For the sake of brevity this may be called the "economic boycott," but
it is really very much more than simply economic pressure. It is a
common habit in political discussions to confuse very different things,
to which the same name is given, and the term "economic boycott" is
being used to cover three proposals of very different character. (_a_)
It may mean a permanent exclusion of Germany from the markets of the
world to punish its people for supporting the crimes of its rulers and
incidentally to secure for ourselves a valuable extension of trade by
reason of the exclusion of a rival. (_b_) It may mean a temporary
measure to insure that agreed terms of peace are observed by those who
disregard "mere scraps of paper," to act as a guarantee that restitution
shall be made for wrongs done, to check the revival and extension of the
enemy's armaments, to make the German people feel the disadvantages and
loss caused by their action, and the desirability of joining with
others in repudiating war as a means of settling disputes or asserting
national claims. (_c_) It may mean a sanction for breach of the
stipulations contained in the agreement on which the League of Nations
is founded, i.e., a punishment to be inflicted on anyone who infringes
the agreement he has made--a means of insuring performance of its terms.
It is in this last sense that it is used in the present discussion.

(2) The second sanction proposed in the scheme is of a still more
serious character. The clause to embody it runs as follows:

"Certain members of the League specified in a schedule and to consist of
the chief military and naval powers, should agree, if required to do so
by a resolution of the League, to commence war against the guilty
nation, and to prosecute such war by land and sea until the guilty
nation shall have accepted terms which shall be approved by the League."