Evening Star Newspaper, April 28, 1923, Page 4

g WORL COURT STANDING Secretary Tells International Lawyers Explains Sccretary Hughes outlined + views on the World Court in a fully. prepared address before the American International Society of Law at the New Willard last night. The text of his address follows: re- 1t fs my purpose to discuss in the simplest mannet the proposal mide by the President that the United States should participate, upon stated condi- tions, in the support of the Permanent Court of International Justice. In mak- g proposal, the President has been animated by the desire to pro- mote world | 1 stabilization; has sought to give effect to a lons- cherished American aspiration and to pursue in the projected course the clear line of our traditional policy With full appreciation of the intensity of feeling aroused by the controversy of recent years we cannot fail to real- this ject considered upon its merits and the supreme need is an understanding uid remove un- on, of the facts which sh certainty and quiet apprehens Propounds Vital Quextions. Tet it first be noted exactly the proposal is and what it is not. the President has explicitly stated, fs proposed o support the Permanent Court of International Justice; it is not proposed to enter the league of nations what As “Those who desire that by this method ! me 1 me ulzine vain alarmed at the United States shail be ber of the ire i hopes, and who ar such a possibility are entertainins vai fears. The test s a clear one. If the Senate should approve the President’s ecommendation. the United Stat would still be outside the leazue. Ac ceptance of the President’s propoxal as to the International Court will not obtain for the United States a sing T or subject it to @ sinzle obliza- tion under the covenant of the leasue. These are the questions in which T assume the eitd of the United States are in Is it a pood national court, Why should court instead tribunals? Is the Permanent tional Jus basis? Is there any United State irst. Why shoald ternational court swer is that ther hetween nations which cided by a cou The versies calling for the examination of facts und the application of principles of law There are interr or treaties, now ever. to he interpreted. the distinction b n a lesal nature and questic there hus emerzed from ions of Jurists an agreer justiciable dispute relate 1o g treaty. to tlonal law, to which would an internati reparation to have an inter; have a temporary we of permanent arbitral Court of ce e hed on a the it? wood reason whs hould not support itional n contracts than estions s of the ent d those crpretat question of the stence constitute a bre nal obligation or to the to made for breaches. Other questions may submitted for decision, but questi of the sort above diseribed are ms festly of the same character as those which in all civilized countric nized as matters for de Ly judicial tribun partial judgment human appreach to absolute ey, Puss ing s eace of Direct Interest to 1. S. It is to the direct interest of the United States, with respect to the dis- Position of its own controsersi the bhest practicable method of j dicial settl t should be provided. We have rights and duties under in- ternational law. We are parties to treaties under which we have rights and obligations. As we cannot be the final judge in our vwn e we need the hest possible international bunal to decide them. This is to interest of every American eitizen. Tt is also to the interest of the United States that controversies between other natio to which the United States ix not a party should he ap- propriately determined. Suppose a eltizen of New York should say_that he was interested only in hav Judicial tribunal to determine troversies between tes to w New York was a party, hut that made no difference to him what hap pened if the question tween Missouri_and Kan knows that it is in domestic peace that we should m tain a_tribunal by which controv sies arising belween any two can be determined. It is equally essential to world peace that contro- versies not our own shouid be peace- fully and impart determine whereve t is possible. As Presi dent McK said, “It has been ree ognized us the leading feature of our foreign policy throughout our entire national history™ that there be “the adjustment of difficulties by judicial methods rather than by force of arms. How are the interes controversies nations to be determined? nations are able to agree, tion does not arise. But what shall be done if they can not agree? thair controversy to remain a fester- ing sore? Ultimately, the alternative to peaceful settlement is the arbitra- ment of force. The only way to pre- vent war Is to dispose of the causes of war and the desire for ace must be supported by the peace. between I the the ques- Judicial Process Supported. Because a court may not be able to deal with every sort of controve but only with controversies that are appropriate for a court to decide is no reason for dispensing with it. There 1s no immediate access to the millennium and a demand for the mil- lennium will not prevent war. If the plain path of progress in dealing with those controversies which. all countries recognize to be susceptible of settlement through judiclal trib- unals .is not to be followed, then no progress is possible. Second. Why should there be a per- manent court instead of temporary arbitral tribunals The principle of judicial s of international disputes ha plied from early times through ar- bitrators. Tt is a method of great value and 