New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1920-09-13
BY William Howard Taft

bility, be elected President not be-
cause Of his views upon the League
OF Nations. but because the people
are tired Of the Wilson regime and
earnestly seek change.
however, to practical friends of the
League or Nations who do not think
| the elimination Of Article X DESTROYS
lts usefulness. Mr.. Hardin&'s address
OF august ~ gives real ground fol-
nope that he will lead the country into
the league, amended to meet the chief
Republican reservations and further
| amended to secure an international
court to decide justiciable disputes be-
tween nations.
In the outset of his speech Mr.. Har-
ding criticizes the present league as o
failure because it has not met the test
| OF the Russo-Polish war. Friends of
the league might dissent from this on
the ground that Poland began an OF
fensiys war against Russia without
submitting any question to the league
and sinned away her rights to rely on
the guaranty Of Article x. But 1.-The
| merits OF this are really not germane
| to our discussion.
Article X Denounced
The criticism only serves to illus
trate what an analysis Of Mr.. Harding
chief attack upon the league shows :
Of Article X. He says the league is an
offensive and. defensive alliance Of
nations, relying on might rather than
right. Article X is the only part of
the league which lends support to- his
argument on this head. It is the only
one imposing any obligation on men,
bers of the league to preserve the ter
ritory or independence of another.
Mr.. Harding's other criticism Of the
league is directed against the enforced
submission Of justiciable disputes be-
bly, for decision and recommendation
of settlement. This feature of the
league, many of its strongest friends
have thought, ought to be amended as
soon as the league is organized. The
plans Of the League to Enforce Peace,
of General SHUTS and of the English
commission contained q court to decide
justiciable questions, but Mr.. Wilson
objected to an obligatory court. So
in the present league there is q pro-
vision for court, but its jurisdiction,
when organized, is made to depend
upon the consent Of the parties. The
court which the Root-Phillimore COM
mission has recommended, therefore,
is not tribunal to which all justi-
ciable questions are, rs a matter Of
league obligation, to be submitted by
the parties, and it will not be such a
court unless and until the league is
amended as it ought to be.
Prefers Hague Tribunal
Mr.: Harding prefers the Hague tri-
bunal as the proper court, but the
Root Phillimore court is far better
adapted to the purpose which Mr.. Har-
ding has in mind than the Hague tri-
bunal. It is far easier to "put teeth"
into it, and this is what Mr.. Harding
| purposes expressly to do. He wishes
to confer on the court power which
the league will uphold, to compel ma
ticns to submit their justiciable diff
| ferences to its jurisdiction and to
! abide by its judgments.
The present League of Nations &C.
cures submission to the league council
! or assembly to hear and recommend a
settlement Of all disputes by a cove
nant of every nation not to begin war
before submission or until three
months after a decision, and not then
If the decision is complied with. The
covenant is enforced by a universal
boycott by all the members Of the
league against any nation breaking it's
covenant. At the same time any ma
ton interested in enforcement Of the
decision may then begin war for the
purpose against the defaulting nation.
We can hardly suppose that Mr.. Har-
| ding would wish more teeth than this.
Root Plan Has Advantage
The Root-Phillimore provision has a
great advantage over the Hague tri-
bunal in that it furnishes a practical
plan for a permanent court Of con-
stantly serving judges, which is salts
factory to the smaller nations. The
objection of the smaller nations has
heretofore wrecked any plans for such
a permanent court. The Hague tribu-
nal, with it's purely voluntary jurisdic-
ton and voluntary selection of judges,
contains no solution Of the difficulty.
to the Hague tribunal should be
taken as intended only to empha-
size court of international jurists
as principal part Of the machinery
of the league he seeks and the
settlement Of disputes between nations
| on the basis Of right and justice and
international law as chief agency in
maintaining permanent peace. He
wishes to avoid the doubtful method
Of attempting to vest diplomats and
judicial questions, as In the council or
assembly OF the present league.
Favors World Court
Mr.. Harding does not object to a
non-iudicial conference on non-jus-
ticiable questions. On the contrary,
he insists on it. This is what we have
in the league now by submission of
such questions to the council or the
assembly. This particular feature Of
the league called out from Mr.. Root
his highest commentator in his first
discussion Of the league. Mr.. Harding
says:
II believe humanity would welcome
the creation Of an international asso-
| citation for conference and world
court whose verdict upon justiciable
questions this country,.in common with
all nations, would be both willing and
| able toi uphold. The decisions of
| such court or the recommendations
Of such conference would be accepted
without sacrificing on our part or ask
| ing any other power to, sacrifice one
| iota Of It's nationality"
Mr.. Harding's proposals assure our
entrance into the league. For what 10
Mr.. Harding's general plan? He pro-
poses the joint resolution declaring