HISTORIC SPEECHES
WOODROW WILSON
League of
Nations
September 25, 1919
Mr. Chairman and fellow countrymen: It is with a great
deal of genuine pleasure that I find myself in Pueblo,
and I feel it a compliment in this beautiful hall. One
of the advantages of this hall, as I look about, is that
you are not too far away from me, because there is nothing
so reassuring to men who are trying to express the public
sentiment as getting into real personal contact with their
fellow citizens. I have gained a renewed impression as
I have crossed the continent this time of the homogeneity
of this great people to whom we belong. 'They come from
many stocks, but they arc all of one kind. They come from
many origins, but they are all shot through with the same
principles and desire the same righteous and honest things.
I have received a more inspiring impression this time of
the public opinion of the United States than it was ever
my privilege to receive before.
The chief pleasure of my trip has been that it has nothing
to do with my personal fortunes, that it has nothing to
do with my personal reputation, that it has nothing to
do with anything except great principles uttered by Americans
of all sorts and of all parties which we are now trying
to realize at this crisis of the affairs of the world.
But there have been unpleasant impressions as well as pleasant
impressions, my fellow citizens, as I have crossed the
continent. I have perceived more and more that men have
been busy creating an absolutely false impression of what
the treaty of peace and the Covenant of the League of Nations
contain and mean. I find, moreover, that there is an organized
propaganda against the League of Nations and against the
treaty proceeding from exactly the same sources that the
organized propaganda proceeded from which threatened this
country here and there with disloyalty, and I want to say-I
cannot say too often-any man who carries a hyphen about
with him carries a dagger that he is ready to plunge into
the vitals of this Republic whenever he gets ready. If
I can catch any man with a hyphen in this great contest
I will know that I have got an enemy of the Republic. My
fellow citizens, it is only certain bodies of foreign sympathies,
certain bodies of sympathy with foreign nations that are
organized against this great document which the American
representatives have brought back from Paris. Therefore,
in order to clear away the mists, in order to remove the
impressions, in order to check the falsehoods that have
clustered around this great subject, I want to tell you
a few very simple things about the treaty and the covenant.
Do not think of this treaty of peace as merely a settlement
with Germany. It is that. It is a very severe settlement
with Germany, but there is not anything in it that she
did not earn. Indeed, she earned more than she can ever
be able to pay for, and the punishment exacted of her is
not a punishment greater than she can bear, and it is absolutely
necessary in order that no other nation may ever plot such
a thing against humanity and civilization. But the treaty
is so much more than that. It is not merely a settlement
with Germany; it is a readjustment of those great injustices
which underlie the whole structure of European and Asiatic
society. This is only the first of several treaties. They
are all constructed upon the same plan. The Austrian treaty
follows the same lines. The treaty with Hungary follows
the same lines. The treaty with Bulgaria follows the same
lines. The treaty with Turkey, when it is formulated, will
follow the same lines. What are those lines? They are based
upon the purpose to see that every government dealt with
in this great settlement is put in the hands of the people
and taken out of the hands of coteries and of sovereigns
who had no right to rule over the people. It is a people's
treaty, that accomplishes by a great sweep of practical
justice the liberation of men who never could have liberated
themselves, and the power of the most powerful nations
has been devoted not to their aggrandizement but to the
liberation of people whom they could have put under their
control if they had chosen to do so. Not one foot of territory
is demanded by the conquerors, not one single item of submission
to their authority is demanded by them. The men who sat
around that table in Paris knew that the time had come
when the people were no longer going to consent to live
under masters, but were going to live the lives that they
chose themselves, to live under such governments as they
chose themselves to erect. That is the fundamental principle
of this great settlement.
And we did not stop with that. We added a great international
charter for the rights of labor. Reject this treaty, impair
it, and this is the consequence of the laboring en of the
world, that there is no international tribunal which can
bring the moral judgments of the world to bear upon the
great labor questions of the day. What we need to do with
regard to the labor questions of the day, my fellow countrymen,
is tilt them into the light, is to lift them out of the
haze and distraction of passion, of hostility, out into
the calm spaces where men look at things without passion.
