or the fact that before any tribunal of humane people his action
will be condemned?"
It seemed to the speaker that no method except finding a manda-
tory would suffice. But no mandatory could be found unless
the other states were prepared to guarantee it against loss and
give it assistance. He agreed that the Assembly was the best
medium for enlisting the interest of the world and he hoped that
the committee to be appointed would be more successful than
their predecessors in dealing with the grave problem.
M. Viviani desired that the League should act rather than
make a public appeal. The resolution merely substituted an
Assembly committee for the Council, but until the relations
of the two organs were determined no steps should be taken
which set a precedent. Turning to his fellow-delegates he said:
"I appeal to the representatives of any nation which might
possibly accept a mandate for Armenia to rise in the Assembly
and express the wish of his nation." He formally moved that the
Assembly should empower the Council to approach the various
Governments and try to find the power which would mediate
between the combatants and negotiate with them.
M. Viviani added that if the authors of the Cecil-La Fontaine
motion would not agree to his proposal, he would agree to
theirs, "in order that we may be unanimous." In any case he
urged that the negotiating method be accepted. Lord Robert
Cecil declared that he was quite ready to accept the Viviani
proposal.
Mr. Balfour desired to clear his own mind. He imderstood the
proposal of the French delegation was that "negotiations should
at once be set on foot by some power with Mustapha Kemal
with the view of preserving the Armenians." He asked: "How
can you negotiate or ask anyone to negotiate with Mustapha
Kemal unless he has something to ofi*er and how can our negotiator
be in a position to offer anything until anxious consultation has
gone on with the powers concerned in the Turkish treaty and the
arrangements in Asia Minor? What probability was there of
having anything to offer that he would take? It was either
money or territory. "Are you going to offer him either of those
things?" He was entirely in favor of negotiations; "but I should
like to know before accepting the principle, what the French
NOMINATES COMMITTEE 193
have in their minds and to let them know as we understand it
what negotiation is. Negotiation is a discussion between two
civilized powers in which one offers something to the other with
a mutual accommodation of interests."
M. Viviani suggested that mediation might be a word prefer-
able to negotiation. "My knowledge of and admiration for the
subtlety of Mr. Balfour's mind are such that I believe that if
this negotiation is intrusted to him he will succeed. ... If we
reject mediation what can we do? We have no army and there
is no money available.**
On the proposals being put to a vote the following motions
were adopted nem. con.:
The Assembly, anxious to co-operate with the Council, in
order to put an end in the shortest time possible to the horrors
of the Armenian tragedy, requests the Council to arrive at an
understanding with the Governments, with a view to intrusting
a power with the task of taking the necessary measures to stop
the hostilities between Armenia and the Kemalists, and
The Assembly further decides to nominate a committee^ of six
members to consider and report to the Assembly during this
session the steps, if any, which can be taken for this object.
The Council, in accordance with the request, forwarded an
appeal to certain quarters, and at the 12th plenary meeting of
the Assembly, the President was able to read the following
telegrams in reply:
Washington, December 1, 1920.
To M. Paui. Hymans, President of \he Council of the League of
Nations, Geneva.
I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your cabled message
setting forth the resolution adopted by the Assembly of the League of
Nations requesting the Council of the League to arrive at an under-
standing with the Governments with a view to intrusting a power with
the task of taking necessary measures to stop the hostilities in Armenia.
You offered to the United States the opportunity of undertaking the
humanitarian task of using its good offices to end the present tragedy
being enacted in Armenia, and you assure me that your proposal in-
volves no repetition of the invitation to accept a mandate for Armenia.
While the invitation to accept a mandate for Armenia has been rejected
^The committee was announced at the tenth meeting as follows: Lord Robert
Cecil, M. La Fontaine, Dr. Nansen, M. Pueyrredon, M. Schanzer and M. VivianL
194 LEAGUE OF NATIONS
by the Senate of the United States, this country has repeatedly declared
its solicitude for the fate and welfare of the Armenian people in a manner
and to an extent that justifies you in saying that the fate of Armenia
has always been of special interest to the American people. I am with-
out authorization to oflFer or employ military forces of the United States
in any project for the relief of Armenia, and any material contributions
would require the authorization of the Congress, which is not now in
session and whose action I could not forecast. I am willing, however,
upon assurances of the moral and diplomatic support of the principal
powers and in a spirit of sympathetic response to the request of the
Council of the League of Nations, to use my good oflSices and to proffer
my personal mediation through a representative whom I may designate
to end the hostilities now being waged against the Armenian people,
and to bring peace and accord to the contending parties, relying upon
the Council of the League of Nations to suggest to me the avenues
through which my proffer should be conveyed and the parties to whom
it should be addressed.
