Some of the weaknesses and inconsistencies of the plan proposed by the Philadelphia League of Peace meeting are succinctly set forth in a communication from Hon. James Brown Scott in this issue of the WORLD COURT. It will be seen that the approval or adoption of such a plan by the United States would place the government and people of this country in a very equivocal position. To begin with, we should have to discard the advice given by George Washington in his Farewell Address, not to entangle ourselves in the wars and politics of European nations; and in the second place we should have to place the Monroe Doctrine in pawn. We should have either to abandon our independence as a sovereign nation, or else place ourselves in the inconsistent attitude of approving the use of force to coerce other powers while refusing ourselves to be coerced; and by implication we would place ourselves in the rôle of a bully to the weaker nations and of subserviency to the strong powers—unless we want to obligate ourselves to join in a war against the strong powers regardless of our preparedness or ability to carry on such a conflict. The proposition to furnish a contingent to a posse comitatus to enforce the judgment of a World Supreme Court stands on a very different footing. The League of Peace plan would compel us to furnish a force to compel any other nation to come before the Council of Conciliation. The proposition formulated at Cleveland by the World Court Congress was to first establish the International Court by consent and agreement of the Powers, and then to help furnish a posse comitatus in case of necessity, to execute the decrees of the court. Any nation taking its case before a World Court voluntarily, would thereby tacitly agree to submit to the judgment of such Court, and in case it proved recalcitrant compulsion to compel its submission would be justified legally and morally. PREPAREDNESS AND WAR