The more men you get into a great discussion is the more
you exclude passion. Just as soon as the calm judgment
of the world is directed upon the question of justice to
labor, labor is going to have to forum such as it never
was supplied with before, and men everywhere are going
to see that the problem of labor is nothing more nor less
o than the problem of the elevation of humanity. We must
see that all the questions which have disturbed the world,
all the questions which have eaten into the confidence
of men toward their governments, all the questions which
have disturbed the processes of industry, shall be brought
out where men of all points of view, men of all attitudes
of mind, men of all kinds of experience, may contribute
their part of the settlement of the great questions which
we must settle and cannot ignore.
At the front of this great treaty is put the Covenant
of the League of Nations. It will also be at the front
of the Austrian, treaty and the Hungarian treaty and the
Bulgarian treaty and the treaty with Turkey. Every one
of them will contain the Covenant of the League of Nations,
because you cannot work any of them without the Covenant
of the League of Nations. Unless you get the united, concerted
purpose and power of the great Governments of the world
behind this settlement, it will fall down like a house
of cards. There is only one power to put behind the liberation
of mankind, and that is the power of mankind. It is the
power of the united moral forces of the world, and in the
Covenant of the League of Nations the moral forces of the
world are mobilized. For what purpose? Reflect, my fellow
citizens, that the membership of this great League is going
to include all the great fighting nations of the world,
as well as the weak ones. It is not for the present going
to include Germany, but for the time being Germany is not
a great fighting country. All the nations that have power
that can be mobilized are going to be members of this League,
including the United States. And what do they unite for?
They enter into a solemn promise to one another that they
will never use their power against one anther for aggression;
that they never will impair the territorial integrity of
a neighbor; that they never will interfere with the political
independence of a neighbor; that they will abide by the
principle that great populations are entitled to determine
their own destiny and that they will not interfere with
that destiny; and that no matter what differences arise
amongst them they will never resort to war without first
having done one or other of two things- either submitted
the matter of controversy to arbitration, in which case
they agree to abide by the result without question, or
submitted it to the consideration of the council of the
League of Nations, laying before that council all the documents,
all the facts, agreeing that the council can publish the
documents and the facts to the whole world, agreeing that
there shall be six months allowed for the mature consideration
of those facts by the council, and agreeing that at the
expiration of the six months, even if they are not then
ready to accept the advice of the council with regard to
the settlement of the dispute, they will still not go to
war for another three months. In other words, they consent,
no matter what happens, to submit every matter of difference
between them to the judgment of mankind, and just so certainly
as they do that, my fellow citizens, war will be in the
far background, war will be pushed out of that foreground
of terror in which it has kept the world for generation
after generation, and men will know that there will be
a calm time of deliberate counsel. The most dangerous thing
for a bad cause is to expose it to the opinion of the world.
The most certain way that you can prove that a man is mistaken
is by letting all his neighbors know what he thinks, by
letting all his neighbors discuss what he thinks, and if
he is in the wrong you will notice that he will stay at
home, he will not walk on the street. He will be afraid
of the eyes of his neighbors. He will be afraid of their
judgment of his character. He will know that his cause
is lost unless he can sustain it by the arguments of right
and of justice. The same law that applies to individuals
applies to nations.
But, you say, "We have heard that we might be at
a disadvantage in the League of Nations." Well, whoever
told you that either was deliberately falsifying or he
had not read the Covenant of the League of Nations. I leave
him the choice. I want to give you a very simple account
of the organization of the League of Nations and let you
judge for yourselves. It is a very simple organization.
The power of the League, or rather the activities of the
league, lie in two bodies. There is the council, which
consists of one representative from each of the principal
allied and associated powers-that is to say, the United
States, Great Britain, France, Italy, and Japan, along
with four other representatives of smaller powers chosen
out of the general body of the membership of the League.
The council is the source of every active policy of the
League, and no active policy of the League can be adopted
without a unanimous vote of the council. That is explicitly
stated in the Covenant itself. Does it not evidently follow
that the League of Nations can adopt no policy whatever
without the consent of the United States? The affirmative
vote of the representative of the United States is necessary
in every case. Now, you have heard of six votes belonging
to the British Empire. Those six votes are not in the council.
They are in the assembly, and the interesting thing is
that the assembly does not vote. I must qualify that statement
a little, but essentially it is absolutely true. In every
matter in which the assembly is given a voice, and there
are only four or five, its vote does not count unless concurred
in by the representatives of all the nations represented
on the council, so that there is no validity to any vote
of the assembly unless in that vote also the representative
of the United States concurs. That one vote of the United
States is as big as the six votes of the British Empire.
