a waiver by the United States of any of its rights. Section 2 provides that the war laws shall no longer be in effect. Sections 4 and 5 cover the third subject of the resolution and provide for the resumption of trade with Germany upon conditions named. It is only to these conditions that Germany is required to assent. As to no other matter connected with the resolution is German agreement required. It is upon these sections that those who argue that the resolution is an effort to make an agreement with Germany rely. These sections may be stricken from the resolution and yet leave it a perfect whole. they are unconstitutional, that fact cannot affect the validity of the other sections of the resolution. But they are not unconstitutional.

If

In almost the same language has Congress passed previous laws. Section 3 of the McKinley Tariff act of Oct. 1, 1890, was almost identical in substance. That law was held constitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Field against Clark, one hundred and forty-third United States, Page 649. The court held that the placing of conditions upon trade with a foreign country which involved affirmative action by that country was not an interference with the treaty-making powers of the President and did not constitute negotiation.

NO PLEDGE TO ALLIES

I cannot agree with those who may argue that we are bound in honor to join in a treaty with the nations associated with us in the war. They entered the war without our leave. We entered it upon our own initiative. We co-operated with them to defeat the common enemy. We went into the war unpledged to our associated nations. We have come out of the war without owing them anything; to the contrary, they are our debtors. The honor of America is not pledged to unite in a common treaty with our associated nations.

It is pledged neither expressly nor by implication. The people have not pledged American honor, neither has it been pledged by Congress nor by any one authorized by the people to speak for them. We entered the war for reasons of our own; we spent our blood and treasure without stint; we have asked neither land nor money, favors nor indemnity; we fought in defense of the civilization of the world. Continued co-operation with the nations associated with us in the war is neither obligated nor compelled. We will hereafter, as I hope, act freely, as heretofore, for the welfare and dignity of America and for the peace and hope of mankind.

The nations associated with us in the war have made peace with Germany. America alone of all the nations retains her war status. We do not abandon our associated nations by terminating the state of war. We do but join them in their status of peace. We do not abandon them to a common enemy. They are at peace and no longer

require our support or protection. It is absurd to say that American honor is pledged to stand alone among the nations in a state of war with Germany. If in any sense American honor is under pledge, it is to promote peace, harmony, and good-will at home and among the nations of the world.

SAYS RESOLUTION IS A TREATY

Congressman Connolly of Texas, in opposing the resolution, argued that it clearly was an exercise of treaty-making power by Congress, and hence unconstitutional. He said in part:

To those who say that no treaty is to be made let me inquire: The Treaty of Versailles, if ratified by the United States, would be a binding and legal treaty, would it not? But hereafter, so far as Germany's obligations to the United States are concerned it is to be as binding as though ratified. Then, will it not be a treaty between the United States and Germany? To whom will the obligations which Germany may assume be due to the United States? Where are those obligations defined? In the Treaty of Versailles. Suppose Germany violates the rights of some American citizen, where will you look to find the character of obligation which Germany violated? Will you simply look to this act, or must you not look to the Treaty of Versailles?

The very fact that this act proposes to induce or compel Germany to avow her willingness to observe the treaty, imports the expectation of benefit to be derived therefrom by the United States. If the Treaty of Versailles were now a treaty between the United States and Germany, the fact that the United States will be released from obligation under it will not change the fact that it will remain the a treaty upon Germany assenting to amendment. The contract may consist in part of this act and in part of the treaty, just as it might consist of two diplomatic notes exchanged between us. We send Germany by cable this resolution; she sends back acceptance of Is the Treaty of Versailles. there not a meeting of the minds; is not an agreement created whose terms are defined by the two instruments?

It is not a question of the degree of obligation or the extent of benefit; all of the one may be in one party and all of the other in the remaining party. As has heretofore been observed, an agreement may place all of the obligations on one party. An ordinary promissory note is a familiar example; it is only signed by the maker, but is construed to be a written contract enforceable between the parties. In the present instance our armies are now on German soil. By this resolution we agree to end the war with Germany, and there of course arises implied obligation on our part to withdraw our troops. The test is whether there is an agreement between two nations; the fact that the

obligations imposed are owing by one to the other, and that to determine the character of rights conferred or duties enjoined recourse must be had to such agreement.

