was not already convinced of this evident truthmayconsider the actual state of Russia. The best international organization cannot prevent civil wars nor their spreading over the frontiers if these wars are caused by economical difficulties also existing in neighbouring countries. It is a grandiose conception of theauthorsoftheWilstfnClemenceau treaty to bring these questions at once before the League of Nations. Still I think it a mistake not to keep them wholly separate of the organization of this League itself. The more so, because these questions are inseparable fröm the agrarian legislation and the division of landed property of the different countries, which are so widely divergent. Once existing the League of Nations may occupy itself with these questions. This must however be left to that League and be better entirely eliminated from its constitutive treaty.
What makes the Wilson-Clemenceau treaty unacceptable and not viable is the mixing up of the Constitution of the League with the solution of many questions arising by the dissolution of the Austrian-Hungarian empire, the Russian empire, Turkey etc. The League of Nations must be a permanent organization of moral forces, working by moral means and quite independent of the solution of frontier-questions between actual States and new States in more or less advanced embryonic from, which the present coalition of military power in the Entente intends to solve. Relatively their solutions will have much more uncertain foundations than the League of Nations itself. Mistakes are unavoidable and presumably one of the first tasks of the League of Nations