Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1930-12-21

part IOr peace ana DeLGer UNDERSTANDING,
In our own way, free and unfettereo
from any European organization.
Every argument made in behalf OF
the court minimizes it's functions and
its usefulness. It's advocates seek to
demonstrate to our people its inutility
and its futility, and they succeed ad-
mirably. They suggest the court
amounts to so little we ought to join
it anyway. merely politely to accept the
invitation to join, and then after hav-
ing demonstrated that it is of little or
no consequence, they paradoxically
claim that it is so important, our men,
bership in it is essential for the peace
of the world. The President in his re-
cent message, in three short sentences,
presents the internationalists' mini
mizing argument. He says: I'VE can
not be summoned before this court. We
can from time to time seek its services
by agreement with other nations.
These protocols permit our withdrawal
from the court at any time without re-
proach or ill-will." The ordinary Ameri-
can, with his conception of the courts
OF this land, can be pardoned some con-
fusion of thought concerning the kind
of court this is. A nation cannot be
summoned to it, say its advocates From
time to time its services may be sought,
but only by agreement with other ma
tons, and we can withdraw at any time
without reproach or ill-will. But the
emphasis is always laid by its advocates
upon the cowardly right to scuttle and
run. If this court has so little power,
If it Is without jurisdiction, if we can
withdraw at any time without reproach
or ill-will, why join a tribunal so weak
and feeble? If, on the other hand, it
is the entering wedge of the League of
Nations, if our withdrawal would be
rfR11 sf-ln r-st@ IL
conditions, and If this court even pos
sibly has power, menacing or danger
Gus to our policies or our institutions,
We ought not, upon any Specious plea
of its futility or its inutility, to become
a part of it. The court has now been
In existence for nearly 10 years. There
Is no American question that the most
perfervid and hysterical internationalist
can suggest that in all that 10 years
would have been submitted by our
country to the court. Innumerable
questions will suggest themselves to the
most sluggish intellect that might have
been submitted to the court against US.
do not say decided but submitted, and
the consequent embarrassment and
humiliation of our Nation can readily
be foreSeen. Upon the arguments of
the internationalists, we do not join
the court, therefore, to solve any par
ticular problem of our own. We need
no court for America or American ques-
tons. We would join it to be a part of
other nations problems. We would
have abjured our policy of minding our
own business to be meddler in every
other country'S affairs. 1t is exactly
this we would prevent.
Americas Problems Individual.
Our problems and our policies are Pc
20 rnI,
should submit to any foreign tribunal.
We have our tariff, immigration and
prohibition policies, and our great Mon
roe Doctrine. the problem of the foreign
debts due to us, the Panama Canal,
about which there is the ever-recurring
controversy as to tolls, and many others
that no American in his right senses
would tolerate interference with.
The realities of the present day for
bid our adhesion to this court. Out of
the weller of the World War came vast
changes in the nations of the earth. The
United States today is the creditor ma
ton of the world. Other nations re-
gard us exactly as debtors, who do not
want to pay, regard their creditors. 1t
is neither wisdom nor craftsmanship to
complicate the situation. We are none
too well liked as people, and our poll
cieS as nation are deteSted; and vet,
we are asked to submit ourselves to a
so-called court of Is judges, IA of whom
are foreigners. do not speak in criti-
cism OF the judges of the court, but even
Judges possess love of country, even
Judges have SympathieS, and Judges,
after all, are human.
Imagine an Italian judge going home
to Mussolini after rendering a decision
sgainst Italy! And while European
diplomacy has been constantly stunning
the cards since the great World War.
have you heard of any real question
vitality affecting any of the great ma
tons which has come before the court
End been decided? OF the few decisions
some have been openly fouted:
and we know that although we pledged
justice and equality to racial minorities.
the weak who were ruthlessly taken by
the versailles treaty are still crying in
vain Tor justice to the League of Nations
and the court. And ever remember this
is the League Court, and our people are
being caJoled and beguiled and deceived
into Joining by League advocates. 1
nave the literature OF the League of Ma
lions Association of California. and it
Is the source In the West of propaganda
Tor the court. It's president is the
Western spokesman for the court, and
with perfect frankness he says entrance
INTO the court, will ultimately take us
lnto the League, and while we will thus
enter the League by the back door he
Is willing to enter that way in order to
get In. He simply avoWs openly what
other League supporters, emulating the
pao example of European diplomacy.
concealed.
1t is quite true that as a member of
the court we would not be required to
submit purely domestic questions for
QdlIn1Hq hy1f
questions which it might be claimed
threatened peace or were involved in
treaties. The League takes cognizance
under Article XII of any war or threat
OF war and any circumstance whatever
affecting international relations which
threatens to disturb either the peace or
the good understanding between ma
tions. and the court has jurisdiction of
the Interpretation of treaties
World Court Not Court.
The exclusion law was at one time
asserted to be violation of our treaties.
The alien land law of California. de-
signed to preserve our agriculture for
our own, is yet the subject of contro-
Versy and resentment. When Califor-
mia enacted the law, feeling ran high
in Japan, and the claim was distinctly
made not only that the good under
standing between two nations was dis
turbed, but some pro-Japanese citizens
OF the United States even yet assert
that the law violates existing treaties
We deny it, of course, and it is to be
hoped that the most fatuous admins
tration would never submit what we
had the legal and the moral right to
do TO the arbitrament of any foreign
tribunal. But assume us to be members
of the court and the demand made with
the claim that We not only violated
treaty but destroyed the good under
standing between nations, our refusal
to submit the question to a court we
had just joined and extolled as the one
means in all the world of preserving
peace and maintaining good under