Evening star., 1923-04-28
WORLD COURT STANDING
= ON MERITS, SAYS HUGHES
Secretary Tells International Lawyers
Issue Is Clear Cut From League.
.... Explains Working.


tribunal is composed of those spe-
cfally selected by the parties Io the
dispute. In legal matters of :minor
consequence. where national Interest
is relatively small. judicial standards
are more readily maintaincd.s But
where the controversy is Il serious
one and success is highly important,
the constitution OF a tribunal :after
the controversy has arisen is not
favorable to the selection of those
who will act solely as imp:s :srtial
Judges. And those members off the
tribunal who are the separate choice
of each party tend to become aslvo-
Gates rather than Judges: if THIS is
not always the case in fact. it is gen
orally SO in public estimation.
There need be no illusion as to shis
matter the question finally comes
70 the selection of the umpire. or
third or fifth arbitrator, as the case
may be, who is likely to have she
deciding vote. The smaller powers
nave the less difficulty in making such
a cholce. They have a range of sclec-
! ton that is generally satisfactor
from the standpoint of national IN
, terest and they often are able so
agree upon a tribunal composed 81
single arbitrator. When there IS
4 serious controversy between greet
powers. however. the choice of a.l
umpire or third arbitrator is far frora
easy. National interests farS
| reaching, and selection satisfactory
t" one power is for the same reasort
suhJe"tiou of objection by the other:
, ne dIHiCulty has been vastly in
creased by the feelings cngendered
I ana tn" alignment OF sympathies in
me, me great gre war: 1t has become the
nfa'tlCe TO provide that. in ease of n
; iai!ure of the parties. or of the ar
! nltratorS respectively selected by
tntm' To agree upon an umpire or
mira arbitrator. he shall be selected
ny ny some designated power or powers.
nus IS because some means of choice
must he provided if the parties can
not agree. hut this course, pIares
Win the designated power or powers
the virtual control of the final con-
| stitutlon of the tribunal. The alter
, native is to have the selection deter
mined by lot. and certainly this is
NOT satisfactory method.
Considering Merits Problem.
Even where the parties are able to
agree upon the arbitrators, there
stiti remains the danger that consid-
"rations of political expedieucv will
usurp the place of judicial standards
would not diSparage the motives of
arDltrators or the Importance OF their
service, but. as Mr.. Root has well Sa id
they too often Consider Themselves
as belonging to diplomacy rather
,nan TO Jurisprudence they measure
thelr responsibility and their duty
nE the traditions. the sentiments and
the sense Of honorable obligation
which has grown up in centuries of
ulpiomatlc intercourse. rather Than
by the traditions. the sentiments .nd
the sense of honorable oblira+ion
Which characterizss the judicial de-
nartment Of civilized nations" Tho
process tends to the intrusion of 90
iltlcal interest and to a solution hv
compromise instead of proper iufi-
riai determination. Questions of
riGht come to he determined as uucs-
tionS of policy.
The problem in the inlproyerert of
the judicial process in internatiou4I
relations Is to secure immunifv g
lar as Is humanity possible, from cone
slderatlons of political interest and
p"iicN and to have the rights and
Obligations of nations determinaJ
upon their merits. The I-nite5 St,,as
mas taken the lead in the endeayor 10
secure this result by the most appro-
pirate method. that is. by the estab
iiShilleht or permanent international
court. ''''i
Secretary Hay instructed tho
American delegates to the frst Uagnc
conference in 1899 Il, present :, NM
lot an international tribunal of a ner-
manent character While this project
was not adopted. the conference did
nx
listing practice by providing a code Of
arnltral procedure and an eligible
ilSt OF arbltratorS from which fri
bunais might he constituted for tho
determination OF such controversies
as the parties concerned might agree
10 submit to them. This was called
a permanent court of arbitration ~
IL was not In fact permanent rourt f..
1t was panel of arbiters This gov
Srnment still cherished it's ideal. and
hence' at the second Hague confer
enCe, our delegates We're instructed
by Secretary Root to bring ahout "a
development of the Hague tribunal
INTO permanent tribunal composed
Of judges who are judicial officers and
nothlhe elSe. VINO are paid adequate
salaries. who have no other occupa
tion, and who will devote their entire
time to the trial and decision of in
ternational causes by judicial methods
ana under sense of judicial respon-
sibility"
Plnn Proposed by Choate.
Mr.. Choate. as the first delegate of
the United States. in presenting to
the conference the American plan for
permanent court quoted the words
or president Roosevelt that he hoped
to see the Hague court greatly in
creased in power and permanency.
and the judges, in particular. made
permanent and given ADEQUATE Sala-
RES so as to make it increasingly
probable that in each case that NAV
come before them they will decide
between the nations, great or small.
exactly as judge within our own
limits decides between the individuals,
great or small, who come before him.
MIR. Choate observed that the work
or the first conference. noble and far
reaching as it was, had not proyed
entirely adequate to meet the pro-
greSslve demands of the nations and
to draw to the Hague tribunal for
decision any great part Of the arbi-
trations that had been agreed upon.
and that in the eight years Of it's
existence only four cases had been
submitted to 1t. and of the sixtv
Judges. more or less, who were named
as members of the court, at least two
thirds had not as yet been called upon
for any service, He found tho 70,