1 have no desire to under- estimate it. We have been parties to more than seventy arbitrations and we have concluded a score of general arbitration conventions, Throughout its history the United States has consistently supported this sort of judicial process, but we have lJong recognized that it leaves much to be desired. Arbitrators are selected to deter- mine a_ particular controversy, and after the controversy has arisen. When the decision has been made the arbitral tribunal ceases to ex There Is unnecessary expense in the reation of a_separate tribunal for every case and there is & regrettable ttlelent s been ap- loss in the experience of judges be- | cause of the lack of continuity in service, For the same reason, the de- Velopment of the law suffers, as, in- stead of a series of decisions with appropriate relation to each other by a permanent bench of judges, thus dually establishing a body of law, there are sporadio utterances by tem- porary bodles disconnected with each other, acting under different condi- tions, and having' a widely different capacity. - Serious Defect in Process. There is a still more serious de- fect in this process. The arbitral his ! e the importance of having the sub-| it which'} that | the | states | should | institutions of | Issue Is Clear Cut From League. Working. is composed of tho elected the parties %o matters of iminor national erest judicial stakdards more maintained.: But where the controversy is a ous one and success iz highl tant, the constitution of a tribunal after the controve 5 i€ not fave ble to selection of those who will solely as. And those members who are the parate cBoice party tend to become ailvo- tes rather than judges: if this is not always the case rally so in public estimation. There 4 be no illusion as to 1his matte question finally comes to the selection of the umpire,: or third or fifth arbitrator, as the “ase may be, who is likely to have the decid v The smaller powers | Pave the less difficulty in making sich @ choice. They have a range of selée- tlon that wenerally sat o3 i »m the standpoint of national ‘terest and they often re abl {agrec upon a tribunal composed R single arbitrator, When there rious controversy between fgr vowe r. the choice of & 1 arbitrator is far fre al’ interests a lection s power is for t! tion of objection ditticulty ha been sed by th feelin the alige t of war. It 1o provide t the parties. respectiv spe- the t tribunal of v engender Fmpathies third arbit 5 ! some desiznated power or powers ause eans of choice | With the designated power or powers !the virtual control of the final itution of the tribunal. . The (native is to have the selohtic fmined by lot, and certs tisfactory method alte 1 dete o this Conxidering Meritx Problem. Even where the {agree the till remains the dan Lerations of poiitical L usurp the place T would not disp. {arbitrators or the e, but, as Mr too often elongin to re parties a upon bitrators, expedie: of judicial standards ports toot has w h. “Consider than Jurisprudence they their responsibility and the | Y the traditi the sentiments sense of honorable obligation has grown up in centuries of ercourse. rather ihan | itions, the nts, wnd | £ honorable oblication | Acterizes the judicial o of civilized nations [Process tends to the intrusior {ltical int 1t a solution jcompromise instead of a proper jue felal ™ determination Queations o zht come t tetermined The pro the juai relation ns sense which cha artment lem in the improve 1 proe 1 interna IS to secure immunity, anly p le, from cor political interest and have the rights and nations detecmined | of pon their merits. s taken the ure this r by the riate method, that s, by {lishment of a perma i {ourt An A in the endeave most ap i the retary Hay tos te fostructed > first Ha 1 of e While this project ! the confer J {isting practice by providine - of bitral procedure and an . eligihie flist of arbitrators from which t i bunals might he con tituted for the determination of such controversies j@s the parties concerned might agres ’u» su it to them. This w alled a permanent court of arbitration, hut it was not in fact a permanent court it was a panel of arbite This gov- rnment still cherished fdeal, and jhenee, at the second Hague confe jence, our delegates were instrueted! 1 by Seeretary Root to bring about - | | development of Hague tribunal | into a permanent il composed | of judges who are judicial officers ; nd nothing clse. who are paid adequate salaries, who have no other oce P - tion 1 devote their entire tim and decision of iy ternational caus by judi 1 methods 'nd under a sense of jud 1l respon- Dilit | renee for an inter manent character, I was not ted 1tio i i | Mr. Choate, 1 United States, the conference the A L& permanent court qu the words | of President Roosevelt that he hoped see the Hague court greatly in-| lcreased in power and permanency, and the judg in particular, manent and given adequate sala 8 80 as to make it increasingly Lable that in each case that n come before them they will decide between the nations, great or small, exactly as a judge within our own limits decides Letween the individual great or small, who come before him. Mr. Cho: of the first conference, reaching as it wa entirely” adequate to meet the pre gressive demands of the nations and ! to draw to the Hague tribunal for decision any great part of the arbi- trations that had been agreed upon, and that in the eight vears of its existence only four cases had been submitted to it, and of the sixty Jjudges, more