when I saw you to say something about the purposes of the League to
Enforce Peace, which is to meet here, and at the banquet of which I
understand you are to speak on Saturday night. I would have preferred
to talk the matter over with you, but as that is impossible I have
taken the liberty to write you this letter, although in doing so I am
violating the directions of the Doctor.

"While I have not had time or opportunity to study carefully the
objects of the proposed League to Enforce Peace, I understand the
fundamental ideas are these, which are to be embodied in a general
treaty of the nations: _First_, an agreement to submit all
differences which fail of diplomatic adjustment to arbitration or a
board of conciliation; and, _second_, in case a government fails to
comply with this provision, an agreement that the other parties will
unite in compelling it to do so by an exercise of force.

"With the first agreement I am in accord to an extent, but I cannot
see how it is practicable to apply it in case of a continuing
invasion of fundamental national or individual rights unless some
authoritative international body has the power to impose and enforce
an order in the nature of an injunction, which will prevent the
aggressor from further action until arbitration has settled the
rights of the parties. How this can be done in a practical way I have
not attempted to work out, but the problem is not easy, especially
the part which relates to the enforcement of the order.

"It is, however, the second agreement in regard to the imposition of
international arbitration by force, which seems to me the most
difficult, especially when viewed from the standpoint of its effects
on our national sovereignty and national interests. It is needless to