Some of the weaknesses and inconsistencies of the plan proposed by the
Philadelphia League of Peace meeting are succinctly set forth in a
communication from Hon. James Brown Scott in this issue of the WORLD
COURT. It will be seen that the approval or adoption of such a plan by
the United States would place the government and people of this country
in a very equivocal position. To begin with, we should have to discard
the advice given by George Washington in his Farewell Address, not to
entangle ourselves in the wars and politics of European nations; and in
the second place we should have to place the Monroe Doctrine in pawn. We
should have either to abandon our independence as a sovereign nation, or
else place ourselves in the inconsistent attitude of approving the use of
force to coerce other powers while refusing ourselves to be coerced; and
by implication we would place ourselves in the rôle of a bully to the
weaker nations and of subserviency to the strong powers—unless we want to
obligate ourselves to join in a war against the strong powers regardless
of our preparedness or ability to carry on such a conflict.
The proposition to furnish a contingent to a posse comitatus to enforce
the judgment of a World Supreme Court stands on a very different
footing. The League of Peace plan would compel us to furnish a force to
compel any other nation to come before the Council of Conciliation. The
proposition formulated at Cleveland by the World Court Congress was to
first establish the International Court by consent and agreement of the
Powers, and then to help furnish a posse comitatus in case of necessity,
to execute the decrees of the court. Any nation taking its case before
a World Court voluntarily, would thereby tacitly agree to submit to the
judgment of such Court, and in case it proved recalcitrant compulsion to
compel its submission would be justified legally and morally.