I am not jealous for advantage, my fellow citizens, but
I think that is a perfectly safe situation. There is no
validity in a vote, either by the council or the assembly,
in which we do not concur. So much for the statements about
the six votes of the British Empire.
Look at it in another aspect. The assembly is the talking
body. The assembly was created in order that anybody that
purposed anything wrong should be subjected to the awkward
circumstance that everybody could talk about it. This is
the great assembly in which all the things that are likely
to disturb the peace of the world or the good understanding
between nations are to be exposed to the general view,
and I want to ask you if you think it was unjust, unjust
to the United States, that speaking parts should be assigned
to the several portions of the British Empire? Do you think
it unjust that there should be some spokesman in debate
for that fine little stout Republic down in the Pacific,
New Zealand? Do you think it was unjust that Australia
should be allowed to stand up and take part in the debate-Australia,
from which we have learned some of the most useful progressive
policies of modern time, a little nation only five million
in a great continent, but counting for several times five
in its activities and in its interest in liberal reform?
Do you think it unjust that that little Republic down in
South Africa whose gallant resistance to being subjected
to any outside authority at all we admired for so many
months and whose fortunes we followed with such interest,
should have a speaking part? Great Britain obliged South
Africa to submit to her sovereignty, but she immediately
after that felt that it was convenient and right to hand
the whole selfgovernment of that colony over to the very
men whom she had beaten. The representatives of south Africa
in Paris were two of the most distinguished generals of
the Boer Army, two of the realest men I ever met, two men
that could talk sober counsel and wise advice, along with
the best statesmen in Europe. To exclude Gen. Botha and
Gen. Smuts from the right to stand up in the parliament
of the world and say something concerning the affairs of
mankind would be absurd. And what about Canada? Is not
Canada a good neighbor? I ask you, Is not Canada more likely
to agree with the United States than with Great Britain?
Canada has a speaking part. And then, for the first time
in the history of the world, that great voiceless multitude
that throng hundreds of millions strong in India, has a
voice, and I want to testify that some of the wisest and
most dignified figures in the peace conference at Paris
came from India, men who seemed to carry in their minds
an older wisdom than the rest of us had, whose traditions
ran back into so many of the unhappy fortunes of mankind
that they seemed very useful counselors as to how some
ray of hope and some prospect of happiness could be opened
to its people. I for my part have no jealousy whatever
of those five speaking parts in the assembly. Those speaking
parts cannot translate themselves into five votes that
can in any matter override the voice and purpose of the
United States.
Let us sweep aside all
this language of jealousy. Let us be big enough to know
the facts and to welcome the facts, because the facts
are based upon the principle that America has always
fought for, namely, the equality of self-governing peoples,
whether they were big or little-not counting men, but
counting rights, not counting representation, but counting
the purpose of that representation. When you hear an opinion
quoted you do not count the number of persons who hold
it; you ask, "Who said that?" You weigh opinions,
you do not count them, and the beauty of all democracies
is that every voice can be heard, every voice can have
its effect, every voice can contribute to the general judgment
that is finally arrived at. That is the object of democracy.
Let us accept what America has always fought for, and accept
it with pride that America showed the way and made the
proposal. I do not mean that America made the proposal
in this particular instance; I mean that the principle
was an American principle, proposed by America.
Well you come to the heart of the Covenant, my fellow
citizens, you will End it in article ten, and I am very
much interested to know that the other things have been
blown away like bubbles. There is nothing in the other
contentions with regard to the league of nations, but there
is something in article ten that you ought to realize and
ought to accept or reject. Article ten is the heart of
the whole matter. What is article ten? I never am certain
that I can from memory give a literal repetition of its
language, but I am sure that I can give an exact interpretation
of its meaning. Article ten provides that every member
of the league covenants to respect and preserve the territorial
integrity and existing political independence of every
other member of the league as against external aggression.
Not against internal disturbance. There was not a man at
that table who did not admit the sacredness of the right
of self determination, the sacredness of the right of any
body of people to say that they would not continue to live
under the Government they were then living under, and under
article eleven of the Covenant they are given a place to
say whether they will live under it or not. For following
article ten is article eleven, which makes it the right
of any member of the League at any time to call attention
to anything, anywhere, that is likely to disturb the peace
of the world or the good understanding between nations
upon which the peace of the world depends. I want to give
you an illustration of what that would mean.
