The High Contracting Parties

The case was an extremely intricate one, and there has been much difference of opinion as to the action of the League. The League facilitated a quick settlement, the early evacuation of Corfu and the avoidance of hostilities; and the actual proposals which it made as to the details of settlement are not open to adverse criticism. But it did not secure the adoption of all these proposals. The action of the Conference of Ambassadors, in giving its award while withholding the report on which it purported to base it, would have been impossible if the League had been in full control of the case. The factors which made effective League action difficult were partly the special and dual position of the Conference of Ambassadors in the question and partly, it must be recognised, the fact that one of the parties involved was a Great Power and that the general relations of the Powers were at the moment complicated by other questions of policy. The degree and limits of the League's action accurately reflect the extent to which it was possible to make a collective world opinion effective under the conditions created at the moment by the relations between the governments, and especially the Great Powers on the Council. That this collective opinion had an important influence on the settlement is indisputable, and the expression of this opinion, made possible by the meeting of the Assembly, was indeed a revelation to all who witnessed it of what is bound to be henceforth a new force of the first importance in the political life of the world.

Mosul.

The Conference of Lausanne in 1923 found that its most difficult question in the settlement of the terms of peace with Turkey was the frontier line between Turkey and the British "mandate" territory of 'Iraq. Agreement having failed, the treaty provided that Turkey and Great Britain should attempt to reach agreement by friendly negotiations, and that, if these did not succeed within nine months, the question should be referred to the Council of the League. The negotiations failed, and in Aug. 1924 the question was accordingly brought before the Council, which appointed a commission of three (a Swede, a Hungarian and a Belgian) to investigate on the spot. The commission worked for eight months and then presented a report in which, after re viewing exhaustively all the factors of the case, they recommended unanimously that the best solution would be for the disputed dis trict, including the town of Mosul, to be included in 'Iraq if the British mandate could be continued for 25 years, but that, if this were impossible, it would be better to assign it to Turkey. When the Council had this report before them in Sept. 1925, they were faced with the contention of Turkey that the Council's task under the Treaty of Lausanne was one of mediation, not arbitration, and that no decision could be binding unless Turkey herself had as sented to it. The Council asked an advisory opinion of the Per

manent Court of International Justice, which replied that the Treaty had given arbitral powers and that the consent of the two parties was not required, though unanimity of the other members was necessary. With this opinion, the Council in Dec. decided, by a unanimous vote of all members other than the disputants, that the territory should be assigned to 'Iraq, subject to the prolonga tion of the British mandate and the assurance of full protection for the Kurdish population. The Turks refused to accept the Court's opinion that an arbitral decision was binding, and with drew from the Council at which the above decision was taken. The British Government undertook to ask for authority to accept the prolongation of the mandate for 25 years or until such earlier date as 'Iraq could be accepted as a member of the League, and announced their intention to attempt the renewal of negotiations with Turkey.

During this difficult period the Council took various measures to assist in the maintenance of the status quo without hostilities and to investigate complaints as to Turkish deportations of Chris tians and violations of the frontier. The mission of Gen. Laidoner on behalf of the League for this latter purpose is of special interest as being the first of its kind. (For the general settlement see MosuL.) The Graeco-Bulgar Incident.--On Oct. 19, 1925 shots were exchanged between two Greek and Bulgarian sentries occupying frontier posts separated by 4o yards on the frontiers northeast of Salonika. On Oct. 22, Greek troops, under orders from Athens, entered Bulgarian territory through the Struma valley and pene trated about 8 km. on a front of about 32 kilometres. Bulgaria telegraphed an appeal to Geneva asking the secretary-general to convene a special meeting of the Council under the powers con ferred on him by Article I r of the Covenant. This appeal arrived on Friday morning, Oct. 23. The secretary-general at once decided to convene the Council, and after telephonic conversation with M. Briand, the president for the time being, fixed it at the most quickly accessible place, Paris, and at the earliest date physically possible for members requiring to come from Stockholm, London and Rome, namely, Monday, Oct. 26. At the same time it was arranged that a telegram should be sent to both Governments in M. Briand's name, as president, calling on both sides to abstain from all hostilities. This telegram was also dispatched the same Friday morning. Preparations had been made for a Greek attack on the Bulgarian town of Petrich with a force of r,000 men and three batteries at 6 A.M. on Saturday, Oct. 24; and the Bulgarian Commander had orders to resist. Briand's telegram, arriving in the two capitals on Friday, was immediately effective. Orders arrived from Athens just in time to stop the Greek attack on Petrich.