Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1930-12-14
CAPPER IN BROADCAST
OF WORLD COURT PLEA
U. S. Entry in international Tribunal as
Asked by President Hoover Is AdvO-
Gated in National Radio Forum.

means are the irreducible minimum of
any fair Interpretation of the pledge
Whatever opposition there may have
been to the giving of this pledge, now
that it has been given, the honor Of the
country requires the faithful perform
ance of it,"
In other words, as I see it, If we
should refuse to adhere to the World
Court, provided the United States is
| properly and without question protected
against becoming through that adher-
ence member of the League of Ma
lions and is properly protected against
getting itself into any entangling alli-
ances--if, with these two projections,
we refuse to adhere to the World Court,
then we have made Of the Kellogg pact
nothing but a scrap Of paper.
The Kellogg pact is our own child,
conceived in good faith. We should
not diSown it.
The World Court also is our own
child-the tribunal which we have been
urging upon the rest of the world since
we gave instructions TO the United
States delegates to the first Hague con-
ference in 1899. These instructions in
cluded the following:
Sees Definite Plan Desired in U. S.
1.-THE 1ong-continued and widespread
interest among the people Of the United
States in the establishment of an in
ternationa1 court gives assurance that
the proposal of a definite plan of pro-
cedure by this Government for the ac-
complishment Of this end would express
the desires and aspirations of this Ma
ton. The delegates are therefore en-
joined to propose at an opportune mo-
ment the plan for an international
tribunal, hereunto attached, and to use
their influence in the conference in the
most effective manner possible to pro-
cure the adoption Of its substance or
resolutions directed to the same pur-
pose"
There you have the genesis of the
World Court, now brought back to us
for consideration, and, hope for APP
proval.
Now, before we go any further, let's
get few definitions and statements of
facts.
The World Court Is an international
court of Justice. It is the first con-
tinuing institution for applying the
principles of international law to the
judicial settlement of certain classes of
international disputes.
The World Courts official name is
the Permanent Court of International
Justice. 1t sits at The Hague, in the
Netherlands, in the Peace Palace, built
by Andrew Carnegie for The Hague
Court of Arbitration. It's FIRST session
opened in January, 1022.
Fifty-four of the sixty-three nations
have joined it. Nine nations have not
joined-Afghanistan, Argentina, sEcua-
dor, Egypt Honduras, Mexico Russia,
Turkey and the United States-at least
this Is the latest information have on
the subject.
League Membership Avoided.
Membership in the World Court does
not carry with It membership In the
League Of Nations. A nation can be-
long TO the Court and not to the
League; it can belong to the League
and not to the Court.
The League does not and cannot con-
troll the Court It's machinery Is used
to elect the judges, who are Nominated
by the national groups in The Hague
Court OF Arbitration. Each Of these
national groups may nominate four per-
sons for judges Of the World Court.
only two of whom may be Of its own
nationality.
These names are voted on by the
Council Of the League and by the AS
sembly OF the League, acting indepen-
IDENTIFY.
To be elected a Judge must have a
majority vote in both the Assembly and
the Council. Not more than one Judge
OF the same nationality can be elected.
The protocol now before the Senate pro-
vides for Is judges.
The election plan was worked out bv
Elihu Root. AS the Council consists Of
representatives Of the nine great ma
tons and the Assembly consists Of rep
resentativeS of the more numerous
smaller nations as wen, the rights Of
both the large and small nations are
assured by the, arrangements worked
out by Elihu Root.
The expenses Of the World Court are
paid through the League of Nations,
but not by the League, which acts sim
ply as the disbursing ofilcer for the
nations contributing to the Court.
The League can ask the Court for
advisory opinions, but the Court cannot
give even an advisory opinion, under
the pending protocol, unless all the
nations affected BY it concur in asking
for the advisory opinion. A nation
which believes it has an interest in an
asked for advisory opinion may block
the granting Of such an opinion until
there have been exchanges of reasons
for and against its really having an
interest. If the United States claimed
1t had an interest In such an opinion
and the Court decided to give It. any
way-something that would be ex-
tremely unlikely-then, by the terms
OF the pending protocol, the United
States could withdraw from the Court,
without prejudice, 30 to speak.
Necessity Regarded rs Remote.
Concerning the likelihood of this ever
happening Justice Hughes said recently
Il quote from him):
THE necessity OF having recourse to
| the right of withdrawal from adherence
to the World Court would seem to be
! very remote. It may be urged that we
| should be diSinclined TO withdraw, but
| 1t is equally true that the other states
! supporting the Court would be reluctant
| to have us withdraw. The situation
would almost inevitably lead to q rea-
sonable disposition Of any difference.
Certainly, II the Government Of the
United States believed that 1t had
sound reasons for it's protest and the
protest proved unavafling, it could with
/ draw with dignity and honor unim-
paired. The fact that it could thus
withdraw would be a powerful deter
rent against action in opposition TO its
interests in the matter OF advisory
opinions"
What I have just said is q direct
quotation from Justice Hughes, in whose
Interpretation of the withdrawal clause
OF the advisory opinion reservation I
have the utmost confidence, as I have
also in the loyalty, patriotism, diplo-
matte shrewdneSS and wisdom Of Elihu
Root, who is responsible for working out
the so-called Root formula.
Now for few more facts as under
stand them-factS which answer some
of the objections most frequently raised
against our adherence to the protocol Of
the World Court.
The United States cannot be hailed
before the World Court on any question.
We must give our consent in each and
every instance before the Court Is en-
powered to consider q case which d.
rectly affects us or in which we believe