WooDRow Wilson.
Madrid, November 30, 1920.
To M. Hymans, President of the Council of the League of
Nations.
In reply to the telegram, dated 26th inst., which Your Excellency
was so good as to send me, I have the honor to inform you that the
Government of H.M. the King of Spain, though not directly concerned
with the lamentable condition of Armenia, feels the deepest sympathy
for this unfortunate nation which has suffered so cruelly, and though
the Spanish Government does not understand the exact construction to
be put upon the wording of the resolution of the Assembly, it wishes to
state that it will willingly co-operate in any steps of a moral or diplomatic
nature directed toward the achievement of the pacific aims which the
League of Nations is pursuing with such zeal and devotion.
Dato.
Rio de Janeiro, November 30, 1920.
To M. Hymans, President of the Council of the League of
Nations.
In reply to Your Excellency's telegram conveying the resolutions of
the Assembly with regard to Armenia, I have the honor to inform Your
Excellency that the Brazilian Government is prepared to assist, either
alone or in conjunction with other powers, in putting an end to Armenia's
desperate position.
AzEVEDO Marques,
Minister for Foreign Affairs.
I
ASKS MEDIATORS TO CONSULT 195
After these messages had been received the Council of the
League of Nations met and addressed to the President of the
United States, to the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Brazil and
to the Prime Minister of Spain, the following telegrams:
Geneva, December 2, 1920.
To the President of the United States, Washington.
In the name of the Council of the League of Nations I thank you
for your telegram of December 1st in which you agree to act as mediator
between the Armenians and the Kemalists, and add that you will nomi-
nate a representative for this purpose. The Council is deeply rejoiced
at and grateful for your decision. The Council ask me to inform you
that the Spanish Government declares itself ready to participate in
any action of a moral and diplomatic character in support of Armenia,
and that the Brazilian Government announces that it is ready to take
part alone or with other powers in putting an end to the .present situa-
tion in Armenia. The Council is therefore requesting these two Govern-
ments to communicate directly with you as to how co-operation in this
work can best be arranged. Negotiations can be opened immediately
with the Armenian Government at Erivan. As regards the Kemalists,
the Council is taking steps to find out the most effective method of
getting into touch with them, and will inform you further on this point
as soon as possible.
Htmans, President of the Council.
{Translation.)
Geneva, December 2, 1920.
To M. Dato, Prime Minister, Madrid.
To Azevedo Marques, Minister for Foreign Affairs, Rio de
Janeiro.
I thank you in the name of the Council of the League for your tele-
gram of November 30, regarding Armenia. The Council is much re-
joiced at and deeply grateful for your reply. The Brazilian [Spanish]
Government has telegraphed to the Council in a similar sense. At the same
time President Wilson has informed the Council that he agrees to use
his good oflSces and to act as mediator personally through a representa-
tive whom he may designate in order to put an end to open hostilities
against Armenia. The Council is therefore sending a reply to President
Wilson thanking him for having accepted the mission which was pro-
posed to him, and at the same time communicating to him your reply
and that of the Brazilian [Spanish] Government. The Council begs you to
communicate direct with President Wilson to decide how co-operation in
this work can best be arranged.
Hymans, President of the Council.
196 LEAGUE OF NATIONS
Subsequently, on December 16 at the 26th plenary meeting,
on motion of Mr. Rowell (Canada), the Assembly adopted the
following resolution (A. D. 247) :
The Assembly earnestly hopes that the efforts of the President of the
United States, energetically supported by the Governments of Spain and
Brazil and by the Council of the League, will result in the preservation
of the Armenian race and in securing for Armenia a stable government,
exercising authority throughout the whole of the Armenian state as the
boundaries thereof may be finally settled under the treaty of Sevres, so
that the Assembly may be able to admit Armenia into full membership
in the League at its next meeting.
M. Jonescu on behalf of Rumania made the following proposal
at the 29th plenary meeting of the Assembly :
In order to afford real and immediate assistance to the perishing
Armenian people, Rumania proposes to the nations assembled at Geneva
the formation of an international expeditionary force to re-establish
order and peace in Armenia. This international force placed under the
Ai direct command of the interallied general staff might consist of 40,000
men, in detachments drawn from all countries now Members of the
League of Nations, in proportion to their populations.
Rumania declares herself ready at this moment to furnish for this
purpose, men, materials, money.
