Evening star., 1925-09-06
BY HAMILTON HOLT.
Former Editor of, the independent.

At the present moment there are
two peace groups in the United States
who have caught the ear of the public.
The one-and by far the larger
would have the United States join the
World Court and the League of Ma
tions. The other-smaller, but ably
led. especially in the Senate-would
have the nations declare that war is
crime and that all seizures, annex
ations or exactions, by force, duress or
fraud are null and void
The aim of both of these schools is
the outlawry of war. The chief diff
ference between them is measured by
the sanctions they would use to sus-
tain international law.
The so-called "outlawry of war
school, of which Senator Borah is the
most conspicuous leader. would have
international law upheld by public
opinion alone. The League of Ma
tions-World Court school. of which
former Supreme Court Justice Clarke
and former Attorney General Wicker
sham are the champions, would EN-
ploy every known sanction-diplo-
matte, moral, economic and military.
Worlds Difficult Problem
Undoubtedly the question of what
sanctions are requisite to maintain in
ternational law is the most difficult
problem now confronting world states
manship. One thing, however. is GER
tain. No sanction can have the effect
desired unless it is strong enough to
deter those who are tempted to dis
regard it. Can any or all of these do
this? I leave out of account diplo-
matte pressure, because diplomatic
pressure, essential and often effective
in the early stages Of controversy,
has never been accounted sufficient
when real crisis arises.
Can public opinion compel obedi-
ence to international law? While it is
an axiom Of political science that no
law can be enforced contrary to pub
lie opinion, the converse is, of course
not true. Public opinion can no more
prevent a great nation from violating
the canons of international law. as
has been amply demonstrated in the
Great War, than can public opinion
within a nation apprehend a criminal
or put down a riot. Public opinion
must sustain international law and
approve it's enforcement. Public opin-
ion as substitute for force is a pure
chimera.
Never Actually Enforced.
Will non-intercourse or economic
pressure be sufficient to maintain in
ternational law? Economic pressure
is already a part of the law of the
league of nations. But though the
threat of It's use has been made sew
eral times, especially in the Albania
and Jugoslayia boundary dispute, it
has never been actually resorted to.
While economic pressure would un-
doubtedly in many instances-perhaps
in most-be sufficient to bring about a
recourse to a peaceful settlement,
there are several reasons to think it
would not always work. Two of the
most important are as follows:
First: Economic pressure can never
be as great as physical pressure, both
by>the very nature of the case, and
because as President Lowell of Har-
ward has well pointed out. 1.-THE re-
sistance of the interests affected will
be at least as great against an eco
nomic boycott as against war, and
they will be constantly striving to
break it down, whereas war once de-
clared silences opposition'-a fact
which any nation that thought of
breaking international law would not
fail to notice.
Proposal Meets Obstacles.
Second: The proposal to resort to
inon.intercourse will have to meet a
practical difficulty. When such a
measure is to be employed how can
the coercing nations equitably appor-
ton the pressure among themselves.
lin undertaking to employ military
lforce this is difficult enough-witness
| the near defeat of the allies before
they would unity their armies under
iFoch--but when economic pressure is
to be employed. it is conceivable that
a single nation may have to bear