The Omaha morning bee. [volume] (Omaha [Neb.]) 1922-1927, 1923-04-28
WorldCourt.
Advocated.
by Hughes
Secretary Of State Says Mem
bership in International
Tribunal Is Essential to
Lasting Peace.
Built Upon Sound Basis

Washington, April 27.-Participa-
ton by the United States in perma-
nent court of international justice
was advocated tonight by Secretary
Hughes. in an address before the
American Society of International
Law, as indispensable to any plan for
the prevention of war and the promo
ton of peace.
Whatever else we should have"
Mr.. Hughes declared, we need at
once a permanent court of interna-
tional justice. No plan TO promote
peace can dispense with it. We shall
? make no progress toward the preyen-
lion of war If we adopt a perfection.
ist policy
These are the questions" he
added. "in which | assume the citi-
zens of the United States are inter-
ested:
rs it a good thing to have an in
ternational court?
why should we have A permanent
court instead of temporary arbitral
tribunal?
rs the permanent court of interna-
tlonal justice established on a sound
basis?
rs there any reason why the
United States should not support it?
Would Settle Disputes.
First. why should there be an in
ternatioEal court? The manifest an
swer is that there are controversies
between countries which should be
settled by a court
1T is to the direct interest of the
United States, with respect to the
disposition Of its own controversies,
that the best practical method of ju-
dicial settlement should be provided
Every citizen knows that it is to the
interest of the democratic peace that
we should maintain a tribunal by
which controversies arising between
any two states can be determined. It
is equally essential to world peace
that controversies not our own should
he peacefully and impartially deter.
mined wherever that is possible.
Second. why should there be a
permanent court instead of tempo
rary tribunals?
\ Much to BE Derived.
The principle of judicial settlement
OF international disputes has been ap-l
piled from early times through
arbitrators. II IS method OF great
value and | have no desire TO under
estimate it. We have been parties
TO more than 10 arbitrations and we
have concluded a score OF general
arbitration conventions. Throughout
Its history the United States has con-
sistently supported this sort Of Judi.
cial process, but we have long realized
that it leaves much to be desired.
Third, is the permanent court Of
international justice. to which the
presidents recommendation refers.
established on sound basis?
The permanent court of interna.
tion8l justice has been established
under what is called a statute. or con.
stitution, which defines its organiza-
ton, jurisdiction and procedure. In
the preparation Of this statute the
council Of the league called to its aid
an international committee OF the
most distinguished jurists among
whom was Elihu Root
Special Agreement Necessary.
THE plan was considered and
amended by the council and assembly
of the league, but its main structure
was retained. While the main plan
vas adopted by the assembly OF the
league. it could not be nut into effect
by the action of the league. 1t was
necessary TO have a special interna-
tional agreement on the part OF the
states which were willing to accept it,
The permanent court is thus an
establishment separate from the
league, having a distinct legal status
created by an independent organic
act.
Fourth IL there any good reason
Why the United States should not
support the permanent court?
1T is objected that it is not world
court. But IN what sense is it not
world court?
THE answer Is that about 40 ma
tons have already signed the protocol
and IL the United States adheres, there
q every reason to suppose that par
ticipation by the other nations will
he brought about. This should be our
aim.
Is American Policy.
Suppose we should now undertake
10 establish another world court? We
could not establish Ii by ourselves; We
should have to prepare a plan and
submit II 10 the other nations. We
should need the approval of the ma
lions who have already signed the
other plan.
Certainly we do not object that
The disputes OF Others should be set
tied peacefully by similar methods
Then, an / have shown, the estab'
lishment OF permanent court has
heen an American policy because we
have desired this essential improve
ment In judicial process in interna-
tional relations. Political platforms
have treated this as an American
policy and not as n forbidden en-.
tanglement. IL you are TO treat par
ticipation In a permanent court OF In.
ternational justice as an entsnglement
foreign to our institutions, you must
rewrite American history"