The Washington herald., 1921-03-18
q For himself doth nen work evil in work
ing evils for another.-Hesiod.
The League Court.

~ II IN inns world was ever original
IN Even Adam was made in the image OF his
- Maker. Whoever claims originality of IDEAS
or Judgment is sure to be Jared by discovery of
their antiquity So il does not matter If Sisley
Huddleston or The Herald was first. It is Of more
moment that they, as should all great minds >
agree
Mr.. Huddleston is an advocate of the league
Of nations. But such he. is not brassbound as
to forms. He at the first league meeting. He
saw its weaknesses. In an article in Fort
nightly Review, he reaches this conclusion:
.. The construction of such a court-in-
terpational Court of Justice-is at present
the greatest work before the league. am
not that in the court will
not rob the league of many of Instructions;
.. perhaps reduce the league, its parent, to
= relative unmportance. Speaking broadly,
% the scheme is admirable; the method of ap-
pointing judges, the presentation of cases,
:. the details of procedure, are worked out in
s such manner as to evade almost all the
difficulties which have hitherto wrecked the
hope Of an effective court. There are, howA
- ever, two faws-the appearance of state
cited by another is not compulsory, and the
4 court possesses no sanctions. The
* decisions of this body will not be Arbitrary,
Y opportunist, political, diplomatic, as would
= too frequently be the decisions of the
league council assembly; they would be
based upon principles of international law,
: which will be codihed and strengthened. :
q If sanctions" which is the diplomatic term
develop this and the league could place authority IN
the council to devise ways and means to enforce
the courts decisions. In the meanwhile such de
cisions, based upon evidence upon facts developed
during trial and given publicity, would have an
almost compelling effect upon international opinion
The people of the nations would formulate thi.
opinion and not, as now and in the past, merely
the governments who in turn shape national opinion
The evidence could not be suppressed 1t woult
not filter through governmental channels and dip
lomatic censors. 1t would go in the form anc
of the same color to all States to be known of al
men
This would be radically different from decision:
reached by the council, or by the council and as
se1nbly jointly. There the devious ways of diplo
macy would have full swing and would control
There would be the inevitable log rolling swapping
you-6ekle-me-and-I1 -tickle-you, you-giye-me-this
and-you-can-have-that. There would be no secre
conferences, controlling and packed committees, anC
an the evils diplomacy knows so we'll
1T would be- manipulation, and such decisions
would certainly demand sanctions to enforce them
The decisions of court with compulsory jurisdc
ton would be reached in the open and public opin
ion might well be the only ,sapction needed.
would be up to the folk whether such decisio,
should be accepted rejected. 1t would reegat
bringing war into the equation, to those who wouI
have to do the fighting and suffer the consequence
1t would in effect be democratic referendum
and most publcists have claimed that if the decision
there would be no war. The proof of the pudding
IS IN the eating Suppose we at least take bit
and try it?