This was referred to the committee, and after it had practically
made an adverse report, the Rumanian delegation agreed at the
30th plenary meeting of the Assembly to referring its suggestion
to the Council on the understanding that the committee would
not be able in any way to pledge the responsibility of any Member
of the League without their consent.
Finally, the rapporteur of the Assembly's special committee,
M. La Fontaine (Belgium), gave that body an account of the
situation as he and his colleagues had been able to understand it.
This report, presented to the 30th plenary meeting, read (A. D.
256):
The Armenian Commission appointed by the Bureau of the Assembly
on November 23 has met six times, with the object of inquiring into the
situation in Armenia, in consequence of the invasion of that country by
the troops and irregular bands acting under the authority of Mustapha
Kemal Pasha, and of finding the best means to assist the Armenians in
LACKS ORGANIZATION 197
their struggle for independence, and eventually in their attempt to place
the Armenian state on a sound basis.
According to the information which tlie Committee was able to obtain,
it appears :
That the Armenians had been unable to defend themselves from the
Turkish attack, not because they were oTerwhelmed by the numerical
superiority of the enemy, but because they were wholly lacking in organ-
ization, military or political. As a matter of fact it is doubtful whether
the Armenian army is not larger than that of Kemal.
If, therefore, it is desired to come eflFectively to the assistance of the
Armenians, there can be no doubt that it must be done not by sending
a military expedition, or anything of that kind, but by giving to the
Armenians the means of helping themselves. Without going into details,
which it would be obviously improper at the present stage to discuss, the
Committee is of opinion that for a comparatively moderate sum this
object might be attained provided that the right man can be foimd for
the purpose of directing the necessary assistance.
The Committee are glad to note that considerable efforts are being
made in the United States to raise a fund which should be applied for
purposes of this kind.
The expenditure of such a fund should obviously be controlled by
someone having the confidence of the donors, and your Committee have
some reason to believe that other material assistance would be available
for any serious enterprise such as is indicated.
Unfortunately, the present session of the Assembly will have come
to an end before any defijiite result has been reached and the Committee
think it desirable that some agency of the League should remaia in
existence after the close of the Assembly, which would have full cogni-
zance of all that has hitherto occurred and be able to keep in touch with
further efforts in this direction.
They, therefore, recommend that the Assembly should ask the Council
to reappoint a Committee as from the end of the present session of the
Assembly. The Committee would naturally be left at liberty to re-
organize its work in the way it thought best, having regard to the difficulty
of frequent meetings of its members.
It is understood that the Committee would not be able in any way
to pledge the responsibility of any Member of the League without their
consent.
After some discussion, the report was disposed of in the follow-
ing resolution (A. D. ^65):
The Assembly, recalling its decision of November 22, 1920, will
continue to co-operate with the Council which is intrusted with the
198 LEAGUE OF NATIONS
duty of safeguarding the future of Armenia, referring for advice, if it
should be necessary, to the Members of the League. The Assembly
notes that, in response to the initiative taken by the League, universal
sympathy has already been shown for Armenia, and that Armenia has
received offers of mediation on her behalf from President Wilson, Spain
and Brazil.
Xm. SOVIET RUSSIA AND POLAND
Mr. Barnes (Great Britain) at the eighth meeting of the Assem-
bly called attention "to the fact that nothing was said in the
report of the Council or by M. Tittoni on the greatest question
confronting Europe at the present time, namely, the threatened
war between Soviet Russia and Poland. I protest against what
I consider to be the policy of hush-up with regard to it." The
President 'replied that Mr. Barnes should bring in a motion, if
he wished. The following proposition was therefore introduced
(A. D. 119, A):
That the Assembly request the Council to furnish them with full
information as to the reasons which induced it to refrain from interfering
to prevent hostilities between Poland and Soviet Russia last spring, and
recommends to its earnest attention the possibility of a renewal of hostili-
ties between those countries in the coming year.
The discussion took place at the 13th plenary meeting. Mr.
Barnes said in part :
The purpose of that motion is not to divide this Assembly, but to
get explanations of why intervention was not made in the war between
Poland and Soviet Russia. Perhaps by way of opening the subject I
may be allowed to give some reasons why, in my humble judgment, there
should have been intervention. May I submit in the first place that it
seems to me that even if there were no specific mandate in any one of
the articles of the Covenant, yet the Council would have been justified
in intervening by a consideration of the bare facts of the situation.