Measured by this standard there certainly will be a treaty. If it be not a treaty-no agreement-then Germany, not being bound, could withdraw at any time. Will any one claim that she could do so without violating a treaty? If an American right should be violated, the United States would demand redress of Germany. Suppose Germany should deny liability. Our reply would be, You agreed to abide by the treaty." If she should then assert that this resolution and her agreement is not a treaty, we should, of course, answer, "Whether you call it a treaty or a resolution or legislation, you

agreed and contracted' to observe the treaty, and you are bound. If you break your promise you will justify a renewal of the war by the United States."

Will any

one longer deny what is so plain? If not a treaty, it is nothing-a vain thing, a fraud, a pretense, a hypocritical deception, and a deliberate delusion.

ENDING WARS WITHOUT TREATIES

Congressman Rogers of Massachusetts cited many instances of ending wars without treaties. In this connection he said:

Perhaps the most interesting precedent for our purpose is the situation which arose in the sixties as a result of the war between Peru and Chile on the one hand and Spain on the other. In 1868 actual hostilities had been terminated about two years, Peru had purchased of the United States two monitors, which were awaiting delivery in New Orleans. If a state of war was still operative it was improper for the United States, as a neutral, to make delivery. If war had ended -which was claimed, although no treaty of peace had been executed-delivery was perfectly proper. The Minister from Spain to the United States protested against the delivery by us which was then anticipated on the ground that war was still continuing. Secretary of State Seward replied, on July 9, 1868, in part, as follows:

The situation of peace may be restored by the long suspension of hostilities without a treaty of peace being made. History is full of such occurrences.

Here we have a formal recognition by an American Secretary of State of the fact that a war need not be ended by treaty.

As a matter of fact, as Secretary Seward said, history is full of such instances. Sometimes peace comes as a result of a long-continued drift from a state of war into a state of peace, the consequence either of the exhaustion of the belligerents, of distaste for the war, or of some other change of circumstances which makes the prosecution of the war impossible or undesirable. Sometimes

peace comes as a result of the conquests and subjugation-often followed by annexationof one of the powers by the other.

HISTORICAL EXAMPLES

Further in his remarks Congressman Rogers said:

The suggestion is occasionally heard that in some unexplained way this [resolution] involves the making of a treaty; some critics calling it a treaty of peace, others calling it a treaty of trade. Of course, it is neither in fact. It is not a treaty of peace because it involves a mere recognition on the part of Germany that the undoubted status of peace is admitted and accepted by her as a fact.

Nor is it a treaty of trade or commerce. In substance it provides that if Germany does not send the requisite notification within the stipulaed period the President shall proclaim that fact and thereupon commercial intercourse shall cease, except, in effect, under such a system of licenses as are now in effect under the Trading with the Enemy act.

The fallacy fallen into by the critics of this section results from their failure to recall that by no means all international arrangements, whether simple or complex, important or trivial, constitute treaties and hence involve the necessity of Executive and Senatorial concurrent action. The Executive alone may effect many international arrangements. He may negotiate a protocol; President McKinley, for example, negotiated the original peace protocol with Spain in 1898. Similar protocols were negotiated with Costa Rica and Nicaragua in connection with the Interoceanic Canal and at the conclusion of the Boxer troubles in China in 1901. In like manner the President alone may negotiate a modus vivendi or by a simple exchange of notes may conclude a diplomatic agreement with another country. The international postal conventions of 1891 and 1897 were concluded by the Executive without submission to the Senate.

Many acts of Congress, some of them dating almost from the beginning of the Government, others as recent as the Underwood Tariff act, provide that if other nations do or do not do certain things the President shall have the power to do certain other things. These acts have been questioned, first, because they are in reality treaties, and hence beyond the powers of Congress as such, and second, because they involve the delegation of legislative power by Congress to the President. The great case of Field against Clark, decided by the United States Supreme Court in 1891, put an end to these objections for all time. The President's power under this section does not involve the exercise of legislative authority. It simply requires him to find a fact, upon the ascertainment of which certain things follow. It is not a delegation of power, it is not the making of a treaty; it is simply a trade arrangement. As such it is in line with many established precedents

and is squarely under the authority of Field against Clark.

