New-York tribune., 1910-01-25
INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNALS.
Scope of Mr.. Knox's Proposal for a
Permanent Court.
the Editor of The Tribune.

To the Editor of The Tribune.
Sir: I have read with much interest the
reports of Secretary KnoX'S plan to invest
the international prize court with the func-
tons of court of arbitral justice, thus
combining two of the courts proposed by
the Hague Conference of 1907; also, the let
ter of George Winfield Scott and your
reply thereto. May I be permitted to add
few remarks to the discussion?
Mr. Scott seems to me wrong in trying 10
give the impre ssion that the United States
is not one of the foremost powers in en-
deavoring to spread the practice OF arbi-
tration The figures given by you show
that conclusively. In addition. perhaps 1t
may be well to note that, although. as Mr.
Scott says. Sir Julian Pauncefote was the
person to whom is due the honor OF pro-
posing to the first Hague Conference tor
1S99) a permanent court of arbitration, yet
the American delegation went TO the con-
ference instructed to endeavor to secure the
establishment of such a tribunal (Instruc-
tions TO the International Peace Confer
ence." Vol. III, PIP. S-9: Andrew D. Whites
Autobiography, Vol. II. p. 265) and. with
Russia, was the chief second of the propo-
sition.
Furthermore. at the second conference
Q90D il was the American delegation that
presented the proposition for court Of
arbitral justice, to exist side by side with
the permanent court, the idea being that
the permanent court would be more COM
petent to deal with political controversies.
while the court of arbtral justice. which
was to be composed solely of Jurists lin
this respect differing from the permanent
COURT, would be able better to decide
purely legal questions.
Americas interest in and desire TO fur
ther the cause of arbitration is further
witnessed by the fact that it was due TO
her mediation that the Russo-Japanese
War was ended, and that on her initiative
the second conference called. though
the honor of actually issuing the call was
gracefully resigned TO the Car of Russia
because OF his having called the first con-
ference.
All this, however, is beside the point of
the merit of Secretary Knox's proposal.
and 1 confess that 1 cannot see wherein
his proposition essentially differs from the
proposition for court of arbitral justice
drafted by the second conference. The
prize court and the proposed arbitral court
were both to be constituted of one member
selected by each nation signing the re-
speetve conventions. In each case the ap-
pointees of Austria, France. Great Britain.
Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia and the
United States were always to sit
In one case the court to consist OF
fifteen, in the other of seventeen. members.
and the appointees of the less powerful ma
tions were to- sit in accordance with sched-
ules annexed to the respective conventions.
The delegates of thirty-one out of forty
four nations signed the prize court con-
vention at The Hague, the less powerful
nations being willing to waive their equal
lty in this case, but when It came to a
question of court Of arbitration. or what
is practically an international supreme
court in cases submitted to it. these ma
tions were unyielding in their objections
Consequently, such court was recon-
mended when a basis of representation
could be agreed on.
This objection certainly is not obviated
by Secretary Knox's proposal, and II seems
unlikely that the less powerful nations will
consent to it when their representatives
could not be won over in 1907.
New York, JAN 15 1910. L. E. MAHAN
lOur understanding of Mr. Knox's
proposal is that 1t practically amounts TO
clothing with the powers of a general
tribunal of international adjudication the
tribunal which the-as yet unratifed-
Hague treaty would constitute for the
trial of prize cases in war. That seems
to be an excellent example of American
ingenuity and practicahty, in the utili-
cation of a potentially existing instru-
mentality for laudable ends far beyond
its original purpose. instead of waiting
until brand new, specially created and
ideally constituted instrumentality could
be provided. Granted that some of lhe
smaller powers would object on the
ground suggested by Mr.. Mahan. we
think that If the great powers assentad
to Mr.. Knoxs proposition and estab-
lished the court. there would be much
gain for the world even if the dissentArs
permanently held aloof But we do not
believe they would long do so. The OH
ject lessons provided by the actual work.
ings of the court would presently incline
them to avail themselves of its good Of
fees. Mr.. Knox has, however. submitted
to the consideration of the powers a
general proposition. There would he M
cause for surprise if il were met with
counter proposals. which in their turn
would be similarly met. That is usuaIIv
the process through which great move
ments proceed to important achievo-
ments 1t would be captious to oppose
the general principle at the outset be-
cause of some detail which might be en-
tirely susceptible of adjustment at a
later stage What is important is that
a number of powers. preferably of cours,
the greater Ones such as those which
strove for the prize court at The Hap,a
shall adopt the essential features of Mr.
Knox's plan. That done. an internationa, |
court of justice will have been created in
principle and to that extent in practica
Ed