ments are to be. When mandates for administering back-
ward regions are assigned, the mandatory is free to accept
or reject the mandate. When the use of force is required,
each State of the League will decide for itself whether or
not it will observe the recommendation of the central organ
of the League that force be used. True, among the positive
agreements which may not be ignored, are two of major
importance, namely, the agreement to institute a boycott
against a member of the League which resorts to war in
violation of its covenants and the agreement to "afford
passage through their territory to the forces" engaged in
disciplining the recalcitrant. These provisions abolish neu-
trality in the case of an aggressive war; but it is a condi-
tion which arises not by reason of any command of the cen-
tral organs of the League but by reason of the act of the
recalcitrant itself in waging war illegally.

The power of the League rests, not on a super-govern-
ment, but on the covenants of the members to coöperate
voluntarily by boycott and by the use of force, to punish
aggression.

Combatting the views of persons who object to the ele-
ment of force in the League program, Mr. Taft declares
his respect for the motives of the advocates of non-resist-
ance but doubts whether nations are as yet proof against the
"temptations to cupidity, cruelty and injustice" manifested
in men, and whether, on that account, an international police
is not as requisite as the constabulary which "protects the
innocent and the just against the criminal and unjust"
within the State.

Mr. Bryan, in the written debate with Mr. Taft, urges
that the use of force invites violence, and cites the laying
aside of weapons by private persons as having made for the

-xv-