or Tess, who were named as members of the court, at least two- thirds had not as vet been called upon for any service. He found the rea sons to lie in undue expense; in the fact that there was “nothing perma nent or continuous or connected In the sessions of the court”:; that it had “thus far been a court only iy name—a framework for the selection of referees for each particular cas never consisting of the same judgcs. “Let us then,” said he, “seck to de- velop out of it a permanent cour ! which shall hold regular and continuous. sessions, which shall consist of the same. judges, ‘which shall pay due heed to its own decisions, which shal} speak with the authority of the united voice lbf the nations and gradually build lup_a system of {international law, i definite and precise, which shall com- {mand the approval and regulate the conduct_of the natlons.” Mr. Choate added that the plan proposed by the American delegates did not “in’ the least depart from the voluntary character of the court already established. No nation can be compelled or constrained to come be.. fore it. but it will be open for all who desire to settle their differences by peaceful methods and to avold the terrible consequences and chances of war.” ~ With solemn emphasis, dis claiming any pride of opinion ‘as to any point or feature of the American, plan, he warned the great gathering of the representatives of all the na- i noble and f: the | in fact. it is yen- | 1 1 | { ind the . in case of a or of th selacted T charge of ge the motives of | L1 {cou The United States | | Hit was found to 1, | tulate { equality of stat fe observed that the work |Small powers would have s had not proved Even though the juri feourt tions that it “would be false to its its work” if it did not “strain every nerve to bring about the establish. ment of some such great and perma- nent tribunal. Falled on Question of Selection. While the second Hague confer- ence discussed a project and recom- ' mended a draft convention for the|committee of juri: establishment of a permanent court, it was unable to find a satisfactory | our organic Union, method of selecting the judges, and |the [for this reason the project failed Still the American delegates reported to their government that in the pro. posed permanent court had been broadly trust and would deserve that the seal|l have said, upon a special :interna of condemnation should be set upon |tional agreement. project the foundations of a{the | the T and firmly laid, and added, time, a little patienc work is accomplished. same sentiment, President Roosevelt d in his next message to the Con- Substantial progress was also made toward the creation of a per- manent judicial tribunal for the de- termination of international causes.” He regarded the unsettled question as to the method of selecting judges as plainly one which time and good temper will solve. Third. Is the present Permanent Court of International Justice, to tinued to be a cardinal feature of An ? Third. Is court of which the refers, estat This question ‘A little present international ident’s r. permanent Jjustice, to commendatior ed on a sound basi inyites consideration of its orzanization’; of the extent to which the court has the support of the nations; of the jurisdiction and 1s of the court; and of the s, tenure, method of se- indpendence of the judges { compe The tional under what constitutio ation, ju of Interna- established statute, or its organi art been alled a define tion and procedu tion of this statute the the league called to its 2 1l committee of the uished jurists, among whom was Mr. Re This adviso committee of jurists formulated plan for a permanent court. The pla was conside 1 the council und but its main structure was mended plan was adopted by : of the league, it could 1ot he put into effect by action of the league. In view of the scope of the plan, it was necessary to have a special international agreement on the part of the states which were willing to accept it. Accordingly a special protocol or agreement, with statut the court annexed, was drawn up anl sent to the nations for pproval. 1 understand that ahout forty-six states have signed this spe- U axreement, and of these about thirty-four states have already rati- fied it is ¢ 1 inter dist Separate From Lengue, The Pe Court thus stablishment from agne, having created by an manent is an the status organic separate @ distinet lo independent t The jurisdiction of the court com- I cases which the parties re and all matters specially for in treatic conven- \ force Careful provision has been made to Secure the independence of the court and to safeguard the appropriate dis its functions as a_judicial accorda with aceepted judicial standards. The statute of the court provides that it shall be composed “of a body of independent elected regardless of their mality from among persons of moral character. who possess alifications reauired in their countries for appointment chest judicial offices, or are onsults of recognized compe- in international law The consists of ‘mbers— ordina nd four N Judzes full court, it they present.” the deputy called on. Nine con- ourt is thus ately rep- - sume time s it cannot effectively siness are electe eligible for re fore & up his vice i declara- - will_exer- partially and con ordinary members not exercise any administrative functio polies to the deput time that they are duties on the court and body in 1 n Snds titute the e but may @ quory for n elect Judges d are Judie must ven ne on court or their dzex Given