(The Crimson invites all men in the University to submit signed communications of timely interest. It assumes no responsibility however, for sentiments expressed under this head and reserves the right to exclude any whose publication would be palpably inappropriate.)

To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

Harvard men, whether or not advocates of the idea of a league of nations are unquestionably interested in the discussion that is now taking place at Washington and elsewhere throughout the country on this much-mooted question indeed they should be even more immediately concerned than the present parties to the dispute with the success or failure of this project inasmuch as it is for future generations rather than for the present that any covenant of peace has its more lasting effects.

The chief argument of the opposition as set forth by those who have been most conspicuous in their attack on the proposal of a league of nations is as follows: the entry of the United States into such an agreement would mean ignoring completely the once timely injunction of Washington in 1796,throwing over the Monroe Doctrine of 1824 and becoming inextricably involved in a tangle of European jealousies and alliances in 1924. President Lowell once said that the league of nations is in no more danger of upsetting the Monroe Doctrine than it is of upsetting the price of sugar; but this will hardly suffice as an exhaustive refutation of the claims of Senator Lodge and his rebellious confreres.

If the opponents of the league would but exercise a reasonable degree of discrimination they would instantly perceive that the conditions obtaining at the present time are far different from those of a century ago. At the time when Washington and Jefferson warned us against "entangling alliances" and Monroe promulgated his famous doctrine, the United States could well afford to stand for a complete isolation of the Western hemisphere from the disturbing influences of European diplomacy. We had no outlying possessions to command our attention in foreign parts; the two oceans surrounding us were deemed a sufficient barrier to prevent any serious interference in American affairs by the European powers. Further more it was well understood that the Monroe Dostrine was assured of the support of the British fleet in case a manifestation of force should become necessary.

What are the conditions at the present time? We are now about five times nearer Europe owing to improved transportation facilities. We have acquired interests in Alaska, the Hawaiian Islands and the Philippines which must be protected. Our commerce, oftentimes carried in foreign-owned ships, penetrates to nearly every corner of the globe. In the growing interdependence of nations and their closer contact with one another, our country has by no means remained isolated; the nations of Europe were not at war three years when the United States was drawn into the conflict. World peace is no longer a provincial concern, its violation affecting only the parties actively engaged in the dispute; it is of international importance.

But it is possible that some persons while favoring the general idea of a league of nations, are opposed to the specific proposals embodied in the constitution of the league as lately projected. This part of the discussion will be deferred until next time. C. S. JOSLYN '20.