Some Problems to be Solved in any Effort to Enforce Peace B By EMERSON MCMILLIN Chairman Executive Committee of The World's Court League Y what rule shall be determined the magnitude of the Army and the number of vessels of the Navy that any given state shall furnish to an International Peace Force? Population, Wealth and Commerce would necessarily be factors in solving the question. Should these be determining factors, then America would run at least second in the list. Would our people, who have been accustomed to getting along with an Army barely large enough for a police force, and a Navy smaller than any country of similar population, wealth and commerce, be willing to support possibly the first and certainly the second Army in the world, for the maintenance of peace amongst other nations? I have asked the question of many members of the League to Enforce Peace, and have always received a negative an swer. Assuming that the Armies and Navies can be raised for the purpose, who will command them? We are told that the International Court or some governing body is to be selected at a Congress to be held at The Hague. Admit that such a Council, or Junta, could be agreed upon, it will not be composed of Admirals and Generals. A Grand Admiral to command all the Navies, and a Generalin-Chief to command all the Armies, must be chosen. Knowing something of the bitterness that now exists between the belligerents in the present war, does anyone believe that within the next decade the Central Powers would consent that Joffre should command their Armies; or that the Entente Allies would consent that Hindenburg should command their Armies? No one can believe either possible. But we are told that while it is deemed advisable to provide a military force, there is little or no probability that it would be called into active service. I quite agree to the improbability of the military force being used, first through the absence of occasion, and second through inability to use it. Apparently the power that the good people, who are doing such efficient work for the League to Enforce Peace, rely upon to carry out the purpose of the League, is Economic Force. To most men this appears to be a powerful weapon. But is it really any more practicable than the military force? No. Suppose the Governing Body, whatever it may be called, should decree that Great Britain was derelict, obstreperous in her demands on a weaker nation, refusing to submit the international question to a Commission for investigation and report. Suppose the Council should forbid other nations to carry on commerce, or to have financial dealings with her. London was long the Clearing House for the Commerce of the World, and probably will be again. England for ages has been the great Creditor Nation of the Civilized World and probably will be again. Would the majority of States consent to the disorganization of the world trade in order to carry out the decree of embargo? Would the borrowing States consent to destroy the prospect of floating loans in London in order to observe the decree of the Junta? I think not. But it may be said that Great Britain cannot for many years be the great Clearing House for Commerce, nor the great Creditor Nation. Possibly. But if not Great Britain then it will be some other strong nation, perhaps our own, to which the difficulties mentioned would apply with equal force. Suppose Russia should be the recalcitrant State and the order goes out that other States shall not do business with her. If times are then normal, such a prohibition would injure Germany far more than any other nation. Would Germany deem this fair? No. She would side with Russia in her contention. Suppose China was the obstreperous nation, and the Council should place an embargo on all trade with her. The proportionate loss to Japan would be many times greater than it would be, say, to America. Would the Japanese deem it fair that they should suffer many times their proportionate loss? No, certainly not. Any embargo that would cut off our trade with Canada would cause more loss to America than to all other States combined. Would our people deem that fair? We are human. In plain words, Economic Force is wholly impracticable. Apparently it is assumed by the advocates of enforced peace that a recalcitrant State will stand alone in its opposition. Since when did that rule prevail? During the Napoleonic period France sometimes stood alone, Nations but often she had allies. are much more closely linked now than in the beginning of the 19th Century. It is doubtful if we ever again see any great State entering war without the sympathy of one or more other States,-a sympathy so strong that it would be impossible for the Junta to use it, or their troops, or warships in an effort to enforce peace. If I understand correctly, the League to Enforce Peace would use force against a State that should make war on another member State without first having the questions at issue passed upon by a Commission. But it will not make war on the recalcitrant nation if it consents to have the question investigated, even though the Commission may find such nation wholly in the wrong. In other words, the League will make war on a nation when the League does not know whether the nation is in the right or the wrong. But the League will not make war on the nation, even to preserve peace, after the investigation shows it to be in fault! As a world peace proposition that is a bit inconsistent. It From Charles Fremont Taylor, Editor of Equity, Philadelphia.—“I wish to congratulate you upon your February number. is by all odds the best number of THE WORLD COURT I have seen-and I have seen your magazine more or less regularly for the past two or three years. . . . This number has nothing irrelevant in it, and it is full from first to last with exceedingly important matter. This one number is worth an entire year of your magazine as it was not less than a few months ago. If this standard should be maintained your magazine will be an important influence leading to the new conditions which we hope Thirteen Independent States in 1789 established an Interstate Court for the Settlement of Justiciable Questions. In the dealings of the States, one with another, and during the period of their confederated existence, they had realized the desirability of such a Judicial body, though there was probably much less demand preceding the establishment of the United States Supreme Court than there is now for an International Court. The Supreme Court was established without any special provisions, either military or econòmic, for the enforcement of its decrees. The effort of the thirteen independent States succeeded, because