Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1929-10-04

the court The Root formula does not
ton.
The next reservation to be considered
is that which provides that the United
States may at any time withdraw from
adherence to the court and that the
statute creating the court shall not be
amended without the consent of the
United States. The statute OF the court
ing a treaty, the United States by
joint resolution Of Congress may at any
time withdraw her adherence. The
Supreme Court has held that joint
resolution of Congress repeats a treaty
or convention that had previously been
ratified. The Root formula does not In
any way modify this reservation.
Avoiding Controversy.
1t was believed that since the United
States gave her adherence to the
existing statute of the court, it was
wise to reserve the right that the
statute could not be amended without
her consent, and thus avoid any con-
troversy in the future upon this ques-
ton. This also relieves the appre-
hension that some entertain that the
ferent from the one to which the
United States gave her adherence.
This provision completely eliminates
this foreboding and gives full assurance
that the court cannot be changed with
out our consent The Root formula
does not in any way modify this pro-
vision.
The resolution Of adherence m
tains a declaration of policy upon the
part of the United States which does
not in any way affect the statute OF
&I,a ~ tho accent Of
ether nations. This declaration of
policy emphasizes that the United
States in adhering to the court should
not be construed in any way as an
abandonment of its foreign policy, gen.
orally known as the Monroe Doctrine.
This declaration clearly emphasizes the
fact that the United States would not,
at this time or at any time, abandon
it's long-cherished foreign policy known
as the Monroe Doctrine. and relieves
all apprehension that this well known
American policy has been in any way
jeopardized or altered by adherence to
the World Court. The Root formula
does not in any way modify this dec
laration contained in the Senate reSo-
luton.
In Thorough Accord.
Thus upon all these important mat
accord with the reservations contained
in the Senate resolution Of adherence.
I will now consider the fifth reServa-
ton in the resolution of adherence and
compare it with the Root formula and
point out the differences between the
two:
The fifth reservation, which has been
the subject of much discussion, relates
to advisory opinions which the court
may give when requested to do so by
the Council or Assembly Of the League
of Nations upon any specific matter or
question. The rendering of advisory
opinions is optional with the court.
Since the Council or Assembly Of the
League alone has the right to ask
the court for an advisory opinion, 1t
was thought but right that the United
States, when it adhered to the court,
should have the same right and pro-
lection possessed by nations that were
members of the League. Reservation
pose and give this equality of right
and protection to the United States.
This reservation is as follows:
THAT the court shall not render
any advisory opinion except publicly
after due notice to all states adhering
20 the court and to all interested states
and after public hearing or oppor-
tunlty for hearing given TO any state
concerned; nor shall it, without the
consent of the United States, entertain
any request for an advisory opinion
touching any dispute or question which
the United States has or claims an
interest"
Difficult Question.
The most difficult question to solve
in providing for the adherence of the
United States to the statute of the
World Court upon an absolute equality
with other nations was that relating
to advisory opinions. AS previously
stated, all requests for advisory opinions
were confined to the Council or Assem-
bly, of the League. AS the United States
was not member Of the League, this
presented most difficult problem for
The solution was provided
for in the latter part of reservation S.
n