Here was a war waged in an area in which peace is vital to the rest of
Europe, and on the other hand, here are European peoples longing for
peace. . . . But it seems to me that that understates the case for inter-
vention, because, as a matter of fact there are, in some of the articles of
the Covenant, specific mandates for the Council to interfere in cases of
that kind. Let me read again the first sentence of Article 11 of the
Covenant: "Any war, whether immediately affecting any of the Members
of the League or not, is hereby declared a matter of concern to the whole
League, and the League shall take any action that may be deemed
wise and effectual to safeguard the peace of nations." I submit that
200 LEAGUE OF NATIONS
the Council, by that article, came under a specific obligation to intervene.
I admit that there may have been cases in which such action was not
possible.
I think I can show that there have been occasions when intervention
was possible, and, it seems to me, would have yielded good results. In
fact, one such opportunity presented itself almost as soon as the Council
got into its saddle. Last February the Soviet Government made a
declaration that they had no wish or desire to fight Poland; they said
they had recognized the Polish Republic, and that any causes of quarrels
between the two peoples were capable of adjustment and that they were
willing and anxious to adjust them. . . . About the middle of May the
Soviet Government made a communication to the Council that the
Poles were then making war without having given opportunity of nego-
tiation, and that the Poles had seized Russian territory. I am not saying
that these statements were true; they may have been untrue, but what
I do say is that it appeared at all events that an opening was again
afforded. ... A month or two later the door seemed to be reopened.
The Supreme War Council on that occasion intervened when Warsaw
was in danger, and Warsaw was saved. It may be said that the Council
of the League had no concern in that. I beg to differ. I think the Council
might have done something to have created an atmosphere of impar-
tiality. The average man in the street does not know much between one
Council and another. He only knows that when Poland was carrying
fire and sword outside of what appeared to be her legitimate borders,
nothing was done, and when Warsaw was in danger, when the Soviet
armies were at the gates of Warsaw, the Soviet hand was paralyzed and
Warsaw was saved. These, I think, are circumstances which call for
explanation. There can be nothing lost but everything gained by ex-
planation, and it is because of that that I hope the explanation will be
given.
M. Bourgeois, disclaiming authority to speak for the Council,
gave the explanation of its attitude as one who had attended its
meetings. In substance he said :
I would point out that neither Poland nor the Soviet Government
asked the Council to intervene, nor did any other country do so, not even
Great Britain, the country to which Mr. Barnes belongs. Why was it
no one thought of doing so? Why was it the parties most concerned did
not turn to the League of Nations for assistance? The reason was that
people felt they could not ask the League of Nations to intervene when
it was clear that its intervention would be of no avail, and perhaps even
dangerous; dangerous because there was in the first place the danger of
extending the conflict, and, secondly, because there was no chance of
CREATED MACHINERY FIRST 201
getting the principle of our intervention accepted. At that time the
Council of the League of Nations had, at the request of the Supreme
Council, tried to carry out an inquiry in Russia. . . . Even moral
intervention was rejected, and moral action is one of the greatest forces
of the League of Nations. We have used it for states which are Members
and states which are not Members of the League.
But it is said if the Soviets rejected our moral intervention, there were
other ways of exercising pressure: There was the economic weapon.
But what are the economic relations of the Soviets and the rest of the
world? You will remember Mr. Lloyd George in the House of Com-
mons, when referring to an invitation issued to the Soviets to attend a
conference at Brussels, said their reply was couched in terms too un-
satisfactory to allow us to hope that any successful results might accrue.
If, then, the economic weapon was of no use, is it suggested that military
intervention should be resorted to? Mr. Barnes will remember that
our amendments at Paris, which endeavored to give the League of Nations
a military weapon, were not accepted. It will be remembered that re-
cently we were reduced to asking the great powers to help us with troops
in order that we might determine the frontiers of Lithuania. Could we
then have asked the same powers to intervene between Poland and Russia
if we had wanted to do so? There was no need to ask the League of
Nations to do so. But no one even thought of it.
The Council, in this first year of its existence, has been faced with
great diflSculties, and has done its duty, with the full consciousness of
its responsibilities, and has acted invariably with unanimity. The
Council will always take every opportunity of intervention and will act
quite impartially, that is to say, d intervention can possibly be of any
assistance.
