LODGE VS. LOWELL.

Seldom has a conflict of great minds, such as that which occurs in Symphony Hall tonight, taken place with no specific subject for discussion previously announced. If, as now seems likely, President Lowell and Senator Lodge intend to discuss the particular problem of the Covenant of Paris rather than the general proposition of a League of Nations, a more valuable purpose will be served. Even the opponents of the present draft admit that a league of peace, under whatever name, is theoretically desirable, and that popular opinion demands some organization for the future prevention or limitation of war. But the real cause of the difference of opinion between tonight's illustrious speakers is the constitution President Wilson "brought how in his pocket." This is the subject of immediate national importance. Should they fail to unite on the specific question, the debate will be no debate at all but rather an exposition or a discussion of two different aspects of the League.

The Senatorial opposition to the Covenant has based some of its strongest arguments on the violations of the United States Constitution which it appears to demand. In fact Senator Knox's speech on March 1 was based essentially on this proposition. President Lowell must show conclusively that no such violations exist, that whatever of sovereignty the United States gives up in taking her share in the responsibilities of the League will be so insignificant in comparison with the ensuing benefits as not to bear discussion. Senator Lodge, however, has an equally difficult task in successfully maintaining that America ought not to forego the Monroe Doctrine and Washington's advice at a moment when the world's problems seem to many more far-reaching than Monroe or Washington ever dreamed they might become.

The similarity between the two men makes their appearance as opponents on the same platform all the more pertinent. Both members of old Massachusetts families, graduates of Harvard College and the Law School, well versed in questions of government and international relations, they have every reason for thinking in common. That two such men should differ on a matter of such transcending national consequence doubles the importance of their meeting tonight. It will be a battle royal.