Sec tions. rity. removed th A judg ot in the unanimous the other members of the he has ceased to fulfill the re- Zonditions. This gives the #hsolute security in the im- riial performance of their duties The stitute < that in decid- th L apply int establishing the by aired fonal vention exbressly re idencs taw: aw recogn and the ju chings of the most bublicists of th < subsid al ral practice prin ized fons testing s rious for th law. Al majorit th votes, th who are shall have cquality of deputy, purt itself, elected by th asting v he judgment of the court to be 1 and without appeal 1t is ex- provided, however, that the sision of th rt shail have no bindin 1 e except hetween th parties and in respect of the partic fed dy 190 nent As pro, of a o Hague r the ishment court failed b impossible method of selecting the nifestly. if the nations ar ate in maintaining an ternation ourt they must have suitable opportunity to participate in the clection of those who compose it Still. to have evers upon such a court, or to lection of & permanent b ccording to nationalit wholly impracticable, upon such a course possible the establ manent court. of ot ¥ npon the M to partic n, have a_se- 1y of judges would be insistence would make im- hment of a per The fundamental pos- international law is the but if this principle erved and all states nd alone is ok {should join in the election of judge preei: upon tha same footiing, the great ma- ¥ and would control the election diction of the was not compulsory, a court thus constituted would not be likely to enjoy the confidence of the great powers. At least, the fear of such an arrangement has been until now an insuperable obstacle in establish- ing an international court. Two Groups to Concur. This difficulty has been surmounted by providing that the two groups of powers in the councll and assembly of the league shall act concurrently in the election of judges. The coun- cil is a small body of ten members and the great powers—Great Britain, France, Italy and Jaban—are per- manent members, the: other mem- bers, the other members being non- permanent members. The assembly, on the other hand. embraces all the members of the league; fifty-two in number. The statute &f the court provides that in elccting the judges each of these bodies shall proceed independently, and the successful can- didate must have a majority of the votes in each. The result is that the great powers are able to vote in a small group, of which they are per- manent members, while all smaller powers can vote in the other group. In this way the great powers and the smaller powers have a check upon each other, and it is:as certain as anything human can be:that their concurrent action will result in the election of impartial judgés. Tt should be noted that the council and assembly, in electing fudges, do not act under the covenaat of the league of nations. That icovenant, which determines the righta and ob- ligations of members of the league, invests them with no authority what. ever for such action. The election is held under the provisions: of the statute of the court which rests, as jorid For this purpose, the council and assembly are ileotora bodies which are utilized because they are groups of states and through pro- vision for their concurrent action the difficulty of finding a satisfactory in-1 tion represented | Court of Intenational Justice are se- will _enable great powers to have a check upon the smaller powers and the latter to have a check upon the former, a permanent court cannot be established. We are generally in dan- { ger in all efforts at progress of being balked by an impractical idealism. In this case it is fortunate that a wise practicality has enabled the na- tions to attain’ the ideal of an fmpar- tial court. Bloe Control Forestalled. It should be added that candidates for election are nominated by na- | tional groups ‘of arbitrators who are | on the panel established by The Hague convention and the election is made from the candidates presented by these groups, except that, in case of {inability otherwise to agree, a joint conference of representatives of the council and assembly may mously present another name to each body. These national groups who thus have the privilege of nomi- nating candidates for the Permanent j manent Court is thus a practical solu-, leeted by the governments, respec- i tively, under The Hague convention }as men of known competen | tions of international law and of the I highest moral reputation. Before making’ these nominations each na- tional group is recommended by the statute of the court to consult its highest ¢ and schools of law and its na- tional academies and national sec tions of international academies de voted to the study of law. Thus the participating nations have the oppor- tunity to submit the names of their leading jurist The plan gives every assurance against a successful attempt by an oc to manipulate or centrol the lections. Any such attempt in the ussembly would meet with the great- est difficulty in view of Its fifty-two members and their diverse interests while any effort on the part of the councii to elect a judge partial to ular interests would be wrecked assembly, It is wholly im- ble that acting in this way the ting nations would be able upon judges unless thes men of acknowledged merit with a public reputation affording the hest possible guaranty of com- petence and impartiality. The judges chosen through the con- current ion of these groups will a1l probability, as in the case dlready