What has been the method of the Council in its deliberations during
the first year of its existence? ... At its first hour of existence, the
Council was the good workman, and said to itself, "I must first create
my machinery, and set to work." Well, it created its machinery. The
Council first of all organized the International Court of Justice, and,
secondly, it brought into being certain special organizations which inti-
mately concern the life of all the states of the world, and which allowed
the whole body of the world, even at its extremities, to take cognizance
of what happened. We, I maintain, have worked in a useful and practical
way. Reference is often made to publicity, but I consider publicity
should be a publicity of deeds, not merely of words. To accomplish
these deeds we must create the work of justice and of peace. That,
then, is our method; and through the ten sessions we have held we
have not relaxed our efforts. We have worked hard, and to-morrow you
will gather the fruits of our labors. We have worked in a spirit of una-
298 LEAGUE OF NATIONS
nimity, except in certain small points of detail. Ninety-nine times
out of a hundred the decisions of the Council have been unanimous.
This spirit of unanimity has shown itself, and the private interests of
individual nations have subordinated themselves to it. I hope that
the same spirit will be shown in this Assembly.
M. Paderewski spoke for Poland, detailing her difficulties,
emphasizing her devotion to peace and disclaiming any implica-
tion of imperialism against her. He expressed a hope that the
current pourparlers would lead to peace.
Dr. Nansen expressed gratitude to Mr. Barnes for raising the
question and to M. Bourgeois for the explanation on behalf of
the Council. He continued:
One point occurred to me during that explanation, namely, whether
in April the opportunity did not occur for the Council to intervene, or
at least to take some steps in the matter. It was in April that the Soviet
Government applied to some very prominent and important powers,
Members of the League, for intervention. These powers failed to inter-
vene, and, as I understand it, the answer which the League received
in May, the refusal to admit a commission, was partly based upon the
failure of the League to intervene. I only want to point out this fact
because I can not help thinking that if the Council had taken some steps
at that moment it woidd have greatly helped the Polish situation and
the Poles themselves. I am convinced that Poland as a Member of this
League would certainly not have refused to comply with the request of
the Council. I see perfectly well, as I am sure we all do, the enormous
difficulties connected with any kind of intervention; but I can not
help thinking that if matters had been discussed just at that moment
Europe would be different at this time. It was said by M. Bourgeois
that no Government asked for intervention, and it may be that that
is the real target for criticism, and not the Council of the League.
The President concluded the debate by saying: "I wish to
point out in agreement with Mr. Barnes that his motion was
not really a motion that called for a vote, but was merely put in
the shap6 of a question which would call for explanations on the
subject. I think the purpose of this motion has been achieved.
It has certainly enlightened the Assembly."
APPENDIX
Delegations to the First Assembly
Argentine Republic^ — Honorio Pueyrredon, minister, state secretary
of foreign affairs and of public worship; Marcelo T. de Alvear, minister
to France; Fernando Perez, minister to Austria.
Australia — E. D. Millen, senator and minister of state for repatriation.
Belgium — Paul Hymans, minister of state, member of the Chamber of
Representatives; Prosper Poullet, member and former president of the
Chamber of Representatives; Henri La Fontaine, vice-president of the
Senate.
Bolivia — Felix Avelino Aramayo, Florian Zambrana, Franz Tamayo.
Brazil — Rodrigo Octavio Langaard de Meaezes, under secretary of
state for foreign affairs; M. Gastao da Cunha, ambassador to France;
Paul Fernandes, deputy.
Canada — Sir George Eulas Foster, member of His Majesty's most
honorable Privy Council, G. C. M. A., B. A., minister of commerce;
Charles Joseph Doherty, member of His Majesty's most honorable
Privy Council, K. C, D. C. L., minister of justice for Canada; Newton
Wesley Rowell, member of the King's Privy Council for Canada, K. C.
Chile — Antonio Huneeus Gana, envoy extraordinary and minister
plenipotentiary, and Manuel Rivas Vicuna, envoy extraordinary and
minister plenipotentiary.
China— y. K. Wellington Koo, minister to Great Britain, and
Tang Tsai-Fu, minister to the Netherlands.
Colombia — ^A. J. Restrepo, delegate plenipotentiary.
Cuba — Aristides Aguero y Betancourt, envoy extraordinary and
minister plenipotentiary at Berlin; Raphael Martinez Ortiz, envoy
extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary at Paris; Ezequiel Garcia
y Ensenat, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary at Rome.
Denmark — Herlup Zahle, envoy extraordinary and minister pleni-
potentiary at Stockholm; L. J. Moltesen, member of the Folketing;
Peter Rochegune Munch, member of the Folketing.
