New-York tribune., 1907-09-20
THE WORLDS COURT DELAYED.

The American proposal for an international
high court of justice at The Hague has failed
TO secure complete adoption. 1t has not been
defeated. but rather approved; but its appllca-
ton and operation have been delayed until
such time as the constituent powers can de
wise a satisfactory settlement of a single detail
which has apparently batfied the deliberative
abilities of the congress. There can be no
question that n StrOng-perhapS we might with
out offence say the strongest-sentment at The
Hague was in favor of the plan as it stood.
Certainly the overwhelming sentiment was in
favor of its fundamental principle. But it
seemed impossible to secure unanimous agree
ment upon the single detail of the appOrtion-
ment of judges and so, while the general
scheme for organization and procedure
adopted. the measure was remitted to the
various powers for their further consideration,
in the hope that they may he able to do sepa
rately what their representatives have failed to
do collectively. There is reason to expect that
that hope will be fulfilled. at least on the part
of the ajority of important powers, and that
the court will before long become an estab-
lshed fact
The persistence with which the proposed tri-
bunal has been most incorrectly referred to
court of arbitration emphasizes what we
have hitherto said in these columns about the
causes which have led TO this regrettable delay.
There would seem 10 be little excuse for the
confounding Of adjudication with arbitration.
or the administration of justice according 10
law and facts with the making of good
natured compromise: yet such confusion evi-
IDENTITY prevailed at The Hague. it does 10
some degree in the popular mind. unless. indeed.
we 10 accept the less welcome alternative
that a considerable number of the powers were
not willing to accept system of adjudication.
l,4 taI in ifrat
course as system .Of arbitration the Amer
lean proposal would have been entirely unac
ceptable since the essential principle of ar-
bitratiOH is tina; each of the disputants shall
have equal representation on the tribunal or
shall have equal voice in selecting the nm
pire As have hitherto pointed out this
was explicitly and distinctively not To
tribunal of arbitration but of adiudication in
which there would be no more proprietv in
each litigant demanding representative on
the bench than there would he I'm each party
I'm one Of our common law trials demanding
that half the jury should consist Of his parti-
sans.
The entire good faith Of th" United Statos was
ronvincingIy shown in the frank declaration he
fore the congress that 1t was quite willing to
abide by the system proDosed for the election
of Judges. even though thus this country
should fail To have any representative on the
bench. If all the other countries had been
equally willing To intrust their purely juridicaI
contentious 10 an impartial tribunal the
scheme would have been unanimously adopted
in IFS entirety. But apparently some of the
smaller powers were unwilling TO trust court
In which the majority of the Judges might he
"'r-,ontei from III" groat"r pnwerS IF 50
there much annoSiten"ss IN the German
retorf that fhe greater mowers were unwilling
TO .ntrust themselves 20 the smaller powers