Jasper County Democrat, Volume 23, Number 47, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 8 September 1920 — “HUMBUG” IN HARDING’S PLAN [ARTICLE]

“HUMBUG” IN HARDING’S PLAN

FOR SUBSTITUTE FOR LEAGUE In that body (the Hague tribunal) we have the framework of a really effective instrumentality of pearce, Harding. I!he reason Mr. Taft, A» LSwrence Lowell and other eminent Republicans helped to form “the league to enforce peace,” In 1915, as a propaganda society, was because The Hague treaties and Hague tribunal had signally**failed in their purpose. The first Hague treaties came in 1899, the second treaties in 1907.1 Between 1899 and 1915, inclusive, there were no less than slx*ma’or wars in the world, not counting the Philippine war or the Boxer uprising in China, all culminating finally In the most stupendous war In history. Yet Mr. Harding sees In the i framework of The Hague tribunal "a really effective instrumentality; of enduring peace.” J * * * in this scheme as a substitute for th 9 ■ league of nations there is an im- 1 menee amount of humoug. First, ' 1

the international conferences could have no more effect than the European concert had before the v/orld war, when the powers in the concert “exchanged views” whenever a crisis threatening peace arose. Second, the jurisdiction of the international court, which au’ealv is a subordinate feature oi the league s constitution, would be llaiit>i sharply and narrowly to "‘justiciable” questions, that is to say questions of the Interpretation of treaties, or of International law, or of breach of contract, which are capable of submission by their very nature to u court. President Taft’s abortive arbitration treaties of went no further than “justiciable” questions. Great powers nowadays seldom go to war over such maters. The issues which bring on wars are of an entirely different character and the world court would not touch them. The first thing this country u opposition party would demand would be that nothing concerning the Monroe doctrine, or questions concerning “any governmental policy of the United States, should be placed within the jurisdiction of such a court. Virtually., the same killing amendments would be demanded in the senate that were annexed to the Taft treaties of 1911-1912. Mr. Harding evades a frank: and direct consideration of the vital question as to how far the decisions of the court should be enforced. The truth Is that neither this country nor any other country could be coerced to accept unfavorable judgments, as an unsuccessful litigaut is coerced Into bowing to the judgment of our state or federal courts, without a sacrifice of that very sovereignty and nationality which Mr. Harding’s party now pretends to have saved by killing “Wiiscn s league.” The moment the international court’s - decrees become enforceable by an international sheriff, you have a “super-supreme court of the world,” and “internationalism” in the form most awful for our iohnsons, Borahs and Lodges to contemplate. That as President, after being chosen with the aid of the Johnsonites, the Hearsts and the George Sylvester Viericks, Mr. Harding would ever get anything “with teeth in it,” or would seek to get anything “with teeth in it ” is quite unthinkable. —Springfield Republican, • •• -i" V ' ■— ■ ;»■