The Winslow mail., 1926-02-05

into the world court, whose mem
bers are nearly all on the verge of
bankruptcy. Sure, they might have
a surprise for us.
Francis Kellar has written a
book entitled United States Sen
ate and World Court" In it this
question is raised: ''The world
court under it's constitution may
appoint at any time on request a
commission to make almost any
kind or sort Of international in
vestigation and then give court
opinion. Study that Who will
make request, league of nations
council, or some dissatisfied mem
ber Example,: Suppose France
felt that she could do better by
appealing to world court on
grounds that she cannot pay what
she owes US, and after a commits
sion report is sent in, all members
agree that France is correct in her
stand. What redress would we
have; oh yes, you could protest
you might tell them you don't like
it. Supposing the Japanese Amer
ican immigration question arose
and the verdict was against us;
how about the whole immigration
question. Supposing we would
take up the Hindoo question, the
tariff question, suppose the United
States would favor American ship
ping through canal give lower rail
road rates on shipments to foreign
lands, on American steamers; sup
posing any question arose whereby
we would favor American industry
only to have it protested by a fore
ign court and decided against us.
Would the Monroe Doctrine be i'm
mune. Why so trustful. If con-
gress or supreme court were to
menace us in the same way we
would be up in arms, but we feel
we can trust the world court.
1 hope the world court is as good
as they claim l hope it will pre-
vent war, but any time any ma
ton becomes dissatisfied, it will
cause trouble. Take a squint at
the Locarno Security Pacts Arti-
Gle 2, Germany and France under
take that they will in no case at
tack or invade each other or resort
to war against each other. This
stipulation shall not however, ap-
ply in case of the exercise of legit-
innate defense; and lot Of more
blah blah about armed forces in
demilitariZed zone etc., which
would be a violation of article AZ,
or 43 of treaty of Versailles.
What's the matter with the Ho-
que tribunal; what kind of a ques-.
tion is it that we cannot let that
court solve, France and Germany
had an agreement before, regard
ing the neutrality of Belgium; just
as ironclad as the Locarno Pact.
The violation of it brought ON con-
fiict and England was dragged into
it by same agreement.
Note: Bethman Won Holweg's
speech excerpts, 1914, "a hours pre-.
vious to outbreak of hostilities:.
"We could not in way offer Bel
gium any guarantee of the secur-
ity of her neutrality" Later B. V.
Holweg, speaking before Reich
stag, said we are now in posi-.
ton of necessity, and necessity
knows no law. The French has
declared in Brussels that it is will
ing to respect neutrality of Bel
gium. Gentlmen, what we do now
is in contradiction of international
law. The wrong Ispeak openly,
we will try to make good again
as soon as our military ends have
been reached. When one is threat
ened as we are, and all is at stake,
he ca monty think of how to hack
his way out"
Luxembourg and Belgium had
been invaded then. The United
States got into that argument pret-
ty heavy, without dickering for it.
Let's avoid these entanglements,
we've managed quite well in the
past, and we can do the same in
the future. We have plenty of
men and women in this country
who savvy how to direct our af-
fairs in a very desirable, intelligent
and successful manner.