Evening star., 1925-12-19


against a non-member nation. as in
the case of Turkey and the Mosul
question. This might happen. he said,
10 the United States. He said
wv hat / am saying is he added.
II we adhere to Il statute which the
court operates ana that court renders
an opinion. although it may be an ad-
visory opinion. that opinion is enforced
against not only members of the
league, but non-mcmbers of the league
as we'll
The facts 10 which / have called at
,ention, showing the relationship of
the court TO the league" Mr. Borah
went on, ARE not changed or modified
by the reservations thus FAR offered.
After these reservations are adopted
the league will continue to elect the
court, to pay the court, to fix the
salaries of its members. To tiX their
pensions, to call upon il for advice and
counsel, to enforce its Judgments and
10 determine the accessibility to the
court. These relationships are not
proposed to be changed by the reSolu-
tionS thus far offered
Walsh Reviews Case.
Senator Walsh took exception 10 this
argument. Reviewing the Irak-Mosul
controversy at some length. Mr. Walsh
ended by saying:
1T is offered in excuse for this de-
tailed reference to the affair that,
among other gross misrepresentation
concerning the court, appearing while
the questions referred to were under
consideration in editorials in d news
paper read by most members Of the
Senate, the statement was made that
the court III question is not a court
nut an agency for the resolution of
political questions. in support of
which general aSseveration 1t was as
serted that the court was then Ures-
Ting with the purely political prob
lem of whether Afosul should go to
Great Britain or To Turkey.
The court has never been asked to
deal with any but judicial questions;
IT mas never attempted to do SO, and it
mas not authority to entertain any
other. That ii is So restricted is be-
ypnd serious question. y tribunal
might De called a court and Yet be
invested with authority other than
judicial but unless expressly so cloth
ed 1t follows from its name that it has
judicial powers only"
Parties Must Agree.
Senator Walsh pointed out that un-
der the statute of the World Court the
court has no Jurisdiction to proceed in
my case unless the parties have there
tofore agreed that it may determine
the same. He said: The court. con-
'rdr\ TO reckless statements widely
published, has no power. IL Is invested
with no authority, should the United
states adhere to the protocol, to hale
II before the bar of that tribunal. It
must come of its own volition or the
court Is impotent as to it,
IN this situation lies the complete
answer 10 the suggestion that, should
We adhere to the protocol, the Monroe
doctrine will come before the court or
may come before the court for adiudi-
cation. II will only, if the United
states consents 10 submit 1t, not other
wise. 1t may even now be dealt with
ny the court if it is conceivable that
the United States should agree to bring
netore 1t a controversy involving that
doctrine. The authority of the coIut
10 deal With that or any other oues
lion viii be in no manner affected by
any action that may be taken in re-
spect to the resolution before us.
Sees No Binding Agreement.
TT is asserted, however. that tho
Monroe doctrine may be involved In a
controversy submitted by two other
nations. II so, those nations being
members of the league. may now sub
init such a controversy to the court
The situation is not changed In the
least by our becoming subscribers to
the protocol. But it is said that in
that event we should be morally bound
70 uphold the judgment of the court.
1 confess L find it impossible to under
stand what is meant by our being
morally bound when we have obligated
ourselves in no way to enforce the
Judgment of the court. If it should
now take cogniZance of a cause and
render an opinion in which the Mon
roe doctrine came under review, we
should be quite free to protest or take
and other course that might seem to
us justiflable. and so we are equally
free should we become subscribers to
the protocol
But, whatever peril we may be in
should such contingency arise, it is
neither different nor greater than that
TO which we have been subject since
we subscribed to the treaty creating
the old Hague court, the Permanent
Court of Arbitration. in 1899, 26 years
ago. Any ewo nations signatory to
the treaty by which that court was
created may submit to It such sup.
positious controversy involving the
Monroe doctrine. We were not alarm
ed in 1899 lest the Monroe doctrine
should be shattered through a world
court. Why should we now be timo-
rous? The Monroe doctrine argument
Ia not an argument against the par
sicI1Iar World Court under considera-
tton. II is an argument against any
world court.
60