"TRENTON, NEW JERSEY, AND PARIS,

FRANCE"

BY ALFRED L. P. DENNIS

In his inaugural address as President of the American Historical Association, Dean Haskins of Harvard quoted a remark by a private of a New Jersey regiment at the close of the late war: "There's a hell of a lot of difference between Trenton, New Jersey, and Paris, France; and you don't know it till you get to Paris, France."

I quote this remark again, not with a view to advertising the educational advantages of foreign travel, but because it is an eminently wise statement based on personal observation. There is a lot of difference. Yet it is that difference with respect to the rest of the world that the American people are asked to bridge. As this possibility opens before us, what are the actual political conditions which face us? What forces are at work here in America and abroad with reference to our foreign policies and the policies of other countries? Let us take a "swing round the circle" to have a look at things.

The entire controversy with regard to the prospect of the United States as a member of the World Court arises first of all from the inherent American dislike and distrust of European affairs. It is not that we are content with the "village pump", but that our "village" has seemed to be big enough for us. Many of us came from Europe to escape from just that sort of entanglement in the affairs of our neighbours which we fancy is now about to be thrust upon us. I well remember several years ago a long talk with an eminent American, who later was an Ambassador. He declared that the negro problem, the development of the Mississippi Valley, and other entirely domestic questions, would occupy the mind of America for years to come. There was no chance, he asserted, that problems of foreign policy

would become dominant in American politics. He was wrong, of course, and we differed very frankly at the time.

However, it took a World War and experience abroad to complete his Ambassadorial education. He is today keenly interested in our foreign policy. Yet his original point of view was just the point of view which has had control in our national affairs and which was preeminently American. The facts of our history had escaped him and the weight of world affairs did not seem to be pressing.

Today, President Harding can say that "no one can hold the Presidential office without being convinced that it is impossible for the United States to stand aloof from the rest of the world." This remark, however, was not intended as encouragement to those who would see the United States join the League of Nations. The opinion of the leaders of the Republican party is still heavily against such a step. Nevertheless, the remark is not without significance, for it shows that the experience of office has told on the President; and it exhibits an innate desire to see the United States play her rightful part in the affairs of the world. Unquestionably the President is more at home in domestic matters; the relief with which he turns to such questions is apparent. He did not have the vision for the study of foreign relations; but gradually he has seen that they must play an enormous part in the success or failure of his administration.

The decision to propose joining the Permanent Court of International Justice, or World Court, came from the feeling that something must be done to demonstrate the readiness of the United States to take part in world affairs. It also came from the influence of distinguished lawyers in persuading the Administration that it was safe and wise to join in the movement. During 1921 Mr. Root and his associates were abroad, largely concerned with the development of the idea that the principles of American federalism were historically applicable to the choice of judges for the World Court. Professor Moore of Columbia University was later elected as a member of the Court. It was apparent, however, that the advocates of the World Court would not be satisfied until the United States was actually a member. Consequently a small group of lawyers were again associated in studying ways

and means of securing it. This non-partisan but highly professional group had from the first the support of Secretary Hughes and thus eventually of President Harding.

In connection with this decision, however, there is the political aspect of the matter to be considered. In this there are four elements. (1) First are those who are strong in their hatred of war but who are equally strong in their opposition to American participation in European affairs. This group, of whom Senator Borah may be considered the mouthpiece, favours a movement to "outlaw war". They consequently are opposed to the idea of admission to the World Court. They fear that the American people will be satisfied merely with the support of the Court. To this group belong some of the professional Pacifists and many of the Radicals. They, therefore, want the plan for admission to this Court shelved as interfering with the highly commendable but practically impossible scheme that they advocate.

(2) A second element is opposed to the World Court because it is "European". They see the United States as the one country which can remain free from the burdens of international rivalry, and they quote without ceasing the much misunderstood language of George Washington. Foreign affairs are taboo to them and Europe is a hotbed of hatreds. Senator Johnson or Senator Moses is perhaps typical of this group.

