NINETEENTH ANNUAL YEAR BOOK— PART VII 417 



Argentina on meat and wheat. That it would not "butt into" the ques- 

 tion as to whom we should make citizens and whom we should not. That 

 it should be somewhat of an elastic organization, mainly to give the na- 

 tions of the world a chance to talk things over together. 



Another thing I thought about — the international relations of nations 

 are matters of daily importance, and it has seemed to me, before we had 

 gotten very far with the League of Nations, we should discover it was 

 very much more economic than a political or military organization. In 

 other words, it would have to do more with the common, ordinary, daily 

 relations of the world than with extraordinary crises that come up from 

 time to time. Then I remembered that during the last days of the ad- 

 ministration of that great man — the greatest loss, I think, that could come 

 to the world at this time is the death of Theodore Roosevelt— that during 

 his administration the nations of the world had been asked to send dele- 

 gates to an international conference, whose object was to make an in- 

 ventory of the natural resources of the whole earth. Some twenty-five 

 nations accepted that invitation. Then when the next administration 

 came in the matter was dropped. These nations were to come together 

 to find out what there is for man, and after that arrange for the best 

 possible distribution of raw materials upon which human life depends. I 

 have always thought that in that plan lay the germ of very much such a 

 League of Nations as we are going to get now. 



Assuming that I have interpreted without too much distortion your 

 idea of a League of Nations, let us go back for a moment to some of the 

 questions coming up now at the peace table. I have been very much 

 impressed with this, that no attempt whatever has been made to have 

 agriculture represented at the peace conference, either directly or as ad- 

 visory bodies. We all know that Samual Gompers is there representing 

 labor. You have read in the papers that one of the first points to come 

 up will be the establishment of international standards with regard to 

 labor. They are proposing to put into the peace treaty itself certain 

 guaranties for the workers off the farm, but there is no guaranty for the 

 welfare of the man who works on the farm — a most extraordinary situa- 

 tion. More than half of the people of the United States live in the coun- 

 try and in country towns; yet, so far as I am informed, there is no offi- 

 cial proposition whatever to see that they are looked after in the framing 

 of the greatest and most formative document any of us ever knew any- 

 thing about. Agriculture is the most international; the great bulk of the 

 trade of the world is the product of the farm; wheat and cotton are prob- 

 ably the most international products. Isn't it fair and right, under these 

 circumstances, that the farmers of the world should be considered? Why 

 haven't they been considered? There is just one reason: Because the 

 farmers of the world are not organized as the industrial workers of the 

 world are. 



Now, suppose we had a representative body in Paris demanding from 

 the peace conference the rights of the agricultural peoples of the world — 

 what would we ask for? There does not exist an international agricul- 

 tural program, as there exists an international labor program. I have 

 tried to write down some things I think such a body ought to ask for. 

 Doubtless you can suggest others. But the whole thing has been let alone, 



27 