elected, men of ma- who have won high dis- They are elected for nine hd will most probably be re- if they give faithful service This means that men of exceptional experfence and recognized fitness for these most important posts are chosen at a time of life, and for a term of service, which leaves them no motive but to devote the rest of their carcer to making efficient the administra- tion of international justice to the full extent of their ability. If there ible plan better safe- the essentials of an inter ional court it has never been sug- d i i re ture ye tinetion elected TS, 1 gest Entirely Outside Lengue. In considering the question of the relation of the court to the league, it 1ust bered that if there were no league you would still have to deal with the stat. osing the league. If you are to | “ per- manent court, these states should par- ticipate in establishing It and main {taining it and in electing its judge: The question would still Temain 1 whether all these states choosing judges shonld act in ne body or group, whatever you might call it, or If it we insisted that the: uld et in on bod. upon pre the same poting, we should return to the old difficulty and get no court at all. If, on the other hand. you say that the participating states should act in two bodies or groups. {so that the t powers may hav cheek upon smaller powers and the latter upon the fe er, then the gues- tion is, What should the second budy group be? Whatever you call it, would be a body or groap in which Kreat powe would presun permanent members. The fundamental qu er the league of nation controls the court. To this there is a ready an- swe The gue does not control th ourt; that is an ndependent 1ijudicial body. The league is com- hosed of states: they, of course, co tinue to exist as states. When the {1eagu cts under the covenant { which rights and obliga- tior ining to the league. But {when fifty-two members act in {s par groups to elect judges {are have faid, not acting unde 1th nant, but are following a rse of procedure defined by a spe- international agreement in order secure the independent and im- rtial judicial body for which the world has bheen waiting. There are certain other provisions of the statute of the court which have {heen adopted to meet obvious practi- 5. Only one national of ant in the n he chosen as a_judge. of the tionality of each contesting par! retain their right to git in the case fore the court. If the court in- cludes upon the bench a judge of the ina ality of one of the parties only, {the other party may select from mong the deputy judges a judge of {its nationality if there he one, or, not, the party may choose a judge. !If the court includes upon the bench {no judge of the nationality of the confesting parties, each may choose a judge. If there are several parties in {the same interest they are to be c- { koned, for the purpose of these pro- visions, as one party onls May Be Called on for Advice. The court recognizes that it may be ealled upon by the council or aksem- biy of the league for advi opin- jone. This is a practice similar to that which has obtained in most of {the states of New England from co- ilonial days. It now obtains in Massa- {chusetts. New Hampshire, Maine, Rhode Island, Florida. Colorado, and South Dakota. The Permanent Court of International Justice has adopted {rules upon this subject so as to as- gimilate the process so far as possible fo a judicial proceeding and especial- 1y so as to exclude any supposition that advisory opinions may be ren- i th be pert these e cial it : i 1 i a_ partici Judges out publicity. (See article by Judge John Bassett Moors on the organi- zaticn of the Permanent Court of In- ternational Justice, Columbia TLaw Review, Vol. XXII, No. 6, June, 1§ pages 11 and 12.) The conclusion i8 that while the United States should have the right to participate in the election of judges if it is to support the permanent court, that court is established on a Sound basis. It is already function- ing. The judges have been elected— a most distinguished American jurist being one of them—and they are as representatéve a body of independent and qualified Jjurists as could be chose. Fourth. I come then to the final question: 13 there any good reason why the United States should not support the permanent court? This support has been proposed by the President upon four explicit condi- tions. These conditions are: “I. That such adhesion shall not be the | taken to involve any legal relation |tion an arl on the part of the United States to the league of nations or the assump- tion of any obligations by the United States under the covenant of the league of nations constituting Part I of the treaty of Versailles. “1I. That the United States shall be permitted to participate through rep- resentatives désignated for the pur- pose and upon an equality with the other states’ members, respectively, of the council and assembly of the league of nations in any and all pro- ceedings of either the council or the assembly for the election of judge: or deputy judges of the Permanent Court_of International Justice, or for the filling of vacancies. “IIL. That the United States will pay a falr share of the expenses of the court as determined and appropriated from time to time by the Congress of_the United States. +IV. That the statute for the Per- unani- | in ques- ! urt of justice, its legal fac- | they | dered in a diplomatic sense and with- | HE EVENING STAR, WASHINGTON, D. C., SATURDAY, APRIL 28, 1923. bearing by the United States of ns]hnck