Great Britain— k. J. Balfour, O. M., M. P.; H. A. L. Fisher, M. P.;
G. N. Barnes. M. P.
Spain — Salvador Bermudez de Castro y O'Lawlor, Marquis of Lima,
minister of foreign affairs; Jose Quinones de Leon y de Francisco Martin,
ambassador at Paris, representing Spain in the Council of the League of
Nations; Emilio de Palacios y Fau, envoy extraordinary and minister
^The Argentine delegation did not participate in the work of the Assembly after
December 2.
204 LEAGUE OF NATIONS
plenipotentiary, under secretary of state for foreign aflFairs; assistants:
Gil Delgado, resident minister, and M. Yanguas, professor at the
University of Madrid.
France — ^Leon Bourgeois, president of the Senate, representing the
Republic of France on the Council of the League of Nations; Rene Viviani,
deputy, former president of the Council of Ministers; Gabriel Hanotaux,
member of the French Academy, former minister of foreign affairs.
Greece — ^Nicolas Politis, minister of foreign affairs; Demetrius Cac-
lAMANOS, minister at London; Mikael Kebedgy, minister at Bern.
Guatemala — Manuel Balladares R., envoy extraordinary and minister
plenipotentiary at Paris; Manuel Arroyo, envoy extraordinary and
minister plenipotentiary at London; Julio Herrera, confidential agent
in France.
Haiti — TertuUien Guilbaud, envoy extraordinary and minister
plenipotentiary at Paris; Auguste Bonamy, president of the Court of
Cassation of the Republic; Frederic Dorel, civil mining engineer.
/Twfm— Sir William Stevenson Meyer, G. C. I. E., K. C. S. L, high
commissioner of Lidia; Lieutenant-Colonel, S. S. Maharaja Jam Sir
Ranjitsinhji, G. B. E., K. C. S. L, Jam Saheb of Nawanagar; Sir Saiyid
Ali Imam, K. C. S. L, former member of the Executive Council of the
Province of Biliar and Orissa.
Italy — Tommasso Tittoni, president of the Senate, minister of state,
honorary ambassador of S. M. ; M. Nicola, president of the Chamber of
Deputies; Professor Ivanoe Bonomi, minister of war, deputy to the
Parliament.
Japan — Baron Gonsuke Hayashi, Josammi, ambassador extraordinary
and plenipotentiary at London; Viscount Kikujuro Ishii, Josammi,
ambassador extraordinary and plentipotentiary at Paris; Baron Tane-
taro Megata, Josammi, delegate from the Empire of Japan.
Liberia — Baron R. Lehmann, charge d'affaires at Paris.
Nicaragtui — Carlos A. Villanueva, charge d'affaires at Paris.
Norway — F. Hagerup, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipo-
tentiary at Stockholm; O. A. Blehr, prefect, former minister of state;
F. Nansen, professor at the University of Christiania.
Panama — Narciso Garay, envoy extraordinary and minister pleni-
potentiary; Harmodio Arias, envoy extraordinary and minister pleni-
potentiary.
Paraguay — Hector Velasquez, envoy extraordinary and minister
plenipotentiary.
The Netherlands — M. Jonkheer van Karnebeek, minister of foreign
affairs; Jonkheer Loudon, envoy extraordinary and minister pleni-
potentiary at Paris; M. Fock, governor-general of the Dutch Indies;
substitutes: M. Struycken, member of the Council of State; M. Loder,
counsellor at the Court of Cassation; M. Jonkheer van Eysinga, pro-
fessor of international law at the University of Ley den.
APPENDIX 205
New Zealand — Sir James Allen, High Commissioner of New Zealand.
Peru — Mariano H. Cornejo, envoy extraordinary and minister pleni-
potentiary at Paris; Francisco Garcia Calderon, envoy extraordinary
and minister plenipotentiary in Belgium [succeeding Senor Cornejo from
December 3] ; Anselmo Barreto, and Heliodoro Romero.
Persia — His Highness the Prince Arfa ed Dowleh, Zoka ed Dowleh,
minister at Bern.
Poland — I. J. Paderewski, minister plenipotentiary, first class,
former president of the Council; Professor S. Askenazy, minister pleni-
potentiary.
Portugal — AflFonso Costa, former president of the Council, president
of the Delegation; Joao Chagas, former president of the Council, minister
in France; Colonel Freire d'ANDRADE, former minister of foreign affairs.
Rumania — N. Titulesco, minister of finances; Professor Thomas
JoNNESco; Professor D. Negulesco.
Salvador — J. Gustavo Guerrero, envoy extraordinary and minister
plenipotentiary in Italy and Spain; Pedro J. Matheu, charge d'affaires
in France; Arturo Ramon Avila, charge d'affaires in Great Britain.
