go into the manifest questions arising when the _modus operandi_ of
the agreement is considered. Such questions as: Who may demand
international intervention? What body will decide whether the demand
should be complied with? How will the international forces be
constituted? Who will take charge of the military and naval
operations? Who will pay the expenses of the war (for war it
will be)?

"Perplexing as these questions appear to me, I am more concerned with
the direct effect on this country. I do not believe that it is wise
to limit our independence of action, a sovereign right, to the will
of other powers beyond this hemisphere. In any representative
international body clothed with authority to require of the nations
to employ their armies and navies to coerce one of their number, we
would be in the minority. I do not believe that we should put
ourselves in the position of being compelled to send our armed forces
to Europe or Asia or, in the alternative, of repudiating our treaty
obligation. Neither our sovereignty nor our interests would accord
with such a proposition, and I am convinced that popular opinion as
well as the Senate would reject a treaty framed along such lines.

"It is possible that the difficulty might be obviated by the
establishment of geographical zones, and leaving to the groups of
nations thus formed the enforcement of the peaceful settlement of
disputes. But if that is done why should all the world participate?
We have adopted a much modified form of this idea in the proposed
Pan-American Treaty by the 'guaranty' article. But I would not like
to see its stipulations extended to the European powers so that they,
with our full agreement, would have the right to cross the ocean and
stop quarrels between two American Republics. Such authority would be