by force, which seems to me the most difficult, especially when viewed from the standpoint of its effects on our national sovereignty and national interests.  It is needless to go into the manifest questions arising when the modus operandi of the agreement is considered.  Such questions as:  Who may demand international intervention?  What body will decide whether the demand should be complied with?  How will the international forces be constituted?  Who will take charge of the military and naval operations?  Who will pay the expenses of the war (for war it will be)?

“Perplexing as these questions appear to me, I am more concerned with the direct effect on this country.  I do not believe that it is wise to limit our independence of action, a sovereign right, to the will of other powers beyond this hemisphere.  In any representative international body clothed with authority to require of the nations to employ their armies and navies to coerce one of their number, we would be in the minority.  I do not believe that we should put ourselves in the position of being compelled to send our armed forces to Europe or Asia or, in the alternative, of repudiating our treaty obligation.  Neither our sovereignty nor our interests would accord with such a proposition, and I am convinced that popular opinion as well as the Senate would reject a treaty framed along such lines.

“It is possible that the difficulty might be obviated by the establishment of geographical zones, and leaving to the groups of nations thus formed the enforcement of the peaceful settlement of disputes.  But if that is done why should all the world participate?  We have adopted a much modified form of this idea in the proposed Pan-American Treaty by the ‘guaranty’ article.  But I would not like to see its stipulations extended to the European powers so that they, with our full agreement, would have the right to cross the ocean and stop quarrels between two American Republics.  Such authority would be a serious menace to the Monroe Doctrine and a greater menace to the Pan-American Doctrine.

“It appears to me that, if the first idea of the League can be worked out in a practical way and an international body constituted to determine when steps should be taken to enforce compliance, the use of force might be avoided by outlawing the offending nation.  No nation to-day can live unto itself.  The industrial and commercial activities of the world are too closely interwoven for a nation isolated from the other nations to thrive and prosper.  A tremendous economic pressure could be imposed on the outlawed nation by all other nations denying it intercourse of every nature, even communication, in a word make that nation a pariah, and so to remain until it was willing to perform its obligations.

“I am not at all sure that this means is entirely feasible.  I see many difficulties which would have to be met under certain conditions.