Evening star., 1923-04-28

bearing by the United States of its
proper share of the expenses of the
court: and, finally. Safeguard
against any change in the statute OF
the court without the assent of the
United States.
, What, then. are the objections to
| support of the court upon this basis:
Cd 1t is objected that it is not a
world court. But in what sense is il
not a world court? Is reference made
to the number of nations which sup.
port it? The answer is. as ! have al.
ready said, that about forty-six nations
have already signed the protocol and II
! the United States adheres, there is
every reason to suppose that partici-
patton by the other nations will be
brought about This should be oui
aim. 1t is not too much to say that
there will be no world court If this
whether or not 1t is to be in the full
est sense world court depends upor
our own action.
Suppose we should now undertake
TO establish another world court:
What should we do? We could not
establish 1T by ourselves: we should
have to prepare a plan and submit il
TO the other nations. We should need
Inc approval OF the nations who have
already approved the present plan.
What differences should we pro-
pose. so far as the structure of the
court is concerned?. With respect &c
the choice of judges, would we en-
deavor to have n practicable plan OIL
one that had been demonstrated tC
be imDracticable? Should we insist
that all nations he represented on the
court by their nationals, or that all
nations, great and small, should act
together in the choice of Judges upor
precisely the same footing and with
out any division into groups which
could form check upon each other:
III so. We should have a plan which
would most probably fail of accept
ance. and at the same time would not
safeguard the interests of the United
states nearly as well as the existing
plan. Should We recommend concur
rent action by groups of nations, in
order to have practical arrangement
for selecting judges? If so, what
groups should we propose. and how
would they differ essentially from the
present electoral bodies? The more
the matter is examined, the more
clearly | think it will appear that the
suggested changes would be purely
formal. and not at all vital to our
interests. or of IA character which
would disclose any just reason for
refusing support to the existing court
ana Tor entering upon the difficult
II not vain. endeavor of establishing
another judicial institution.
Court Rests on Agreement.
I'D Another objection is that the
court has been established through
the action of the league of nations
This is not an entirely accurate state
ment, for the action of the league
could not have established the court
1t was necessary to have a special
agreement signed or adhered to hy
the nations which support the court
and the court rests upon that agree
ment. The substantial point, however
/, is not the source Of the plan but its
character. Any nation. or any group
of nations, might have suggested the
plan and it might be none the worse
or none the better for that. The
question remains-What is the court
that has thus been established, and is
IL in it's essential attributes worthy
of support?
This question have examined. and
think it is demOnStrable that the
court Is an independent judicial body
with appropriate judicial functions
and abundant safeguards for their
proper discharge. 1t is not a servant
OF the league: and it's decisions are
not supervised or controlled by the
league.
1t Is said that the salaries and ex-
penSes. or budget of the court. are
fixed by the assembly of the league
upon the proposal of the council. But
the action of the assembly is the ac-
tion of the fifty-two members com
posing the assembly and the recon-
mendation of the council Is the rec
ommendation of the states composing
the council. in each case the action
being taken under the statute of the
court. If the nations are to support
court. they must of course have
some practical means of dealing with
the budget. Under the present plan,
by which both these groups act, there
is abundant protection against cX-
traNaGance. We properly reserve the
right of Congress to determine by
its appropriation the amount which
the United States shall pay as its
share. find nothing which can he
regarded as inimical to the interests
of the United States in the provisions
az to procedure.
CD But il is said that support of
the court. although IL nanifestiy does
not involve entrance into the league.
oE the assumption Of any obligation
under the covenant of the league con-
stituteS an ENHANCEMENT. But in
what do we become entangledo Are
we to abandon the effort to DISPOSE
Of international controversies by
judicial settlement. which has been a
feature of American policy since the
foundation Of the government" We
cannot have an ordinary arbitration
uIleSS We nave an international
agreement and an International trib-
unai for the purpose of the arbitra
tion. We have never considered this
to he an ENHANCEMENT We have
manifested our desire for such Judi
cfal settlements by numerous treaties
and special conventions.
An American Policy.
Certainly We do not object that the
disputes of others should he settled
peacefully by similar methods. Then,
as | have shown. the establishment
OF a permanent court has been an
American policy because we have de-
sired this essential improvement in
judicial process in international re-
iations. Political platforms have
treated this as an American policy
and not as a forbidden entanglernent
II you are to treat participation in a
permanent court of international ius-
tice as an entang clement foreign to
our institutions, you must rewrite
American history. If You are not,
then the question Is as to this par
ticular permanent court and we re-
turn to the consideration of its
organization and functions and these
justify the conclusion that it is an
independent judicial body of the
highest character and deserves our
confidence.
(4 Again it is objected that a
world court should have compulsory
jurisdiction and that the jurisdiction
of the Permanent Court of Interna-
tional Justice is not compulsory. 1t
may be noted that provision is made
in the statute of the court for the
acceptance by states. through a spe-
jcial agreement, of compulsory iuris-
diction of legal disputes as defined in
the statute. l understand that of the
forty-six states that have signed the
protocol about fifteen have ratified
this optional clause for compulsory
jurisdiction. but among the majority
of the states which have not assented