Referring to the proposed consti
tution of the League of Nations, he
first criticised it for "looseness of ex
pression which he saia- characteriz
ed it throughout and then because
it appeared to set up two operating
entities for its enforcement, the "high
contracting parties" and the League
itself. In this connection he said the
importance of this became apparent
when it was observed that "the high
contracting parties" did not comprise
every member state in the League and1
that, therefore, "the burden assum
ed by the high contracting parties,
whoever they may be, possibly the
'big five," is crushing in its weight."
The senator complained especially
against leaving the Central Powers
out of the League, saying the inevit
able result would be "to drive them
more closely together for mutual self
protection, thus making the forma
tion of a second League of Nations
bidding for adherence from neutral
states almost a certainty."
"Thus, at no distant date." he con
tinued, "we should have two great
Leagues of Nations and two great
camps each preparing for a new and
greater life and death struggle."
"Even the term 'League of Nations'
is a deceptive misnomer," he declar
ed, "for under this proposed plan the
nations of the world are divided into
three classes:
"First, signatories of the Covenant;
these are not named, but it is as
sumed they will include and possibly
be confined 'to the five Great Bntenta
Powers that is to say. the British
empire, France, Italy, Japan and the
United States.