You have heard a great deal- something that was true and
a great deal that was false-about that provision of the
treaty which hands over to Japan the rights which Germany
enjoyed in the Province of Shantung in China. In the first
place, Germany did not enjoy any rights there that other
nations had not already claimed. For my part, my judgment,
my moral judgment, is against the whole set of concessions.
They were all of them unjust to China, they ought never
to have been exacted, they were all exacted by duress,
from a great body of thoughtful and ancient and helpless
people. There never was it any right in any of them. Thank
God, America never asked for any, never dreamed of asking
for any. But when Germany got this concession in 1898,
the Government of the United States made no protest whatever.
That was not because the Government of the United States
was not in the hands of high-minded and conscientious men.
It was. William McKinley was President and John Hay was
Secretary of State-as safe hands to leave the honor of
the United States in as any that you can cite. They made
no protest because the state of international law at that
time was that it was none of their business unless they
could show that the interests of the United States were
affected, and the only thing that they could show with
regard to the interests of the United States was that Germany
might close the doors of Shantung Province against the
trade of the United States. They, therefore, demanded and
obtained promises that we could continue to sell merchandise
in Shantung. Immediately following that concession to Germany
there was a concession to Russia of the same sort, of Port
Arthur, and Port Arthur was handed over subsequently to
Japan on the very territory of the United States. Don't
you remember that when Russia and Japan got into war with
one another the war was brought to a conclusion by a treaty
written at Portsmouth, N.H., and in that treaty without
the slightest intimation from any authoritative sources
in America that the Government of the United States had
any objection, Port Arthur, Chinese territory, was turned
over to Japan? I want you distinctly to understand that
there is no thought of criticism in my mind. I am expounding
to you a state of international law. Now, read articles
ten and eleven. You will see that international law is
revolutionized by putting morals into it. Article ten says
that no member of the League, and that includes all these
nations at have demanded these things unjustly of China,
shall impair the territorial integrity or the political
independence of any other member of the League. China is
going to be a member of the League. Article eleven says
that any member of the League can all attention to anything
that is likely to disturb the peace of the world or the
good understanding between nations, and China is for the
first time in the history of mankind afforded a standing
before the jury of the world. I, for my part, have a profound
sympathy for China, and I am proud to have taken part in
an arrangement which promises the protection of the world
to the rights of China. The whole atmosphere of the world
is changed by a thing like that, my fellow citizens. the
whole international practice of the world is revolutionized.
But you will say, "What is the second sentence of
article ten? That is what gives very disturbing thoughts." The
second sentence is that the council of the League shall
advise what steps, if any, are necessary to carry out the
guaranty of the first sentence, namely, that the members
will respect and preserve the territorial integrity and
political independence of the other members. I do not know
any other meaning for the word "advise" except "advise." The
council advises, and it cannot advise without the vote
of the United States. Why gentlemen should fear that the
Congress of the United States would be advised to do something
that it did not want to do I frankly cannot imagine, because
they cannot even be advised to do anything unless their
own representative has participated in the advice. It may
be that that will impair somewhat the vigor of the League,
but, nevertheless, the fact is so, that we are not obliged
to take any advice except our own, which to any man who
wants to go his own course is a very satisfactory state
of affairs. Every man regards his own advice as best, and
I dare say every man mixes his own advice with some thought
of his own interest. Whether we use it wisely or unwisely,
we can use the vote of the United States to make impossible
drawing the United States into any enterprise that she
does not care to be drawn into.
Yet article ten strikes at the taproot of war. Article
ten is a statement that the very things that have always
been sought in imperialistic wars are henceforth foregone
by every ambitious nation in the world. I would have felt
very much disturbed if, sitting at the peace table in Paris,
I had supposed that I was expounding my own ideas. Whether
you believe it or not, I know the relative size of my own
ideas; I know how they stand related in bulk and proportion
to the moral judgments of my fellow countrymen, and I proposed
nothing whatever at the peace table at Paris that I had
not sufficiently certain knowledge embodied the moral judgment
of the citizens of the United States. I had gone over there
with, so to say, explicit instructions. Don't you remember
that we laid down fourteen points which should contain
the principles of the settlement? They were not my points.
