The memorandum, prepared with this end in view, is as follows: "The system of 'mandatories under the League of Nations,' when applied to territories which were formerly colonies of Germany, the system which has been practically adopted and will be written into the plan for the League, raises some interesting and difficult questions: "The one, which is the most prominent since it enters into nearly all of the international problems presented, is--Where does the sovereignty over these territories reside?
"Sovereignty is inherent in the very conception of government.

It cannot be destroyed, though it may be absorbed by another sovereignty either by compulsion or cession.

When the Germans were ousted from their colonies, the sovereignty passed to the power or powers which took possession.

The location of the sovereignty up to the present is clear, but with the introduction of the League of Nations as an international primate superior to the conquerors some rather perplexing questions will have to be answered.
"Do those who have seized the sovereignty transfer it or does Germany transfer it to the League of Nations?
If so, how?
"Does the League assume possession of the sovereignty on its renunciation by Germany?
If so, how?
"Does the League merely direct the disposition of the sovereignty without taking possession of it?
"Assuming that the latter question is answered in the affirmative, then after such disposition of the right to exercise sovereignty, which will presumably be a limited right, where does the actual sovereignty reside?
"The appointment of a mandatory to exercise sovereign rights over territory is to create an agent for the real sovereign.

But who is the real sovereign?
"Is the League of Nations the sovereign, or is it a common agent of the nations composing the League, to whom is confided solely the duty of naming the mandatory and issuing the mandate?
"If the League is the sovereign, can it avoid responsibility for the misconduct of the mandatory, its agent?
"If it is not the League, who is responsible for the mandatory's conduct?
"Assuming that the mandatory in faithfully performing the provisions of the mandate unavoidably works an injustice upon another party, can or ought the mandatory to be held responsible?
If not, how can the injured party obtain redress?
Manifestly the answer is, 'From the sovereign,' but who is the sovereign?
"In the Treaty of Peace Germany will be called upon to renounce sovereignty over her colonial possessions.