The Press Wednesday, September 25, 1929. The Optional Clause.

Press, Volume LXV, Issue 19733, 25 September 1929, Page 10

The Press Wednesday, September 25, 1929. The Optional Clause.

The forebodings with which Professor J. 11. Morgan views the signature of the Optional Clause, binding the several members of the Empire to the jurisdiction of the World Court of International Justice at The Hague, are no more to be lightly dismissed than they are to be accepted as infallible predictions. It is right, and necessary, that all the implications of an act long debated and long postponed should be understood, including its implications of risk. Professor Morgan does not by any means exhaust them when he details those of Imperial disagreement. There are, for instance, the risks of suffering unjust decisions. Canada has explicitly admitted them, but nevertheless prefers "an unfavourable " settlement ... to a victorious war." But in concentrating his attention on the possibilities of danger within the Empire, imported by the manner of signing rather than by the simple fact, Professor Morgan excites an interest which need not be all the interest of alarm: it can be the interest of a problem for conciliatory and constructive statesmanship. To know the worst that may happen is not to believe that it must happen, and sit down to wait for it; and it would be absurd to suppose either that the British Government ha 3 been taken by surprise by Professor Morgan's analysis or that it is totally unprepared to meet the facts disclosed. At the same time, the most hopeless sceptic, with regard to the methods of arbitration, and the most enthusiastic advocate of them may be at one in regretting that Mr MacDonald's eagerness, with other causes, prevented the members' of tho Empire from signing with complete accord, and, in particular, with complete accord on the reservation of disputes among themselves. Problems that might have been disposed of before signature are now presented by it; but they do not thereby become insoluble. Three weeks ago, when the Irish Free State's intention of signing without reservation was announced, the Morning Post declared that £he motive was that of referring the Irish Treaty to the World Court's interpretation; and Professor Morgan says the same thing in louder words when he speaks of a "lethal " blow at the constitutional structure "of the Empire." It is difficult to see how the interpretation of a treaty—which is all the Court is competent to undertake —could have the effect of abolishing it and of abolishing with it the substantial and sentimental ties of Empire; but we may still agree that it would be in the highest degree unfortunate if members of the Empire at any time and on any matter felt greater confidence in the judgment of an external Court than in their own powers to harmonise difference. This, and not any consequential decision of the World Court, right or wrong, would itself be the real disruption of the Empire, or its beginnings; and the fact suggests the lines along which the ideal and the reality of Imperial unity are to be pursued. For the rest, it is n6t quite easy to comment on Professor Morgan's remarks; for some of them suggest that we have not been fully and accurately informed on all points. For example, he refers to South Africa's subsciiption as if it took a singular form, whereas a few days ago a cablegram reported that all the Empire delegations (except the Free State) had signed in terms of an agreed formula, covering identical reservations. But this can safely be said, that while the issues raised are grave, no doubt, they seem graver than they are. The worst, in the governance of the British Empire and its several members, is always a theoretical worst, which is belied by the event; and the way of risk has not seldom turned out to be the way of happy result. We disousß in a second article the relation of the Dominions to the Privy Council, but the Optional Clause raises a muoh bigger question which it would not be wise to shirk.