THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. MONDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 1923. AMERICA AND THE LEAGUE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LX, Issue 18334, 26 February 1923, Page 6

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. MONDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 1923. AMERICA AND THE LEAGUE.

j The President of the United States ! has become the advocate, in a message to Congress, of his country seeking membership in the Perma- | nent Court of International Justice ! established by the League of i Nations. It is true that Mr. Hard- | ing proposes to hedge this partici- ! pation about with certain restrictions j and stipulations. The emphatic i disclaimer, the assertion that the step need not involve* any obligation J under the- clauses particularly ob- [ noxious to America, is natural, indeed, inevitable. There has been too much positive denunciation of Article ten of the Covenant, in particular, for a Eepublican' Administration to retract. Mr. Harding must respect the sensitiveness of a public opinion which he and his associates did much to create. He ; expresses the belief, however, that ; the League will accept the proposed . reservations. Whether he has had private assurances on the point is not even hinted. In any event, it seems feasible, on the face of the proposition, that the League should welcome this step by the United States. It has appointed to its judicial bench an American judge, who has accepted office and commenced the discharge of his duties. It would, as Mr. Harding remarks, accept America as a suitor. The Court is not constituted, but merely authorised, by the Covenant of the League. . The giving of the United States a voice in the selection of members of the Court would seem a small price to pay for what is in substance the longest step yet proposed by that nation toward practical recognition of the League as an active force in international affairs. The entry of America into the League would unquestionably be universally welcomed by those who believe in its future and actively support it *' at present. Therefore, though this first advance be cautiously proposed, hesitant, and almost timid, there is no reason to expect it will be repulsed. American opinion describes it as the most important announcement of international policy since the summoning of the Washington Conference. It should not be valued , on a lower basis by Europe. There is a paradoxical turn to the thought Of Europe welcoming the first faltering steps of the United States toward adherence to the League of Nations. The idea of a league, as a sequel to the "War, was originally American. It was Mr. W. H. Taft, lawyer, publicist and ex-President, who first gave it shape and voice. Mr. Wilson adopted it with enthusiasm. With this birth and nurture the idea was developed at the Versailles Conference, the Covenant was drafted, and 'was embodied as an integral portion of the Treaty of Peace. As the first signatory of the Treaty of Versailles, Mr. Wilson was the first envoy to subscribe his name to the matured con- ! ception of the League of Nations. ) The story of how the" American Conj gress rejected both Treaty and Covenant is old and oft-told. Briefly j the objections were levelled in the | main against Article three and Article ten. The first gaye each member of the League a single vote at the , Assembly. America would not agree to be on the same basis as, say, Bolivia, and protested against the preponderance of voting power resting within the British Empire through the individual membership of the self-governing Dominions. Article ten pledged the members to respect and preserve against aggression the independence and territorial integrity of all members. From this were conjured up visions of American forces being called upon to participate in Euro-

pean quarrels without the authority j of Congress. It was indicted as a direct negation of the Washington maxim "no entangling alliances." The final summing up was that | American idealism had produced the idea of a League of Nations,, but refused to recognise its fruition in the League evolved at Versailles. The Covenant which produced in the United States such bitter and recriminatory dissent contained other provisions besides those around which controversy ranged. Article fourteen gave the Council power to' formulate plans for the establishment of a Permanent Court of International Justice. This was a matter of time. It was not until October, 1921, that the work was completed and the Court commenced to function. It is not a Court of Arbitration, but of law. Consisting of 11 permanent and four deputy-judges, who are neither politicians nor diplomats, its duties are to consider disputes of an international character, and to lay down rulings based upon agreed legal principles. The parties need not be members of the League, the judges are appointed by a rather complicated process of election, carried out by the Council and Assembly of the League acting in conjunction. It follows, therefore, that the United States, though it may be associated with the composition and working of this body without becoming a member of the League, must necessarily come into very intimate contact with the working of the whole organisation. From this aspect the proposition made by Mr. Harding at once becomes charged with the highest significance. It should mark the first breach in -that barrier so industriously built up between the United States and the League of Nations. That breach may not be widened either easily or speedily. Yet, if it can be made, as a result of this suggestion, it affords the first real grounds for hoping that the whole barrier may some day be levelled.