In every one of them I was conscientiously trying to read
the thought of the people of the United States, and after
I uttered those points I had every assurance given me that
could be given me that they did speak the moral judgment
of the United States and not my single judgment. 'Then
when it came to that critical period just a little less
than a year ago, when it was evident that the war was coming
to its critical end, all the nations engaged in the war
accepted those fourteen principles explicitly as the basis
of the armistice and the basis of the peace. In those circumstances
I crossed the ocean under bond to my own people and to
the other governments with which I was dealing. The whole
specification of the method of settlement was written down
and accepted before hand, and we were architects building
on those specifications. It reassures me and fortifies
my position to find how before I went over men whose judgment
the United States has often trusted were of exactly the
same opinion that I went abroad to express. Here is something
I want to read from Theodore Roosevelt:
"The one effective move for obtaining peace is by
an agreement among all the great powers in which each should
pledge itself not only to abide by the decisions of a common
tribunal but to back its decisions by force. The great
civilized nations should combine by solemn agreement in
a great world league for the peace of righteousness; a
court should be established. A changed and amplified Hague
court would meet the requirements, composed of representatives
from each nation, whose representatives are sworn to act
as judges in each case and not in a representative capacity." Now
there is article ten. He goes on and says this: "The
nations should agree on certain rights that should not
be questioned, such as territorial integrity, their right
to deal with their domestic affairs, and with such matters
as whom they should admit to citizenship. All such guarantee
each of their number in possession of these rights."
Now, the other specification is in the Covenant. The Covenant
in another portion guarantees to the members the independent
control of their domestic questions. There is not a leg
for these gentlemen to stand on when they say that the
interests of the United States are not safeguarded in the
very points where we are most sensitive. You do not need
to be told again that the Covenant expressly says that
nothing in this covenant shall be construed as affecting
the validity of the Monroe doctrine, for example. You could
not be more explicit than that. And every point of interest
is covered, partly for one very interesting reason. T his
is not the first time that the Foreign Relations Committee
of the Senate of the United States has read and considered
this covenant. I brought it to this country in March last
in a tentative, provisional form, in practically the form
that it now has, with the exception of certain additions
which I shall mention immediately. I asked the Foreign
Relations Committees of both Houses to come to the White
House and we spent a long evening in the frankest discussion
of every portion that they wished to discuss. They made
certain specific suggestions as to what should be contained
in this document when it was to be revised. I carried those
suggestions to Paris, and every one of them was adopted.
What more could I have done? What more could have been
obtained? The very matters upon which these gentlemen were
most concerned were, the right of withdrawal, which is
now expressly stated; the safeguarding of the Monroe doctrine,
which is now accomplished; the exclusion from action by
the League of domestic questions, which is now accomplished.
All along the line, every suggestion of the United States
was adopted after the Covenant had been drawn up in its
first form and had been published for the criticism of
the world. There is a very true sense in which I can say
this is a tested American document.
I am dwelling upon these points, my fellow citizens, in
spite of the fact that I dare say to most of you they are
perfectly well known, because in order to meet the present
situation we have got to know what we are dealing with.
We are not dealing with the kind of document which this
is represented by some gentlemen to be; and inasmuch as
we are dealing with a document simon-pure in respect of
the very principles we have professed and lived up to,
we have got to do one or other of two things-we have got
to adopt it or reject it. There is no middle course. You
cannot go in on a special-privilege basis of your own.
I take it that you are too proud to ask to be exempted
from responsibilities which the other members of the League
will carry. We go in upon equal terms or we do not go in
at all; and if we do not go in, my fellow citizens, think
of the tragedy of that result-the only sufficient guaranty
to the peace of the world withheld ! Ourselves drawn apart
with that dangerous pride which means that we shall he
ready to take care of ourselves, and that means that we
shall maintain great standing armies and an irresistible
navy; that means we shall have the organization of a military
nation; that means we shall have a general staff, with
the kind of power that the general staff of Germany had;
to mobilize this great manhood of the Nation when it pleases,
all the energy of our young men drawn into the thought
and preparation for war. What of our pledges to the men
that lie dead in France? We said that they went over there
not to prove the prowess of America or her readiness for
another war but to see to it that there never was such
a war again. It always seems to make it difficult for me
to say anything, my fellow citizens, when I think of my
clients in this case. My clients are the children; my clients
are the next generation. They do not know what promises
and bonds I undertook when I ordered the armies of the
United States to the soil of France, but I know, and I
intend to redeem my pledges to the children; they shall
not be sent upon a similar errand.
