Evening star., 1935-02-03
BY FRANK III. SIMONDS.

States Senate over the question of
American entrance to the World
Court. Upon the issue of the conflict
was to turn the question of whether
America was to go backward with
Washington or forward with Wilson.
In theory the battle was there Joined
between the advocates of nationalism
and internationalism. In practice,
however, the point of view in both
camps was wholly Washingtonism-
that is, iSolationist.
1t is true that Borah and johnson,
veterans of the ancient battle of half
a generation ago. we're able to dis
cover lurking behind the Court the
sinister figure of the League. The
old, familiar and ever-useful trap
door" was sprung again and again
But it was not less evident that time
had somewhat weakened the effect of
the old technique.
Differences Held Slight.
At bottom, moreover, the differ
ence between the opposing forces was
slight. The advocates of entrance
into the Court were agreed that such
entrance must be made only under
conditions which insured that the
United States would be free of all con-
straint. This country was not join
ing with the rest of the world in
adhesion to a court which was hence
forth to have competent and complete
jurisdiction. The United States was
not sacrificing one remote fraction
of its sovereignty. 1t was agreeing
to enter the court room. to permit
rI0to ,fyNo ff4Y1 nF url1n
chose, but otherwise it was insisting
that the door-the front door and
not the trap door-be open at all
times for an immediate exit.
Thus the quarrel between the
friends and foes of the project was
strictly limited to the difference of
view as to whether by virtue of the
reservations adopted the United States
could reject the authority and escape
the jurisdiction of the Court when it
chose, or whether it was becoming
involved in relationship which would
eventually tie its hands. Neither side
advocated internationalism in any
real sense. For internationalism must
mean consent to submit national
rights to international determination
Internationally.
Now, in this respect there has been
no change in American public opinion
since the great treaty fight a decade
and half ago. A majority in the
United States Senate were ready then
to vote for American entrance to the
League of Nations but only on such
terms as would bind it to talk with
other nations and not to accept any
decision reached at Geneva, save as
that had been subsequently ratified in
Washington. A minority were opposed
to entrance on any terms. Finally.
Mr.. Wilson was convinced that if the
United States would not bind itself
to accept the decisions and share the
responsibilities of the League, his
whole conception would fail.
In Wilson's view the reservations
attached to the proposal to join the
League, which were like those now
appended to the project to adhere to
the Court, constituted tranSforma-
tion of his program of International
ism into a purely national affair. If
countries were unwilling to accept the
decision of Geneva, if they were un-
willing to share in the task of giving
effect to those decisions, and if,
finally, they were unprepared to COM
init themselves to both projects in
advance, for him the League lost its
major value.
Since the Senate struggle and par
ticularly since the death of Wilson
there has developed in this country a
new type of League advocacy, which
has substituted expediency for the
rigidity of Wilson's own course. They
have decided that the important
thing is not the terms on which the
United States enters the League but
the entrance itself Probably the
larger number of people belonging
to this school actually imagine that
the mere entrance of the United
States into the League would trans
form the Geneva body clothing il
with authority and influence now
sadly lacking.
Many Fear Force Measures.
At the same time there is smaller
fraction which believes firmly that,
once the American horse had actu-
ally been led to water, it could be
persuaded to drink, and that, once in
the League, the United States would
progressively surrender the preroga-
tives of sovereignty which it had as
serted upon entering. The same di-
vision, of course exists among the
advocates of American adhesion to
the World Court
What Is important to note is that
now as always there are relatively few
people in this country who believe in
the idea of League of Nations which
actually constitutes super-state. One
great group desires to keep us out of
the League altogether and out of the
Court, which they very properly say
Is an adjunct OF the League. An
other great group is willing to 20
into the League and the Court, but
not because they are ready to accept
League or Court judgment upon
American questions. On the contrary
their idea is that our presence in both
bodies will enable us to impose and
impress our views upon other coun-
tries.
The ultimate illustration of the
present stage of internationalism in
the United States was disclosed in the
American course at the London Eco
nomic Conference. The Roosevelt ad-
ministration was prepared to send
delegates, to participate in the dis
cussions, but when all other countries
were agreed upon the view that the
first step in the economic reconstruc-
tion of the world was stabilization,
and until that was achieved nothing
else would be useful, what happened?
The President roughly rejected the
unanimous opinion of all other ma
tions and, instead of criticizing. the
country generally applauded.
At the present time public opinion
in the United States is, roughly speak
ing, divided into two camps. OF
these, one wants to have nothing to
do with Europe under any considera-
ton. BY contrast the other is willing
to talk with other nations, provided
it is assured in advance that it need
not be bound by any decisions reached
in the conversation. In 1919 the coun-
l. s-I~> &txrx afrrfn