Serb-Croat-Slovene State — ^Miroslav Spalaikovich, envoy extraordinary
and minister plenipotentiary; Jean Zolger, professor at the University of
Ljubljana; Ladislav Polich, professor at the University of Zagreb.
Siam — Phya Bibadh Kosha, envoy extraordinary and minister
plenipotentiary; Prince Charoon, envoy extraordinary and minister
plenipotentiary; His Excellency Phya Buri Navarasth.
Sovih Africa, Union of — Sir Reginald Andrew Blankenberg, K. B. E.,
and the Right Honorable Lord Robert Cecil, K. C, M. P.
Sweden — Karl Hjalmar Branting, former president of the Council of
ministers; Baron Erik Teodor Marks de Wurtemberg, former minister;
Ernst Trygger, former judge of the Supreme Court, member of the
First Chamber; substitutes: Jonas E. Lofgren, former minister, member
of the Second Chamber; Baron Axel Teodor Adelsward, former minister;
Madame Anna Bugge-Wicksell, licentiate in law.
Switzerland — Guiseppe Motta, President of the Swiss Confederation;
Gustave Ador, former President of the Swiss Confederation; Paul
UsTERi, deputy of the States to the Council.
Czechoslovakia — Edbuard Benes, minister of foreign affairs; S. Osusky,
envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary in France; Cyril
DusEK, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary in Switzerland.
Uruguay — Juan Carlos Blanco, envoy extraordinary and minister
plenipotentiary in France; Benjamin Fernandez y Medina, envoy
extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary in Spain.
Venezuela — Manuel Diaz Rodrigu««, former minister of foreign
affairs; Santiago Key-Ayala, former counsel to the minister of foreign
affairs; Diogenes Escalante, former deputy to the Parliament.
206
A LEAGUE OF NATIONS
THE WORLD AND THE LEAGUE
I. MEMBERS OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS
Population
000 's
omitted
Net
Revenue
Pre-War
Net
Expense
Post-War
Net
Revenue
Post-War
1913
(Millions of $)
Albania
Argentina
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Bolivia
Brazil
Bulgaria
Canada
ChUe
China
Colombia
Costa Rica
Cuba
Czecho-Slovakia . . .
Denmark
Finland
Prance
Greece..'
Guatemala
Haiti
Honduras
India
Italy
Japan
Liberia
Luxemburg
Netherlands
New Zealand
Nicaragua
Norway
Panama
Paraguay
Persia
Peru
Poland
Portugal
Rumania
Salvador
Serb - Croat - Slovene
State
1,000
8,416
5,145
6,076
7,560
2,960
30,553
5,518
8,835
4,127
302,000
5,800
455
2,899
13,770
3,250
3,325
38,500
7,500
2,250
2,525
606
327,000
38,130
58,000
954
260
6,831
1,180
750
2,658
460
1,020
10,000
7,200
24,200
6,130
16,000
1,365
12.000
157.0
232.1
80.1
8.6
173.8
53.1
163.2
86.1
261.8
16.6
3.5
37.9
217.9
32.7
21.7
885.7
27.0
4.0
5.8
2.1
289.9
540.5
337.4
.5
4.0
81.9
38.9
3.8
31.9
4.0
4.3
7.2
16.5
259.3
70.6
250.1
5.0
152.0
* 1920
173.7
615.6
298.7
909.4
15.0
132.5
95.5
777.1
76.0
451.1
22.0
4.1
44.8
356.3
133.5
469
4810.4
309.4
2.6
3.1
2.6
657.2
2414.0
569.1
.3
8.7
289.5
197.5
2.1
130.0
7.3
4.5
27.2
522.5
96.7
234.8
7.0
99.7
171.3
291.0
185.9
318.6
12.2
123.7
26.2
304.9
70.8
399.9
22.0
4.2
53.1
265.1
94.4
36.2
2064.3
88.5
3.7
3.1
2.6
673.3
800.7
470.8
.3
11.2
234.0
81.9
2.9
116.7
7.3
4.4
27.2
107.6
42.6
64.9
6.9
45.8
431
745
1596
60
645
54.6
1095
265
710
60
18.9
301
407
390
193
3059
57
24
7.6
8.4
1540
1253
675
2.2
2814
206
13.5
253
16.3
13.4
98
73
691
134
352
15.2
146
THE WORLD AND THE LEAGUE
207
Siam
South Africa . . .