RESOLUTION NOT A TREATY

Mr. Rogers cited numerous statutes dating from 1794 to 1911 which involved trade arrangements with other countries passed by Congress, which gave powers to the President either to modify trade relationships with other countries or to do certain other things if the statutes were not accepted. Among these were the following: The McKinley Tariff act of 1890, which provided that the President should suspend certain provisions of the act by proclamation in the event he was satisfied that certain reciprocal trade arrangements were being fulfilled; this was sustained by the Supreme Court in the case of Field vs. Clark. He cited also sections of the Dingley Tariff act of 1897 and the Canadian Reciprocity act of 1911. He drew the following deductions:

Under the foregoing precedents and decisions there can be no valid question raised as to the constitutionality of Section 3. Section 3 is not an offer of a treaty or a delegation of legislative power. It is simply a foreign trade arrangement of a sort repeatedly enacted by Congress. Even if there were no statutory or judicial affirmation of the legality of the section it would be sustained under the clause of the Constitution which permits Congress to "regulate commerce with foreign nations," and as the section involves the regulation of exports and imports it may also be sustained by the clause which after granting powers of taxation to Congress provides that Congress may pass laws necessary for the general welfare. It has none of the elements of a treaty of peace, because it might equally well have been enacted by Congress if the war with Germany had already ended in the usual manner by a duly ratified treaty of peace. QUESTION OF CONSTITUTIONALITY

Congressman Flood of Virginia opposed the resolution. He argued against its constitutionality and held that its passage would jeopardize important commercial rights. He said:

The title of the United States to the German ships which we seized during the war is very doubtful. These ships have never been through a prize court, and when they were first seized it was the general understanding that unless they did go through a prize court they would be subject to be libeled by their owners in any neutral ports in which they might be found. They were

not put through the courts, our Government depending upon the treaty to take care of our interests in them. These ships are of very great value and constitute one of the few items by way of reparation that the American Government will get for its tremendous expenditure of money and blood in the World War. I do not think Congress should hastily and without proper consideration enact a measure that might cause the loss of these ships and yet this is just what the Republican majority here proposes to do.

The Alien Property Custodian funds, amounting to something over $500,000,000, cannot be dealt with otherwise than by restoration to the owners, unless German consent to their application to other purposes is obtained. This resolution, if it becomes law, would make it impossible to obtain Germany's consent.

The resolution declares that a state of peace exists, and provides for the repeal of wartime laws, and then attempts to impose the harsh terms of the treaty upon Germany under the threat of cutting off commercial relations with her. No one who has studied the history of the Versailles Treaty and considered the reluctance with which Germany consented to it and signed it, would think for a moment that Germany would consent to a resolution that imposes upon her again the obligations of that treaty. So far as we are concerned, she is free from the terms of that treaty, and we will never get her to assent to its ter s again. International law does not permit the confiscation of private property unless the enemy Government consents to the use of such property for the satisfaction of claims against it. Without Germany's consent, we cannot take that property. Under the Versailles Treaty Germany consented that the claims of the United States and its nationals against the German Government might be satisfied out of it. Out of this fund we expected to take care of the widows and orphans who were made so by the Lusitania outrage and other outrages practiced against civilization by the German Government during the war. The rights of these people will be put in peril, if not sacrificed, by this legislation.

CLOSING THE DISCUSSION Congressman Mondell, Republican leader, in closing the debate, said:

The only reason why conditions of peace have not been restored through the more usual method of a treaty is that the Chief Executive refused to sanction in the legislative body, which co-ordinates with him under the Constitution in the making of treaties, the same freedom of judgment and action that he insisted upon for himself. For it is known of all men who care to be informed that the prevailing opinion in the matter is confirmed by the public announcement of a Democratic Senator that but for the pressure by the Chief Executive to the

contrary the treaty would have been ratified with reservations safeguarding the Republic and preserving its sovereignty and peace thus secured and proclaimed.

In such a situation is there any one with so poor an opinion of our form of Government as to believe that, having waited patiently seventeen months for a treaty of peace, for the relief from burdensome and extraordinary control, for the re-establishment of normal conditions of trade and intercourse, we are helpless to cure the

situation and must indefinitely wait upon the will of one man, and he the one on whom we have conferred powers and prerogatives and jurisdiction which the people have carefully reserved in themselves only to be guardedly conferred upon the President during the imperative exigencies of war?

As we glory in our country and in our Constitution, we decline to accept a construction so narrow, so destructive, so subversive of the theory and principles of the Republic.

T

By a

HE long-drawn-out debate in the Senate on universal compulsory military training ended on April 9 in a defeat for the advocates of the system. The Senate substituted for it a voluntary training system. vote of 46 to 9 that body adopted amendments to the Army Reorganization bill proposed by Senator Frelinghuyser. of New Jersey changing the compulsory features of the training provisions so that, instead of requiring every young man to receive military training for at least four months, only those who apply for it will receive it.

