It must regretfully be said that the League of Nations is not giving its most ardent supporters much chance to enthuse. Apart from the unapproachable dullness of the reports sent out, there appears to be a lack of harmony in the discussion of pure matters of procedure, which does not augur too well for unity in action. Ar-gentian withdraws in a huff because her amendments to the Covenant are rejected, and then the conference falls to wrangling over the relative powers of Council and Assembly. As the former sits all the time and the latter only once a year, the Council can reasonably claim that some freedom of action must be allowed it. At the same time one can well understand that the nations generally are nervous of committing themselves to any system that might carry them in action far beyond what they might wish, without due consultation. The best thing the League has yet done is its inanguration of the campaign against typhus, with the promises recorded of subscriptions towards the necessary funds. But with all the good will in the world, one does not see that the League has yet brought us much nearer to disarmament and the substitution of international policing for national defence. We do not wish to play the "adrocatus diaboli." But with the world in its present, state; one must be on guard against a fool's paradise.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.