THE COVENANT AND THE PACT [To the Editor of the
SPECTATOR.] SIR,—Everyone must, I imagine, endorse your welcome given to various letters in the Times insisting that public opinion must express itself more clearly through the Press on the true purpose of the League. But in so far as the letters in question raised what seem to me, at least, to be groundless objections to the proposal so to amend the League Covenant as to bring it into harmony with the Kellogg Pact, I hope that you did not mean that the letters themselves necessarily represent the true purpose of the League accurately.
This is an important question, and cannot be dealt with in a few lines. It is possible that the Spectator will give me the opportunity of discussing it at rather greater length. Meanwhile I only ask to be allowed to suggest that my friend, Mr. Philip Kerr, in sounding an alarm regarding the proposed amendment of the Covenant, has not necessarily said the last word on [We suggest that Mr. Philip Kerr and others who have sounded the alarm are only anxious that the full implications of any attempted synthesis of Pact and Covenant shall be appreciated. As we have said, the present Naval Conference shows what happens as long as statesmen cling to the hypothesis of war—and the notion of military " sanctions " induces or at least encourages that attitude of mind. We shall, of course, welcome a further exploration of the subject by Mr. Wilson Harris.—En. Spectator.]