New Britain herald. [microfilm reel] (New Britain, Conn.) 1890-1976, 1926-09-03

dispute unQeI COnSlueTdlOn.
Want U. S. Enrolled
We should go to the limit in
meeting the American DESIRES" de-
clared DR.. Rafael Erich, former
premier of Finland, but it is incon-
testable that the veto right embod-
led in the fifth reservation is in
compatible with article IA of the
league covenant. Hence, If we grant
the United States this privilege, it
will be for reasons of practical ex-
pediency and not because she is
legally entitled to it,
DR.. Erich was apprehensive about
what the world court itself would
think and do on the subject. He
was given an answer in a way, for
the next speaker was Demetrieu
Negulisko of Rumania, deputy
Judge of the court.
Judge Negulisko held that the
United States should be treated not
on basis of equality with men,
hers of the league but on the same
footing as non embers.
The courts future policy. he said,
was likely to follow the precedent
laid down in the East Garcia dis
pute between Russia and Finland, in
which the court declined to give an
advisory opinion for the reason that
Russia, non-m member of the league,
objected. The same would be true
for the, 'nited States, and he thought
this would satisfy her.
He predicted that the decision
given in the Mosul conflict would be
adhered to, namely that when state
is interested in a dispute. its vote
shall not be counted in the council.
He saw difficulty for the fifth Amer
lean reservation whether the council
acted by unanimity or simple inter
vention In either case.
Americas Idea
He was convinced that America
did not want the right of veto in
the council but wanted to remain
aloof from al League entangleme
hence he thought treatment as
non-member the most practical solu~
ton. He moved the appointment of
a. committee to define the exact
meaning of the fifth American res
ervation.
President Won Eysinga, summing
up, emphasized the unanimous de-
sire of the delegates to satisfy the
United States and hoped this would
be appreciated on the other side of
the Atlantic. He limited that
practical way out of the difficulty
would be for the council to ask a
body Of jurists instead OF the world
court for advisory opinions In the
future.
adjournment was taken until
100 p. m.
Osten Lndern, former minister OF
Justice of Sweden. contended yes
terday that the adherents to the
court should follow the example of
the United States and set forth
themselves condition to accept
ance of the American proposal.
The Americans" he said ire
serve the right to interpret their
reservations. Let us accept, but
with the understanding that If the
American Interpretation proves to
be something we cannot accept we
will withdraw our acceptance of
the adhesion of the United States
TO The court"
Sir Francis Bell of New Zealand
expressed the view that the Amer
lean reservation conferred an eX-
ceptional privilege on the United
States. That country, he declared,
desired tho right of veto. While he
did not object to the power of
veto he thought if it We're eXer-
cised freely, by any members Of
the league at least it would break
up the league of nations.
Sir George f. Foster of Canada
said the United States was going
very far for a country outside the
league" and he objected to giving
the United States privilege" He
favored asking Washington to ac-
cept equality"
The Bulgarian representatives
agreed with Sir Cecil Hurst Of
Great Britain that the United
States should be treated like men,
bers of the league council but no
better.
Washington Silent
Washington. Sept. 3. P>-Wash-
ington officials are maintaining a
severe silence while the representa-
tves of the powers continue at &C.
neva their discussion of the Ameri
can reservations 10 the world court.
But there is no attempt to cancel
ut tho conference. The impression
given Is that the conferes are de-
Gliding, almost without appeal,
whether or not the United States
is to become a member of the court
at any time in the near future.
Should conditions be attached to
acceptance of the reservations writ
ten by the senate, the action would
be reported back to the senate by
the state department The admin
istration fully recognizes however the
hazards of reopening the question at
the capitol. Two senators who voted
for the court have announced they
now oppose it even on the terms laid
down by the senate itself, and
should these terms be modified at
the Geneva conference the situation
would be so changed that no one
processes to know what might
happen. ....