ment of the law, prohibit the manufacture or sale of liquor containing any alcohol whatever. The prohibition of the manufacture or sale of liquor containing any alcohol whatever or of liquors containing more than a certain per cent of alcohol would greatly facilitate convictions because of the elimination of the necessity of trying the fact whether the liquor is or is not intoxicating. It will also be found that the imposition of fines unaccompanied by imprisonment will have little deterrent effect upon violators of this law. This will be so because the profits being large and convictions of the same individual infrequent, fines can be paid with little or no hardship. My views upon this subject have been formed by many years of observation of the workings of the local option law in Montgomery County. This amendment will improve with age, for succeeding generations will never know what they have lost by its adoption. Speaking seriously, it is reasonable to believe that in the future there will be few who acquire the habit of using intoxicating liquors, and as the number decreases violations of the law will become fewer and its enforcement will become easier.

The amendment to the Federal Constitution conferring the right of suffrage upon women having been passed by the Congress, the question is now an issue in the several States of the Union. While surface indications may seem to point to its ratification by three-fourths of the States, the subject is so profound and fundamental in its consequences, both social and political, that loyalty to our institutions demands the expression of honest and thoughtful opinion as a guide to the legislatures, upon whom the ultimate responsibility must rest. For myself, I cannot understand why women should want to descend from the position they now occupy to engage in the none too clean game of politics.

There is a proverb which says: "Woman is not man's equal. She is either better or worse." Are women wise to descend to become men's equals? I have given this my best thought, and I am convinced it would be most unwise for them to do so. By voting they can gain nothing that they cannot have from the men for the asking. The prohibition amendment is a tribute to woman's influence over men. The strength of government, when traced to its ultimate source, is to be found in the family organization, and I have never seen a happy and united family that had more than one head. I have little knowledge of other States, but surely the right to vote will not benefit the women of Maryland.

For reasons that are obvious, this amendment, if adopted, will be more potential for harm to Maryland than to any other State in the Union. Before the reconstruction amendments were grafted on the Constitution, the States controlled the right of suffrage. If it had not been so, the Constitution could not have been drafted, much less adopted. The States ought to be permitted to retain as a souvenir a remnant of the right which the fathers regarded as the keystone of the Constitution. My views upon this subject may be, probably are, provincial and old-fashioned, but I know I voice the views my mother would express if she were living. If the sentiment of the white women of Montgomery County is fairly representative, I believe I am safe in saying three-fourths of the white women of Maryland are opposed to this amendment, and few of the remaining fourth are insistent upon its ratification. I know full well nothing I have said will in the slightest impede the adoption of this amendment, but I would have felt that I had been recreant in my duty as a citizen if I had refrained from expressing my honest opinion upon a subject which I regard as of such serious import to my State.

The most important matter growing out of the war is the covenant of the League of Nations proposed by the Paris convention. Objections to the plan may be grouped into two classes; those that are purely partisan, and those going to the substance of the instrument. Some Senators complain of the President's bad manners and then they complain that he invited none of them to accompany him to Paris. Fortunately for the President, he had the right to choose his company. If he had selected an associate from among members of the Senate, who could he have chosen? If one friendly to his views, the opposition would have cbjected. If one not in accord with him, there would have been constant danger of a monkey wrench being thrown in the machine. So when we stop to think we conclude that the President acted for the best when he left them all in Washington. Again there is criticism of the secrecy with which the proceedings of the convention have been conducted. But the rules of secrecy governing the Paris convention are not more rigid than were those which governed the convention that drafted the Constitution of the United States. There is also complaint that the convention has not moved fast enough. When, however, the nature and extent of the undertaking are considered, it appears the complaint is ill-founded. With its present rules of procedure, the Senate could not accomplish a like task in a hundred years. The Constitution gives the President power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur. In making treaties the Senate acts in an executive and not a legislative capacity. While the power to make treaties is divided between the President and the Senate, the statement that their powers are co-equal is inapt, as the power to initiate a treaty is vested solely in the President. It may

be aptly said that the Senate controls the foreign policies of the nation for the powers of the President and the Senate in respect to treaties are separable and distinct. But as a treaty to become operative must have the approval of two-thirds of the Senators present, it is prudent for the President when negotiating an important treaty to keep in touch with the Senate when possible. In the present instance, however, that course was impossible because of the vastness of the subject with its multitude of intricate details, the number of nations interested and the remoteness of the place of conference from Washington. While the treaty is in the making the Senate can with perfect propriety, though unasked, tender its advice to the President, but it would seem that the orderly way for it to pursue would be to deliberate and determine its advice in executive session and forward it through a secret channel to the President. If the purpose of the Senate was to be helpful to the President in the momentous work in which he is engaged, no other course would be considered. The issue between the President and the opposition Senators is that they insist upon a severance of the peace treaty from the covenant of the League of Nations, and the President insists that the two are inseparable. If it is as good as the President claims, the covenant certainly ought to be adopted, and if it is as bad as the opposition Senators say it is, it ought to be knocked on the head before it gets its eyes open. As now constituted, the Senate would defeat the covenant if presented alone. It can defeat the peace treaty if interlocked with the covenant, but would it do so? The opposition Senators dread that issue, and well they may, for they know that each day of delay in the ratification of the treaty will increase the demand for action. This fear upon the part of the opposition Senators accounts for their effort

to put the Knox resolution through the Senate before the draft treaty is signed by Germany, a proposition radical to the point of being revolutionary. But none of the things of which I have spoken has to do with the quality of the covenants. At first blush it would seem desirable for this nation to resume the position toward other nations occupied before the war. But can we, with honor? It would seem not. We are engaged to our allies to aid in enforcing the terms of peace imposed on the enemy. We have participated in the erection of new States which must be protected until they can establish stable governments, and like protection must be extended the weaker nations of Europe during the period of their reconstruction, if they are to survive. The fact is, all of the nations of Europe engaged in the war require an assured and protracted peace for their restoration and rehabilitation. If these things are to be done, they can only be accomplished by a continuance of the quintuple alliance. Now it would seem wise if that alliance is to assume the burden of preserving the peace during the reconstruction of Europe, that as many nations as possible should be placed under bonds to keep the peace, and this, as I understand it, is the immediate object of the League of Nations. It is a non sequitur that as there always have been wars there will always be wars. The most sanguine supporter of the League does not expect it to prevent all international wars. If it prevents one, the experiment will not have been in vain. It is urged by the opposition that, by joining the League, the nation will surrender a part of its sovereignty. But not a letter in the Constitution can be changed by a treaty. The Congress alone has the power to declare war; to raise and support armies, and to provide and maintain a navy. I do not intend to suggest that this country will