(3) Still a third group is ready for the admission of the United States to the World Court because they fancy it is a step in the direction of American participation in world affairs and because they expect in this way to open the door at the next election in November, 1924, to our admission to the League of Nations. The campaign is already on for this purpose. The League of Nations Non-Partisan Association is busy with its programme of speakers; and the stage is set for an enthusiastic welcome to President Harding's plan because out of it the advocates of the League of Nations expect to accomplish something much beyond the thought of the administration at Washington. Ex-Justice Clarke, Mr. Colby, and Mr. Wickersham, are of this camp.

(4) Fourthly and finally, there are President Harding himself and those Senators who, willingly or unwillingly, are supporting him in a plan to settle the difficult question of doing something

which will show to the American people that the Republican party has kept its pledges and yet to avoid the issue of joining the League of Nations or of actively participating in European affairs. They declare that it is possible for the World Court to remain a part of the League of Nations, as far as the rest of the world is concerned, but that the United States can join the Court without in any way entangling itself by associating with the League of Nations. I suppose this is true; certainly some of the best legal brains in America have certified that it is possible. President Harding has come out emphatically for admission to the World Court; he declares that "the national heart, conscience, and judgment are alike enlisted", and that "we need never fear that any opposition will prevail".

What is the reason for all this fervor and agitation? Why are we to hear this summer speech after speech on the World Court? Why at the next session of Congress is the Senate to discuss reservations in the endeavour to tie up the entire matter? The plan is a perfectly simple one. The United States is to be invited to join the World Court after that body has been sufficiently separated from the League of Nations. Whether that is done or not, for us to stay out of the Court, to oppose membership in it, would be an absurdity. We have favoured the idea of arbitration and the practice of judicial settlement of those international disputes which are justiciable. The fact that we are not already a member of the Court is in itself an accident of politics. President Harding is simply trying to put us where we belong.

The real reason for the commotion this proposal has created lies in its implications and associations. There is in the proposal a possible attempt to confuse the real issues of the coming Presidential campaign. The supporters of President Harding wish to point to our membership in the World Court as an achievement, as a demonstration of our interest in and sympathy with the affairs of the world outside. They have no intention of committing the United States beyond that. The supporters of the League of Nations, on the other hand, wish to have our membership in the Court as a stepping stone toward full membership in the League. For this reason they will try to demonstrate

the futility of going only as far as the Court and refusing to go further toward association with other nations.

It is for such reasons that the visit of Lord Robert Cecil was of interest and importance to the issues of the next Presidential campaign. Rarely has a foreigner had to define for us the real issue of our domestic politics. Yet that is precisely what Lord Robert did. By sedulously refusing to discuss the World Court, by keeping entirely aloof from our politics, and by keeping firmly and courteously to his own theme, the League of Nations,-he placed an apparently hopeless cause in a position where no one could neglect it.

The foreign policy of the United States has had a hard struggle. So far under Secretary Hughes it has the Washington Conference to its credit. The treaties signed there have not as yet been ratified by France. Their intent, however, has already become practically a certainty. Great Britain and Japan have already shown by their policies that they intend to adhere to them. The Far East is, for the time, quiescent as far as any rivalry between the United States and Japan is concerned. In the mean time at Tokio the content of Japanese policies is slowly become clearer. It is by a policy of friendship with China to try gradually to take the position of commercial advantage and of real direction that Japan thinks is rightfully hers. Meantime the Chinese, by the rivalry of their tuchuns, or local chieftains, and by the corruption of their politics, are rapidly throwing away the advantages they had gained at Washington. It is clear that the immediate future of the Far East must depend largely on local and domestic politics.

Our policy in the Near East has been reviewed so recently (The United States and The New Turkey in this REVIEW for May) that it is necessary only to observe that so far our policy has been chiefly negative. So also with reference to Russia, the administration continues in lawyer-like fashion to support the policy of non-recognition laid down under President Wilson. Disputes as to the enforcement of our laws at sea could be extremely interesting were the cargoes any save liquor. The Eighteenth Amendment seems to have forced us into a conflict of national laws which, however, does not as yet touch any fundamental issue of foreign