The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1925-12-08

1QEGuL COUUII1CSs JkAfAI tAaA8AS pAOR-
erlv be called constitution OF the
court. This statute provides
method by which the judges are
chosen, 30 that when the Court OF
Arbitration nominateb them and
the Assembly and Council Of the
League elect them, they are not
acting as instruments Of the
Court Of Arbitration Of instfu-
Ynents Of the league. but as instru.
nents Of the statute.
Judges Paid Through League
This win be even more appar-
4 emit IL our representatives sit with
the members Of the council and
assembly In electing the judges.
1t ID true they are paid through
the league though not by the
league: but by the countries which
are members OF the league and by
our country if we accept the pro-,
tocol. The Judges are paid by
the league only in the same sense
that IT could bessafd United States
judges are paid by Congress. The
court derives all It's authority
I. from the statute and ID 80 COM
4 pleteIY Independent Of the league
that 1t could 10 on functioning
IL the league were disbanded. at
least until the terms .of the judR-
es expired.
The most careful provisions are
!. made in the statute as to the
qualifications OF judges. Those
who make the nominations are
recommended to consult with their
highest court OF justice, their law
schools and academies. The judges
must be persons OF high moral
character, qualified to hold the
highest judicial offices In thai
country, or be jlrisc0nsults Of
recognized competence In interna.
!. tional law. 1t must be assumed
that these requirements will con-
ti1n1e to be carefully met, and
with America joining the coun-
tries already concerned it Is diff
ncult to comprehend how human
ingenuity could better provide for
the establishment Of e. court
which would maintain its ilsde-
.pendence. 1t has to be recognized
that independence is to q consider
able extent q matter Of ability.
character and personality some
effort was made In the early be-
ginnings to interiors with the in
dependence Of our Supreme Court.
/. It did not succeed because Of the
quality OF the men who mace up
that tribunal.
Advisory OpiniOns Harmless
It does not seem that the au.
thority to. give advisory opinions,
interferes with the Independence
: OF the court. Advisory opinions
in and of themselves are not
harmful, but may be used in such
q way az, to be very beneficial be-
cause they undertake to prevent
injury rather than merely afford
q remedy after the injury has
been done, AS a principle that
only implies that the court shall
function when proper application
3 is made to it. Deciding the cues
ton involved upon issues sub
mitted for an advisory opinion
does not differ materially from
deciding the question involved
upon issues submitted by contend.
ing parties Up. to the present
time the court has given an adj
visory opinion when 1t judged it
shAd Jurisdiction, and refused to
give one when It judged It. did not
! have jurisdiction. Nothing II, the
work OF the court has yer, been
an indication that this Is an i'm.
paifmeIlt Of itSN Independence or
that its practice differs material.
~ from the giving OF like opinions
under the authority Of the conSti-
buttons Of several Of our states.
No provision Of the statute
seems to me, to give this court
any authority to be a political
rather than q Judicial couf:. We
nave brought cases in this cOain.
try before our courts which, when
they have been adjudged to be
political, have been thereby 6is.
missed. 1t is not improbable that
political questions will be sub
mitted to ChiE court, but again
up to the pres .nt time the court
mas refused t. pass on political
questions and our support would
Undoubtedly have q tendency @
strengthen it in that refusal.
No Compulsory Jurisdictlon
We are not proposing to sub
9ect ourselves to any compulsory
jurisdiction. II we support the
court, we can never be obliged to
submit any case which involves
our interests for its decision. Our
appearance before it would al
ways be voluntary, for the pur-
pose OF presenting a case which
we had agreed might be pre-
scented. There is no more danger
That others might bring cases be-
Tore the. court involving our in
terests which we did not wish to
nave brought, after we have ad-
heredA and probably not SO much,
than there would be Of bringing
such cases IL we do not adhere.
think that, we would. have the
same legal. or moral right to dis
regard suchra finding in the one
case that we would in the other.
If we are goingrto supports any
=. court, it will not be- one that we
have set up alone or which re-
fleets only our ideals. Other ma
:. tons have their customs and
their institutions, their tiouRhts
and their methods OF life. IF
court is going to be international.
its composition will have to4,yield
to what is good in all these
various elements. Neither will 1t
be possible to support q court
which is exactly perfect, or under
which we assume absolutely no
obligations. IT, we are seeking
that opportunity, we might as
we'll declare that we are, opposed
to supporting any court. If any
agreement is made, it will be be-
cause it undertakes to, set up q
tribunal which can do some Of
the things that other nations
wish to have. done. We shall not
find ourselves bearing a .dispro-
.portionate share Of the worlds