Book Iii, Section 38.

In general, this is the theory of Article Ten of the Covenant.

See the Genesis of the War, Asquith, pp. 97, 98.

Article 15.

President Wilson's so-called first draft of the Covenant contained a provision along these lines in Article III. See Woodrow Wilson and World Settlement, Baker, Vol. III, p. 89.

The statistics of language, etc., even when accurate, do not always forecast the popular wish. Upper Silesia is an instance of this fact. The statistics, as stated in the note of Clemenceau of June 16, 1919, showed 1,250,000 Poles and 650,000 Germans. The vote was 717,122 for Germany and 483,514 for Poland.

The Convention between Germany and Poland relating to the régime of Upper Silesia is a document of some 300 pages.

I am greatly indebted to Professor A. A. Young for some of my economic information; but he is in no way responsible for any of my conclusions.

Of course this is an over-statement. Germany produces about one-tenth of her consumption of copper.

Or a period due to war, such as 1919-1920.

See Hall, International Law (Seventh Edition), Chapter VIII, for an illuminating discussion.

Such as the right of State A to cede territory to State B, notwithstanding the objection of State C to such a cession.

See Moore's Digest, Vol. VI, pp. 2-367.

Such as the intervention in Greece in 1827 by Great Britain, France and Russia. See Hertslet's Map of Europe by Treaty, Vol. I, p. 769.

See the Message of President McKinley, April 11, 1898, Foreign Relations, 1898, p. 750 at p. 757.

The Ethics of the Panama Question, Sen. Doc. 471, 63rd Congress, 2nd Session, p. 39.

There is a reference to the status quo in the General Report (Annex C, p. 181), which uses this language:

"There is a third class of disputes to which the new system of pacific settlement can also not be applied. These are disputes which aim at revising treaties and international acts in force, or which seek to jeopardise the existing territorial integrity of signatory States. The proposal was made to include these exceptions in the Protocol, but the two Committees were unanimous in considering that, both from the legal and from the political point of view, the impossibility of applying compulsory arbitration to such cases was so obvious that it was quite superfluous to make them the subject of a special provision. It was thought sufficient to mention them in this report."

For the view that this includes acts of force, even in the absence of a state of war, see infra, p. 55.

The other exception "when acting in agreement with the Council," etc., is not here material. It is discussed infra, p. 50.

{46}