the people reasoned it was to their interest to have the Court. The Court today stands without an equal as a Judicial body; more revered than either of the two other branches of our government. Follow as nearly as possible the footsteps of our forefathers, in the establishment of an International Court, and you will deserve to, and probably will succeed, without the aid of Armies and Navies and without unfair and unjust use of economic pressure. for after this war. I am rather embarrassed to even try to specify any particular article in this number, as they are all excellent. But I cannot resist commending the "Peace Diplomacy" portion which I hope will become a permanent department in your magazine. Important international documents are coming out thick and fast. We read them in our newspapers, and these papers are lost, and we often want to refer to the documents. Here you have them gathered together for permanent keeping. If you will carry on this department henceforth, it will be a distinctive and valuable feature of your magazine." I' By JAMES BROWN SCOTT Address delivered at the Washington's Birthday Dinner of the World's Court League T is not my purpose on this twenty-second day of February to attempt a eulogy upon Washington, whose character and ability secured the independence of the United States; whose judgment kept us at peace during the storm and stress of the wars of the French Revolution and whose wisdom devised and defined the policy which the United States has followed from that day to this, resulting in content at home and prestige abroad. My purpose is rather to show that the aims and objects of The World's Court League, for which I have the honor to speak to-night, are in complete harmony with the character, judgment and wisdom of Washington, that we may confidently appeal to him in support of those views of international relations which we hold, and in the conviction that in advancing them we are paying a not unworthy homage to the soldier, the statesman and the benefactor of his kind to whom under God we owe our being. In a letter written in 1785 to a former companion in arms, Washington said: "My first wish is to see this plague to mankind banished from the earth, and the sons and daughters of this world employed in more pleasing and innocent amusements, than in preparing implements and exercising them for the destruction of mankind." And in the same year, in a letter to a French officer who had served in the French forces in Amer ica, he said: "I never expect to draw my sword again. I can scarcely conceive the cause, that would induce me to do it." In his message to Congress of November 19th, 1794, Washington thus defined the policy which he had pursued as President during the trying years of the French Revolution: "My policy in our foreign transactions has been to cultivate peace with all the world; to observe treaties with pure and absolute faith; to check every deviation from the line. of impartiality; to explain what may have been misapprehended and correct what may have been injurious to any nation." In his farewell address he counselled his fellow-countrymen to "observe faith and justice to all nations" and to furnish the "example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence." If, however, the policy of good faith and justice did not secure the observance of our rights, he was ready to proceed to war, in his opinion the last resource, and when begun it was to be prosecuted until the purpose was accomplished which justified the appeal to arms. appeal to arms. His justification of war is perhaps stated with the greatest solemnity and finality in the following passage from his last will and testament: "To each of my nephews, William Augustine Washington, George Lewis, George Steptoe Washington, Bushrod Washington, and Samuel Washington, I give one of the swords, or couteaux, of which I may die possessed, and they are to choose in the order they are named. These swords are accompanied with an injunction not to unsheath them for the purpose of shedding blood, except it be for self-defence, or in defence of their country and its rights; and in the latter case, to keep them unsheathed, and prefer falling with them in their hands to the relinquishment thereof." In this passage I believe Washington spoke for his countrymen then and now. Let me state very briefly Washington's views as to how the peace of justice might be obtained. As far as I have been able to learn he was the first person in the New World, for it then was and still is the new world, to propose an international prize court to settle title to property captured during war in order to preserve peace among the states. Writing to Congress from his headquarters at Cambridge on November 11th, 1775, he said, as Commander-in-Chief of the Army: "Should not a court be established by authority of Congress, to take cognizance of prizes made by the Continental vessels? Whatever the mode is, which they are pleased to adopt, there is an absolute necessity of its being speedily determined on." At first the Congress itself passed upon the claims; later it appointed from its members a Court of Appeals in prize cases, and the jurisdiction of this court was later conferred on the Supreme Court of the United States when that august tribunal was devised in 1787. Exactly one hundred and twenty years later the American delegation to the Second Hague Peace Conference was a joint proposer with Germany, Great Britain and France of a Prize Court for that larger union which the Conference itself called the Society of Civilized Nations. Washington favored the judicial settlement not merely of prize cases, but of all justiciable disputes between the states. He was a delegate from Virginia to the convention which created the Supreme Court of the United States with jurisdiction of all controversies in law or equity between and among the states. As President of the Convention, he set his hand to the Constitution creating the court. As President of the more perfect union, he appointed the judges of the court which the Constitutional convention recommended and the states ratified. One hundred and twenty years later the American delegation to the Second Hague Peace Conference proposed an international court of justice for the Society of Civilized Nations, to use again the language of the Conference, and The World's Court League is organized for the express purpose of creating a public opinion in behalf of the proposed court and, in any and every possible way, to aid in its creation. But Washington's charity, although it began at home, was not confined to the United States He was not only in favor of judicial settlement of disputes between states of |