Evening star., 1935-01-15
Ratification of Protocol for
Adherence of U. S. Is
Expected.
"SPONGER ARGUMENT"
ASSAILED BY LEADER
Cites Part U. S. Has Played in
Promoting Judicial Settle.
ment of Disputes.
BY G. GOULD LINCOLN.


The drive for American adherence
to the World Court was launched in
the Senate itself today. Senator Rob-
inson, Democratic leader of the
Upper House, in charge of the pro-
tocol for the Foreign Relations Com
mittee, opened the debate.
Ratification by the Senate of the
protocol is confidently expected. While
there are number of die-hards, in
cluding Senator johnson of Califor-
MIA and Senator Borah of Idaho, who
will continue to resist strongly Amer
ican entry into the Court, the sup
porters of the court claim that they
have more than the two-thirds vote
necessary for ratification.
CIouded by Misundersta nding.
Probably no subject has been so
clouded by misunderstanding as the
proposal that the United States accept
membership in the World Court" said
Senator Robinson.
Admitting in the beginning that
many acute differences between ma
tions will not be submitted to the
court for decision, there are still
numerous issues arising from time to
time which strong policy justifies shall
be referred to judicial process for
settlement
The assertion has been made that
since the United States may now avail
itself Of the courts procedure without
becoming member, 1t is unnecessary
for the United States to adhere to
the protocol. 1t is said that We are
now entitled to take cases before the
court. and there is nothing further
for us to gain" continued Senator
Robinson.
"SpOnger Argument"
He admitted this to be fact and
added:
This contention merits designation
as the 'sponger argument It Is
within our power to retain the pre-
rogative of sponger. but who de-
sires that the United States be a
parasitical dependent? The sense of
responsibility Of our citizens has not
sunk to such low level that they are
willing to avail themselves of the
benefits of a tribunal set up by other
nations and deny that tribunal finan-
cial support"
Senator Robinson said the right we
possess Of recourse to the World Court
Is not one of the so-called natural
rights"
The right of recourse to this
court" he said, lis only because of
the organized efforts of others. II
we 90 not choose to associate our
selves with the other nations in the
effort to maintain this court and
make 1t vital institution for good in
the international affairs of mankind,
we must not be surprised if others
despair OF the effort.
U. S. Promoted Idea.
The United States has played a
prominent part in the promotion of
the idea of a World Court to which
nations might take their disputes for
judicial settlement. We have en-
couraged the adjustment of interna-
tional controversies by specific meth
DDS. We were among the first to
propose the establishment of a true
international court which would pro-
vide a more adequate instrument to
this end.
1T is decidedly to the self-interest
Of this Nation to encourage and sup
port the work of judicial tribunal
before which the undertakings of ma
tions when in dispute may be taken
for determination.
Adherence to the court involves
no ENHANCEMENT, no abandonment OF
policy or principle. 1t demonstrates
our cooperation and effort to sub
stitute right and justice for force
and terror-to substitute law for an
archy in international affairs"
Jurisdiction Limited.
Senator Robinson declared the juris-
diction of the World Court is limited
to cases which the parties involved
refer to it, save in the four classes
of cases in which they bind them
selves to recognize compulsory juris-
diction. He argued that there could
be no basis for the assertion that the
United States compromises its SOW
ereignty or sacrifices its independence
in joining the court. He pointed out
that after the United States has Joined
the Court it can take no cognizance
Of any dispute or controversy in which
our interests are involved except at
the consent of the United States.
There is a provision in the Court
statute, he said, which authorizes any
state to recognize as compulsory the
jurisdiction of the Court in cases in
volvipg the Interpretation Of treaty,
a question of international law. the
existence of any fact constituting
breach of international agreement, or
the nature and extent of reparation
to be made for such breach.
U. S. Exempt From Provision.
"But it is not proposed that the
United States shall agree to this pro-
vision. Therefore the court cannot
take cognizance Of any dispute to which
Continued on Page 2, Column ~