to the question whether or not and the great | tion, and I think it may be sald that|proper share of the expenses of the Schoing the ! without a solution of this sort, which | court; and, finally, a safeguard lagainst any change in the statute of the court without the assent of the United States. ) What, then. aro the objections to |subport of the court upon this basis' (1) It is objected that it is not a world court. Jut In what sense is it not a world court? Is reference made to the number of nations which sup- port it? The answer is, as I have al- ready said, that about forty-six nations have already signed the protocol, and it the United Stat. adheres, there is every reason to suppose that partici- pation by the other nations will be brought about. This should be our aim. "It is not too much to say that there will be no world court if this court cannot be made one, and whether or not it is to be in the full- est sense a world court depends upon our own action. Suppose we should now to_establish another world court? What should we do? We could not establish it by ourselves; we should ‘hflvl‘ to prepare a plan and submit it {10 the other nations. We should need jthe approval of the nations who have jalready approved the present plan What differences should we pro- pose, 5o far as the structure of the court is concerned? With respect to the choice of judges, would we deavor to have a practicable plan or jone that had been demonstrated to be Impracticable? Should we insist that all nations Le represented on the court by their natlonals, or th nations, gr and small, should act together in the choice of judges upon precisely the same footing and with- out any division into groups which could form a check upon each other? If o, we should have a plan which would most probably fail of accept- ance, and at the same time would not safeguard the interests of the United ates nearly as well as the existing plan. Should we recommend concur- rent action by groups of nations, in order to have a practical arrangement or selecting judges? 1f so, what groups should “we propo: and how would they differ essentially from the present electoral bodles? The more the matter is examined, the more clearly I think it will appear that the suggested chang would be purely formal, and not at all vikal to our tinterests. or of character which would disciose any just reason for refusing support o the existing court and for entering upon the difieuit if not vain, endeavor of establishing another juddicial institutiorn. undertake Court Rests on Agreement. 72) Another objection is that the ourt has been stablished through action of the league of nations. v'l‘hlbz is not an entirely accurate s ment, for the action of the leazue could not have established the court It was necessary to have a spe agreement signed or adhered to by | the nations which support the court and the court rests upon that agree. { ment. The substantial point, however. {1 not the source of the plan hut its | character. Any nation, or any group of nations, might have suggested th plan and it might be none the worse r none the better for that. The !question remains—What is the court Jthat has thus been established, and is in its essential Jutes worthy of support? ‘ This question T have examined, and I think it is demonstrable that the court Is an indepe with appropriate and abundant sa proper discharge. of the leagu not supe league. It is sald that tt 3t u for their It is not a serv. and its decisions or controlled 1 vised the o salaries and ex- penses, or Ludget of the eourt. are fixed by the assembly of the league upon the proposal of the council. But the action of the Iy i3 the ac- tion of the fift members com- posing the as. and the recom- mendation Council is the rec- ommendation of the states composing the council. in each case the actic being taken under the statute of the court. If the nations to la court. they must of course some practical means of dealing with the budget. Under the present plan, by which both these groups act, there {15 abundant protection againit cx- travagance. We properly rescrve the right of Congress to determine Ly its appropriation the amount which (the United States shall pay as its is 1 find nothing which can be dad as Inlmical to the interests - United States in the provisions rocedure, it it s said that support of e court, although It manifestly does involve entrance into the 1 - lox the assumption of any obli Junder the covenant of the league {stitutes an entanglement. But wut do we hecome entangled? Are to abandon the effort to dispose international controversies by | judicial settlement, which has heen a [feature of American policy since foundation of the government nmot have an ordinary arbitration unless we have an internatio agreement and an international trib- {unal for the purpose of the arbitra- {tion. We have never considered this {to Da an entanglement. We have imanifested our desire for such judi- jclal settlements by numerous treatics {and special conventions. of xhu. jen n in wh we Tof An American Policy. Certainly we do not object that the {disputes of others should be settled peacefully by similar methods, Then, as [ have hown, the establishment of a permanent court | been an American pe ¢ because we have d sired this e improvemens fudici international lations. Political platforms have {treated this an American policy {and not as a forbldden entanglement. 