The Richmond palladium and sun-telegram. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1907-1939, 1920-11-11
WORLD COURT
Continued from Page One)

Continued from Page One)
much space here to go into these
points of similarity nor, further, to de-
scribe this still inchoate plan. But one
question which will arise in the minds
of every one can be partially ali
swered.
| 1t will be asked, what force will be.
, at the command of this new court 10
enforce its DEGREES? What constable
, will it have, or what sheriff, or what
marshall. 10 COMPEL nation against
which a decree is handed down, to
obey that decree? That question has
been at the heart of every discussion
Of the present league of nations and
, of every other proposed form of world
| association to enforce peace
! The league of nations frankly relies
/ upon armies and navieS to enforce lis
DEGREES, and that is practically the
I feature of the league of nations whic,3
was deemed Objectionable by its most
violent critics. The idea that the
american army or the American navy
might be so used was the most sue
cessful appeal for popular support BY
/ those opponents of the league whose
| position was endorsed at the recert
! election.
As to the court which is embodied
! in the new plan, the answer to this
! question about sheriff or a marshal.
! or some other form of force, is thai
the court is not to be allowed to have
any force at it's command 1t is to
bhave neither an army nor a navy. nor
a constable nor a sheriff nor a maj.
! shall
Court Has No Force.
, At this point all who advocate and
support the feature of force as a nee
essity to success in any league to
enforce peace probably will throw up
their hands. They will say that with
out some equivalent for sheriff or a
marshal to enforce it's DEGREES, the
new court will amount to nothing, and
will be helpless to keep the peace.
The answer of those who favor the
new world court, modelled upon the
supreme court of the United States.
will come as a surprise. 1t will CON-
as surprise even to many lawyers
The answer given is that in disputes
between the various states of the
United States our own supreme court
has no force and no way of enforcing
| its DEGREES, if a state should refuse
to obey its decree.
This is a fact that nearly all Amcri
cans have forgotten. II is so uniform
: a practice for our states to obey
decree handed down by the supreme
court of the United States that we all
take it for granted that the defendant
states do so for the same reason that
most of us obey the decree of a court
that is, because of the fear of tn
power over our persons and our prop
erty that the ordinary courts have.
when Hf
states sues another state in the So
preme court. and when the decree is
handed down, that ends the matter.
If the defendant state should choose
TO ignore the decree, there is no way
for the supreme court to punish such
a contempt or overcome such a resist
ance.
i Nevertheless, all our states obey
such DEGREES when they are handed
down. They do so not through feal
of any force that the court possesses.
but solely because of the moral force
of public opinion.
For example, within a very recent
time the state of Virginia sued The
state of West Virginia for sum
amounting to upward of s10,000.0t'.
The supreme court handed down Il
Judgment in favor of Virginia. If West
Virginia had not chosen to pay, tEs'
, supreme court would have been help
less to enforce the decree.
!. In this very case, after a decree
against West Virginia had been hand
ed down, there was a period when
very real concern WAS felt lest West
, Virginia should refuse TO obey and
should take the position of publicly
flouting the supreme court OF Ill"
United States. During this period Z
whether any way could be devised 10
prevent or punish such a contempt of
the courts decree, if it should occur.
There is no way inherent in the law.
but there was much speculation as 10
whether. saide from the law, some
I way could not be found for visiting
upon a contemptuous defendant state
. the unpleasant results of that moral
. force which the court necessarily had
to rely upon.
West Virginia Obeys.
| In this case. however West Virginia
obeyed the decree of the court. The
; West Virginia legislature toop appTo-
, pirate action; bonds were issued anC.
the judgment paid.
This case is cited to illustrate how
the supreme court of the United
+ States functions in disputes between
states 1t is true that 100 years ago
the very first decree that the supreme
court of the United States handed
down in a dispute between two states
was wholly ignored by the defendant
state, which in that case happened to
be Georgia. That, however, was
mere incident in the growth and de-
velopment of the supreme court ",
the point where its dignity and mora4
force is the equivalent of any army.
, In all the caseS since this one. the
defendant state has obeyed the DE-
cree and has done so. not through fear
, OF armed force. but wholly because of
the moral force of the decree and OF
the public opinion behind it.
The advocates of the proposed SUI
; preme court of the word, SO to speak,
: claim that what happens between
states within the jurisdiction of our