Evening Post. TUESDAY, AUGUST 7, 1923. PRINCIPLES AND POLITICS

Evening Post, Volume CVI, Issue 32, 7 August 1923, Page 6

Evening Post. TUESDAY, AUGUST 7, 1923. PRINCIPLES AND POLITICS

Tew men in high office receive in their lifetime full recognition of their merits. If they are wise, then', generation either fails to perceive it or forms an exaggerated estimate of their wisdom. Then comes disillusionment and the reaction. It cannot be said that the late President Harding suffered in this way. It was commonly reported at the time of his selection as the Republicai? nominee that his chief recommendation was that he would be manageable. No one expected from him a policy either brilliant or forceful. Least of all was there any expectation of a personal and dominating leadership. He chose his Ministers well, and the country was thankful for this. It did not expect him to do more and to dictate to the Senate how it should act. Yet this man who was chosen because he would be manageable actually became a powerful force, disregarding some of the men whd claimed to have made him President. And his power was exerted to maintain the honour of his party against those who would set aside a political platform as a matter of no importance—after the election. A testimony to the way in which he worked, and the motives actuating him, is given by an American writer in " The Round Table." The article is dated 30th April, and the tribute wliich.it pays to the President is the more remarkable because the American contributor to the review has not previously been sparing in his condemnation of the sins of omission of the Harding Administration. The article is of particular interest now, because it sets in clear outline a problem which will remain for President Harding-'s successor.

The writer confidently asserts that in spite of efforts to fight it, forget it, shelve it, and becloud it, the League of Nations provides the most important popular issue, perhaps the only issue "of political significance in the United States. The League was defeated in part by a pledge that an " Association of Nations " under American auspices would be formed if President Harding were returned. Some of the men responsible for this pledge forgot it, or, at least, neglected it when the election was won. President Harding was not one c* these.

The President himself (states "The Round Table " writer), a man of honour and of high principle, began to lose patience with the " inner group." A satisfactory Court existed, adhesion would sacrifice no interest of the United btates; it was the part of national honour to join. For many months, and with such infinite patience as Harding alone possesses, the point of honour was laboured with the Republican " leaders " Finally, in the face of a threatened disruption of the party, but in pursuance of a vigorous, almost religious, sense of personal obligation, Harding asked the Senate to ajvfrove of a simple plan for the adhesion of the United States to the permanent International Court of Justice.

President Harding' s course was the more courageous because he took it in the face of opposition from a powerful group within his own party. That opposition was carried to the length of an attempt to prevent, his re-nomination for the Presidential office. In effect, the issue became one -of who should control the destinies of the Republican Party. President Harding accepted the challenge; supported by Mr. Hughes and Mr. Hoover, and refused to deviate from the path which he judged to be the path of honour.

High courage and high principle would probably have won the day; but now that there must be a change in the Presidential chair, the opponents of the League and the Court will have their energy renewed. Mr. Coolidge may not feel that he has a warrant to pursue the course set by President Hardmg. If a 0) the Court and the League mil be an issue for the next presidential election. "The Round lable' writer suggests that a clean-cut fight upon some domestic issue would clear the air for calm discussion of the merits of further co-operation with Europe. There are many important internal problems, but' none is so outstanding as to become an issue to the exclusion of all other questions. In none of them is there a clear line of cleavage between Republican and Democratic policy. "Nothing but tradition, abstract loy-, alties, and the name distinguishes a- Democrat, as such, from a Republican—except the League of Nations." The Republican strength m 1920 was derived from unity in opposition to the' League, against which unity the Democrats could

muster only a doubting and divided force. Now the necessity for doing something more than oppose is creating division among the Republicans. For Europe, and for the League, it would be much better if this issue could be removed from the political field, or at least become one of minor importance. But if this is not possible, we may at least hope that the man who is chosen to bear the banner of the Republicans will fear party disruption as little as President Harding did when high principle was involved.