The Sun and the New York herald., 1920-09-24
Tho Sanction and Sheriff OF the
Proposed SuperIudiciAry.

EtOpObou buporJuuiclhry'
Mr.. EDWARD 5. coRwIN, profesSo
OF politics in Princeton unlverslt!
and an earnest friend Of the move
ment to develop a permanent court o
international justice, writes in III,
Weekly ReVioto Of this week concern
Ing two somewhat nebulous features
OF the general scheme,
The first consideration Is as to IN,
sheriff Of the Court, the sanction foI
the enforcement OF the internationa
tribunals Judgments This question
presents one OF the logical and consti
tutlonal obstacles from the American
point OF view. Professor CoRwN
elucidates II thus:
Though the published plan Is not
explicit on this point, It ia reasonable
to suppose. In view OF tho fact that
the Permanent Court will occupy the
Jurisdiction outlined for tribunals OF
arbitration in Article XIII. Of the
Covenant, that tho sanction supplied
by Article XVI OF the Covenant for
the findings lof arbitration tribunals
will also be available to findings OF
the permanent Court That Is to say,
should any member Of tho League
resort TO war In disregard or findings
OF the Permanent Court. II will 'lpSo
facto be deemed TO have committed
an act OF war against all members Of
tho League which accordingly viii be
under joint obligation to boycott the
offending member. and individually
will be froe TO proceed against It,"
The vicious circle is complete and
It's circumference is here clearly
drawn and exhibited. The court is es
thblished as n department of the
League, The judges Of the court are
chosen by the Council and Assembly
OF the League. The decisions OF the
court are enforced by the League, and
every member Of the League (lnclud,
ing the United States, II President
WILSON and Governor Cox should
ever succeed in putting us into tho
Leagle) Is under treaty obligation to
act as sheriff or deputy sheriff In tho
process Of enforcement; to, regard as
an act of war against itself the dec
laratlon Of war by the recalcltrant
member against the other party to the
dispute; that Is, to join In the boycott
anyway, and to go to war unless 1t
shall elect to swallow and submls.
sively Ignore what It Is pledged Ia
regard as a declaration Of war against
Itself So. as regards Article XVI
we get back to the same unconstitu.
tlonal engagement which the country
has come to understand and abomi-
nate In the case Of Article X.
The second point is presented with
similar clarity by Professor CoRwIN:
-Lastly, this question arises:
Should tho United States reserve as
against the Permanent Court the
right to determine the scope Of the
Monroe Doctrine and what are do
nestle questions? The Lodge res
ervatlons do reserve this right as
against the existing League but It is
possible that the jealousy thus rightly
manifested toward 30 purely diplo-
matte body as the Council will not
be Forthcoming toward structure
so much moro in line with our own
legal traditions"
THE sun AND NEW YORK HERALD is
unable to concur In Professor Cor
WINS estimate Of the possibility Of
the American peoples surrendering
the Monroe Doctrine for interpreta-
tion and application by a League
appointed and League sustained trlbu-
nal; or, again, to make over to that
exotic tribunal our independent and
sovereign right to decide what ques-
'tlons are domestlcqu questions Every rea-
son demanding thecontemptuous rejec-
tion Of Mr.. WILSON'S original proposal
to transfer these inalienable rights
to an Executive and Legislative super.
government In the shape of the League
seem to us to apply with equal force to
their proposed transfer to an interna.
tional superjudiciary.
No, thank you, gentlemen!