11f you are to treat participation in a | permanent court of international jus- tie an entanglement forcign to our You must rewrite { American history.” If you are not, then the question fs as to this par- ticular permanent court and we re- turn to the consideration of its organization and functions, and these justify the conclusion that it is an {independent judicial body of the highest character and deserves our confidence (4) Again it is objected that a world court should have compulsory Jurisdiction and that the jurisdiction {of the Permanent Court of Internu- tional Justice is not compulsory. It may be noted that provision is made in the statute of the court for the acceptance by states, through a spe- /cial agreement, of compulsory juris- diction of legal disputes as defined in the statute. I understand that of the forty-six states that have signed the protocol about fifteen have ratified this optional clause for compulsory Jurisdiction, but among the majority of the states which have not assented to the optional clause are Great Brit- ain, France, Italy and Japan. It is apparent that the greater nations are not yet ready to accept compulsory jurisdiction evgn of the limited class of questions above described. .Cer- nly, it does not appear that the United States is ready to accept it. The American plan for a permanent court, which was submitted to the second Hague conference, was, as Mr. Choate pointed out, for a jurlsdietion of a voluntary character. The Senate repeatedly, from the days of Presi- dent Cleveland, has refused to sanc- bitration treaty providing for compulsory arbitration. It has been required that, even under our general arbitration’ treaties relating to legal disputes, there should be a limitation relating to questions which affect the vital interests, the inde- pendence, or the honor of the two contracting states, and the Senate has insisted that a special agreement for each particular arblitration should be submitted for its assent. International Honor Force. Shall we postpone the plan for a world court because we cannot have compulsory jurisdiction? Can we not make substantial progress in the judi- clal process by the creating cf a tri- bunal which ‘in the highest degree will command confidence and to which the nations may present their cases for the most impartial and expert consideration that is obtainable? in 1 re- basis of selection has been overcome. | manent Court of International Justice| Why should impossibilities be de. This_suggestion was bro - ward by Mr. Roo e sts. Analoj found in the plan which made Soesipis by providing for representatives of states in' the Senate and of the people in the House of Representativés and |court’ will not involve entry by the|the question would remain, requiring in the enactment of laws action of both groups. ethod of electing judgea for the Pers adjoined to the protocol shall not be t in the .advisory|amended without the consent of the | judicial settlement? United States.” Holds It = Real World Court. sovereign ‘The acceptance of these conditions | not an effective argument; for, ev will establish that the support of the United States into the league of na election of judges; the 3 States in the manded if we are really interested in It is said that the court is substantially an arbitral tribunal because of the absence of compulsory jurisdiction. But this \"I el it the court should be so described, Why should we not have the great ad- The | tions; the participation of the United | vantage of this improvement in the Judicial mechanism? This brings ug t all | | i i | fi we desire a permanent court, with the continuous service of judges, with ap- propriate judicial standards, instead of “temporary arbitral tribunals—a auestion to the affirmative answer of which we have long been committed. (4) Further, it is objected that no provision is made for the enforc ment of the decisions of the court. There are those who desire to see an international armed force to compel the carrying out of decisions. Those who make this demand generally as- sume that there will be substantinl unity among those furnishing the armed force so that it can be used. But when there is such international unity the power of public opinion is at its maximum and there is the least | need for force, while in the of sych unity the armed likely to remai d. “The truth decisions of the court will have the most solemn nction that it is practicable to ob- ain. When nations agrce to submit a dispute to a tribunal and to abide by the decision its observance is a point of interna honor of the highest sort. You can reaily have no better sanction thau this, and the ob- ligation is one which will be all the more keenly felt when the de s not simpl that of a tem rbitral tribunal, but of per It supported by practicall nations of th world. 