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Unite^ Kingdom
Uruguay
Venezuela
Population
000 'a
omitted
9,022
7,225
20,784
5,847
3,980
46,943
1,450
2,884
Net
Revenue
Pre-War
Net
Erpense
Post-War
Net
Revenue
Post-War
Foreign
Trade
1913
(Millions of $)
27.6
71.5
247.7
62.0
61.6
844.8
35.9
13.0
34.9
167.7
458.6
214.8
189.1
5627.6
42.5
8.0
28.5
117.6
351.6
196.9
102.1
5627.6
39.3
8.0
77
331
456
446
636
5762
87
44
Armenia
Azerbaijan . . ,
Hedjaz
Iceland
Liechtenstein
Monaco
San Marino . ,
Ukraine
1,500
4,620
300
85
12
23
12
46,000
Foreign
Trade
1919
84
384
429
945
1231
9340
193
30
n.
MEMBERS OF TECHNICAL ORGANIZATIONS
Esthonia
1,750
2,522
4,500
3,500
25.5
71.4
60.7
40
14.7
46.1
34.4
211.2
Latvia
13.9
Lithuania
85.7
Georgia
IIL
MEMBERSHIP APPLICATIONS PENDING
IV. NONMEMBERS OF THE LEAGUE
Abyssinia
10,000
5
725
2,000
60,282
7,300
15,502
108,000
8,000
105,708
5
10.2
879.6
64.5
1046
4.4
8.2
1540.5
808.4
75.8
24.6
6142
4.4
8.2
660
4215
72.7
19.2
6704
10
1.3
19.6
24.4
4974
313
4223
12
Andorra
.5
Dominican Republic.
Ecuador
40
26.4
Germany
Hungary
Mexico
1879
287
Russia (not otherwise
identified)
Turkey
United States
11,655
A CONTRAST
The following table is an analysis of the disbursements of the United States for
the fiscal year ending June 30, 1920, as shown by the report of the Secretary of the
Treasury.
Class I
DISBURSEMENTS RELATING TO WAR 86.4%
1 . Army and Navy
(Annually recurring)
War Department civil establishment $8,734,269.52
Navy Department civil establishment 2,797,152.07
War (military) 1,027,225,248.01
War (miscellaneous civil, not including rivers
and harbors) 17,735,023.80
Navy (military) 629,893,115.87 $1,686,384,809.27
«. Cost of Past Wars
(Annually recurring)
War Risk Insurance $234,957,059.07
Pensions 213 344 204.11
Interest on debt .......!!!!!!!!]!!!!!!!! 1,024!024[440!02 1,472,325.703.20
3. Cost of Past Wars
(Steadily diminishing)
European relief $93,236,117.80
Federal control, telephone and telegraph .. . 12,018,557.68
Federal control, transportation 1,038,614,901.18
Board of Vocational Education 34,984,423.90
Shipping Board 467,701,047.69
War Trade Board 273,875.82
War Industrial Board 16,669.66
Committee on Public Information 351,711.76
Alien Property Custodian 803,945.08
Bituminous Coal Commission 21,258.68
War Labor Administration 190,371.27
Food and Fuel Admmistrations 120,127.41 1,648,333,007.93
i. Payments Provided For
(Charges not of nature of expense items or understood not t« represent actual pay-
ments during the fiscal year 1919-1920)
Wheat guaranty fund $350,000,000.00
War Finance Corporation 150,000,000.00 $500,000,000.00
Total, war purposes $5,307,043,520.40
Class II
OTHER DISBURSEMENTS 13.6%
All civil government (except for the postal
service, payable from postal revenue) . . 834,701,719.68
Total disbursements $6,141,745,240.08
14 DAY USE
RETURN TO DESK FROM WHICH BORROWED
LOAN DEPT.
This book is due on the last date stamped below, or
on the date to which renewed.
Renewed books are subject to immediate recall.
itBli) W4^ *
m2 9m -11PM
LOAN r^r^n^ ''•^■'■'m rg ;. ■
■^
MHli 1968 4
^
R^C
,iv
m2^
'68-4PM
/e
jl'N l9iqRfil7
JUNl9tO-lPi
Co
Uj
j»JL
"E'^.llilfv'E!,
£
C^l' 1 ^1 '68 - i m
JAN 1 7 2007
LOAN DEPT.
APR ^0197072
(H.-;C
AUG 5'
Genera
mvT
*$
GENERAL LIBBAflYuXBERKaEy
II
^^(f3^
1967
THE UNIVERSITY OF CAUFORNIA LIBRARY
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11