itself but to superior organised powers which have to execute it. Many projects of a League of Nations have analogous provisions. The Wilson-Clemenceau treaty has not. The only armed force is that of the States themselves. The majority-votes of the Body of Delegates will not regularly find powers to execute them, on the contrary be endless causes of conflicts.
I have devoted all my time in latter years to these questions and my conclusion remains the same as three years ago:
That the essential point of a League of Nations is the obligation not to use force before there has been sufficiënt time to have the claim investigated and publicly discussed by a Body of Delegates consisting of eminent men of all States but that voting only takesplace to give an easy and clear survey of the jinal instructions of the governments.
I think I may here insert my proposals of 1917, before I state the changes I deem absolutely necessary in the Wilson-Clemenceau treaty. Then I wrote:
I have in view in the first place a college which advises and elaborates opinions and projects but where — excepting resolutions about its own methods of working — no resolutions are voted by majorities. In conformity with these functions the college's name could be Council of States for international affiairt. The States-Council ought to have a President or Presidential college foritsownadministration and a secretary with the necessary assistants, all to be paid by all the participating States in a way that the most prominent personalities could be found for these offices and permanently live at the seat of the council in conformity with their high position. Election, term of office, admissibility of reelection etc. could be left to further agreement. Only the Presidency and membership of a