Evening star., 1925-04-10
World Court Problem.
Correspondent Discusses Stars
Editorial on "Hamstringing."


To the Editor of The star:
Your editorial headed "Hamstring
ing the Court" invites attention to
matter concerning which the public
need to be better informed or to give
more careful thought.
You are undoubtedly right in the
assumption that IL the United States
is to await tho codification of inter-
national law, it's recognition of the
World Court will be long delayed 1t
may be assumed also that If such
codification were ever made without
participation by the United States it
would not be such a codification as
we would be willing to subscribe to.
Though you take issue with Senator
Borah, I think IL can be shown that
you are both right as far as either
the Senator or your editorial goes.
This paradox lies in the fact that the
codification is rendered necessary and
yet made practically impossible by
radical difference between the United
States and Europe as to the source
and function OF national authority.
If court could be assembled the
members of which would agree as to
the nature of a nations sovereignty,
the absence of fixed laws would not
need to occasion grave concern, nor
would there be impassable obstacles
to the construction of an interna-
tional code as speedily as needed.
The judiciary is an essential-f
not, indeed, the most essential-in-
strument Of government. Within its
prescribed sphere of action, the
World Court. if recognized by all
nations, would bear d similar rela-
tion to world government, with the
difference that IL would deal with
nations, instead OF with individuals,
corporations or municipalities OF its
own nationals A court must be con-
f1rmed in the faith of the institutions
of the nation for which it admins
ters the law. The higher court of
an absolute monarchy. based upon
the divine right of kings, could not,
however learned in the law and
however honest, administer the law
and justice for a constitutional gov
ernment based upon the theory of
popular sovereignty. A Supreme
Court of the United States, COM
posed Of the highest and most learned
judicial officer of each of the other
nations of the world, would not be
qualified to pass upon matters which
come before our Supreme Court
| They could not agree in principle"
Whether il would be possible by
! sttpulations to establish a principle
Of sovereignty which would control
the procedure and prescribe the
action of a world court is a matter
for the highest authorities on Amer
lean and on European Jurisprudence
TO decide. A principle acceptable to
John Bassett Moore, the American
member of the present court, would
probably satisfy the requirements of
the United States, but there appears
to be an irreconcilable difference,
| amounting in fact TO d contradiction.
between the American and the Euro
pean conception of sovereignty.
sovereignty which is a divine en-
dowment of king or class has differ
ent aspirations and different rules of
conduct from those of a sovereignty
which is the endowment of all men
created in the divine image A
group OF learned jurists committed
10 the theory of kingly sovereignty
could not even recognize the exist
ence OF sovereignty common to all
mankind, yet it is around a concep-
ton of sovereignty that the relations
of one nation to or with another re-
wolves, and this must have bearing,
directly or remotely. upon any ques-
tion that could come before a world
court.
The Magma Charta could never have
come into existence through the sane
tion of a court composed of jurists
representing all nations. Likewise,
the American revolutionists would
! have been outlawed by such court.
Speaking of a limited sovereignty"
involves a contradiction of terms TO
the mind of jurists of the old Euro
pean school. 1t must be unlimited or
it is not sovereign. Some years ago
The Star announced to the world that
Baron Fava, the Italian Ambassador.
had been recalled and diplomatic
relations broken because the United
States could not compel the punish
ment of certain citizens of a State
who had murdered Italians sojourn
ing in that State. A recognized cause
of war existed, due entirely to the
fact that the United States could not
exercise police powers In the State
of Louisiana. Under strict construc-
tion of International law. a world
court having this case before it,,
would have been compelled to require
of this Government thing which it
had not the sovereign power to do.
Broadly speaking, the Monroe doc
trine implies, to the mind of Europe.
a sphere of influence" principle. To
the American mind it represents the
preservation of theory of govern
ment, and in no way extends the au-
thority of the United States nor i'm
pairs the independence of the nations
within it's scope.
1t is not SO much code of interna-
tional law as it is a principle of in
ternational relations that must be
esta blished before the United States
san safely join the World Court. The
basis of European government is
politics to sustain power: that of
American government is authority to
sustain social and economic security
and progress. The hospitality ex-
tended by France to Ben Franklin
would have been condemned by a
World Court, had one existed at that
time. The world has progressed
toward the adoption of the American
principles of government to such a
degree that absolutism is no longer
recognized among civilized people
but is 1t in any way assured that the
majority rule applied to a decision of
world court would accord with
those principles? The saving clause
in the League of Nations treaty was
that requiring unanimity. A basic
principle of Sovereign relations"
seems to be an additional requirement
of world court
JOHN P. MILLER.