Seven of the nine were Republicans and two-Myers of Montana and Pittman of Nevada-Democrats. The seven Republicans were Brandegee of Connecticut, Keyes of New Hampshire, McCumber of North Dakota, Moses of New Hampshire, New of Indiana, Poindexter of Washington, and Wadsworth of New York. The Democrats, with two exceptions, accepted the voluntary plan, though they would have voted almost as solidly against compulsory training.

AMERICAN TROOPS ON RHINE

President Wilson, on April 1, responded to the request made by the House on March 25 for information as to the status of United States troops on the Rhine. These, he said, were under his direction and not under that of Field

Marshal Foch, and most of them are in the Coblenz area.

There were on March 28 last 726 officers and 16,756 enlisted men in Germany, the President said in his letter, operating not only under the terms of the original armistice, but under the later conventions which prolonged the armistice.

WAR RISK INSURANCE

Legislation designed to bring the Government war risk insurance in closer touch with former service men was approved March 25 by the House Interstate Commerce sub-committee. The collection of insurance premiums at Post Offices, the establishment of State war risk insurance offices and funds for advertising the benefits of Government insurance are provided for.

For establishing regional offices and other sub-offices the bill carries $1,000,000, while $250,000 is appropriated for advertising. Besides collecting insurance premiums, Post Offices would handle applications for reinsurance and reinstatement of policies. No premiums on renewable term insurance would be collected temporarily from men while receiving hospital care or vocational training or while suffering total temporary disability.

For one year after the passage of the bill the Government would provide with

out charge all medical, dental and surgical care for men suffering from diseases resulting from the service.

RETURN OF WAR DEAD

It was announced on March 23 that an agreement had been reached between the French and American Government representatives under which all American dead in France may be removed to this country as soon as arrangements can be completed. This practically ends the controversy between the United States and France over the return of our soldier dead," said Chairman Porter of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Secretary Baker recently wrote Congress that about 50,000 of the American dead. would be brought home at the request of the next of kin, and that the remainder, about 20,000, would be concentrated in major cemeteries in France, which would be maintained by the War Department.

ARMY CAMPS

Two opposing reports on the Congressional investigation of the construction of thirty-two army camps and cantonnents were submitted to the House, April 12, by the War Expenditures Comnittee. The majority report, presented by Republican committeemen, criticised Government agencies and officials in charge of the war building program, while the minority report of the Democrats defended the Administration.

The Government lost $78,531,521 on the sixteen National Army cantonments, it was estimated by the majority report, which asserted that this was due to waste, inefficiency and graft" resulting from cost-plus contracts which were said to be" wide open." No estimate of loss on the National Guard camps was made by the majority.

Dissenting from the majority findings, the minority declared that the construction work was equivalent to building thirty-two cities, each with 37,000 to 46,000 population, and added: "This tremendous task was practically completed in three months and stands out as one of the great achievements of the war."

By a vote of 15 to 6, the Ways and Means Committee of the House adopted,

April 2, a resolution offered by Representative Longworth to report bonus legislation before another month. The resolution also declared against raising the money through a bond issue and favored obtaining it by means of a sales or luxury tax. It is expected that the bonus bill will provide for vocational education and monetary bonuses and involves an expenditure in excess of $1,500,000,000. This legislation will be worked out in detail by sub-committees.

NAVY DESERTIONS

Rear Admiral Thomas Washington, Chief of the Bureau of Navigation, told the Senate Investigating Committee on April 9 that thousands of desertions in the last year had brought about conditions unparalleled in American naval history. The whole naval service, he warned, is threatened with disaster unless Congress immediately enacts legislation raising the pay of officers and men to a point that will allow the navy to compete with civil occupations.

There were 4,666 desertions in the last six months of 1919, Rear Admiral Washington declared, and thus far this year, he said, they have averaged around 700 a month, many of the deserters being petty officers of several years' experience. At present rates of pay, he said, recruits cannot be obtained.

Failure of Congress to act, he declared, has also resulted in the resignation of hundreds of officers. The result is that the navy is in a "6 bad way," and if conditions continue it not only will be undermanned by 1921, but 90 per cent. of those on the roster will be inexperienced boys.

FLETCHER REMOVAL INQUIRY

Investigation of reasons for the removal of Rear Admiral William B. Fletcher from command of the American naval base at Brest was begun at Washington before a Naval Court of Inquiry, March 25. Little testimony was introduced at the first session, most of it being documentary. In a letter to Secretary Daniels Admiral Sims denied that he removed Admiral Fletcher because of the loss of the transport Antilles, asserting that he had reached the decision some