Again and again, my
fellow citizens, mothers who lost their sons in France
have come to me and, taking my hand, have shed tears
upon it not only, but they have added, "God
bless you, Mr. President!" Why, my fellow citizens,
should they pray God to bless me? I advised the Congress
of the United States to create the situation that led to
the death of their sons. I ordered their sons overseas.
I consented to their sons being put in the most difficult
parts of the battle line, where death was certain, as in
the impenetrable difficulties of the forest of Argonne.
Why should they weep upon my hand and call down the blessings
of God upon me? Because they believe that their boys died
for something that vastly transcends any of the immediate
and palpable objects of the war. They believe and they
rightly believe, that their sons saved the liberty of the
world. They believe that wrapped up with the liberty of
the world is the continuous protection of that liberty
by the concerted powers of all civilized people. 'They
believe that this sacrifice was made in order that other
sons should not be called upon for a similar gift-the gift
of life, the gift of all that died- and if we did not see
this thing through if we fulfilled the dearest present
wish of Germany and now dissociated ourselves from those
alongside whom we fought in the world, would not something
of the halo go away from the gun over the mantelpiece,
or the sword? Would not the old uniform lose something
of its significance? These men were crusaders. They were
not going forth to prove the might of the United States.
They were going forth to prove the might of justice and
right, and all the world accepted them as crusaders, and
their transcendent achievement has made all the world believe
in America as it believes in no other nation organized
in the modern world. There seem to me to stand between
us and the rejection or qualification of this treaty the
serried ranks of those boys in khaki, not only these boys
who came home, hut those dear ghosts that still deploy
upon the fields of France.
My friends, on last Decoration day I went to a beautiful
hillside near Paris, where was located the cemetery of
Suresnes, a cemetery given over to the burial of the American
dead. Behind me all the slopes was rank upon rank of living
American soldiers, and lying before me upon the levels
of the plain was rank upon rank of departed American soldiers.
Right by the side of the stand where I spoke there was
a little group of French women who had adopted those graves,
had made themselves mothers of those dear ghosts by putting
flowers every day upon those graves, taking them as their
own sons, their own beloved, because they had died in the
same cause-France was free and the world was free because
America had come! I wish some men in public life who are
now opposing the settlement for which these men died could
visit such a spot as that. I wish that the thought that
comes out of those graves could penetrate their consciousness.
I wish that they could feel the moral obligation that rests
upon us not to go back on those boys, but to see the thing
through, to see it through to the end and make good their
redemption of the world. For nothing less depends upon
this decision, nothing less than liberation and salvation
of the world.
You will say, "Is the League an absolute guaranty
against war?" No; I do not know any absolute guaranty
against the errors of human judgment or the violence of
human passions but I tell you this: With a cooling space
of nine months for human passion, not much of it will keep
hot. I had a couple of friends who were in the habit of
losing their tempers, and when they lost their tempers
they were in the habit of using very unparliamentary language.
Some of their friends induced them to make a promise that
they never would swear inside the town limits. When the
impulse next came upon them, they took a street car to
go out of town to swear, and by the time they got out of
town they did not want to swear. They came back convinced
that they were just what they were, a couple of unspeakable
fools, and the habit of getting angry and of swearing suffered
great inroads upon it by that experience. Now, illustrating
the great by the small, that is true of the passions of
nations. It is true of the passions of men however you
combine them. Give them space to cool off. I ask you this:
If it is not an absolute insurance against war, do you
want no insurance at all? Do you want nothing? Do you want
not only no probability that war will not recur, lout the
probability that it will recur? The arrangements of justice
do not stand of themselves, my fellow citizens. the arrangements
of this treaty are just, but they need the support of the
combined power of the great nations of the world. And they
will have that support. Now that the mists of this great
question have cleared away, I believe that men will see
the truth, eye to eye and face to face. There is one thing
that the American people always rise to and extend their
hand to, and that is the truth of justice and of liberty
and of peace. We have accepted that truth and we are going
to be led by it, and it is going to lead us, and through
us the world, out into pastures of quietness and peace
such as the world never dreamed of before.
<< Go
Back