1f you t i of international cou_can hest effect this object ving the reputation for im- ¥ and for disinterested judi 1 consideration of the tribunal that decides ther psence force is all the desire 1 P Why Revive Controversy? (6) An objection of a different char- acter is that the United States should unconditionally support the court, and therefore, apparently, that the Sue- gested conditions should be wit drawn. This objection simply me. that the United States should enter the league of nations. as the objec- tion assumes, in accordance with the fact, that the pro court does not involve entry into 1) But why, in supporting un titution which embodies a cherisli- deal of the American peop should we revive the controversy over the league? Why should we not suj- port the court A1 bods In giving this support. however, it portant that w ld reserve right to participate in the electic ses, that we should protect our- gainst amendment of the without our consent, ‘and that we should provide for the determi tion by Congress of the amount to as our share of the exp. The stipulated conditions are appr priate to the purpose (7) Another objection British Empire has six votes in the assembly of the league in the elec- tion of judges, hecause the dominfons nd other constituent parts of empire are members of the assemhls Tt must be remembered. howe t the fty-two votes in the as The admission to member ship of these parts of the British I pire has been a recoznition of aspiration of the peoples composin hem, and this has not been found an erable obs support s court And it uld be dimiéult to find und re: m for objection on the part of United s o thi al grounds in the of the peaples who he ped under the influence udence. under the ited State t is that the proposed o will not o clection hy the & in the “tion participate i mbly, but also the council. and in the British Empire has but We are far better protected arrangement than by one would have all states on exactly the same where the smalles he same vote as t he arrangement f tion in the voting for t the council is really teetion to the interests tates than has hi gested in any plan for a court. The guestion should considered in the light of th of the action that is involved. It is practically impossible. under the scheme that hgs been adopted, for the Eritish Empire, or for any a- on. to secure an election of 3 in aid_of a particular political est. Such an effort would horn, because of the necessity concurrent choice by both groups of ions in_the manner that has he devised footing partici ndzes 11 United been ver) f the erto sua- ansnt [ nature a mter- stitl- Acute World Need. Finally, it is hardly say that Iam in entire efforts to codify and to provide improvement. I helieve t purpose. ences for th some progress is necessary te sympathy with international law conventions tor its already made direction through the re nt sion of jurists which Hague to suggest modi 1S in the laws of war which are made neces- sary by new agencies of warfare commission established der £ 5 lution adopted at the conference limitation of armament the process of codifying nd improving internati B arily a slow one, and a satisfactory body of law before we have a permanent court a genera tion will pass before it is established. Meanwhile let us supply appropriate means for the appli if the lav we have. The two projects are not in- msistent; the e can exist aiong with the other But we have an rute world need. We shall make no prozress toward the prevention of war if we adopt a perfectionist policy. Whatever else we should have, we need at once a Permanent Court of International Jus- tice. No plan to_pron paice can digpense with it. Why shonld we for the solution of diflicult proble of policy the t the 108t acute sfes of a po meet the obvious necessity of prov Ing for the appropriate disposition of those controversies with which an in- ternational court is competent to deal Any successful effort to settle con- troversies aids in the altivation of good will and the desire for the ad- justments of amity. The support of a permanent court as an institution of peace will be a powerful influence in the development of the will to peace. 1 hope that the United States, in deference to its own interests and in justice to its ideals, will do its part. in this commis. it The a on Howeve is we wait |DELAYS DECISION ON WORLD COURT (Continued from First Page.) to dispose of the causes of war, ‘ana the desire for peace must be sup- ported by the institutions of peace.” o plan to prevent war can dispense with such a court, Mr. Hughes said, adding that “we shall make no prog- ress toward the prevention of war it we adopt a perfectionist policy.” Because the court has a “distinet le- gal status created by an independent organic act.” the Secretary said, there could be no sound basis for the ob- jection that American participation Would be & step, toward the nation's entry into the' league of nations, Those who desire such an end by this method, he said, were “indulging vain hopes” and those who are alarmed at the possibility of it were “entertain- ing vain fear League Not Involved. “Acceptangg of the President’s pro- posal as to the international court will not obtain for the United States a single right or subject it tb a single obligation under the covenant of the league,” Mr. Hughes said. The President in the proposal. he said, has sought to give effect to a ong cherished American aspiration,” adding that to “treat participation in a permanent court of international Justice as an entanglement foreign to our institutions, you must rewrite American_history. . Secretary Hughes discussed the foundations of the present court, what he saw to be its greater value as compared with temporary arbitral tribunals, and the conditions under which. it is proposed that the United States participate osed support of the | the | ! ADAMS DENIES SPLIT - | IN REPUBLICAN RANKS| Freedom of Discussion No Indica- tion of Serious Division, Chair- man Declares. | | Declaring the division in the rman Adams o committee of is republi the 1 discussion v been good ré publican Then he 4 he democratic idea that of discussion within the ranks of re- publicanism is synonymous with arty split is thi- opinjon that o migiit logically expect from a par | which served for eight erel 8 a rubber stamp for a one-man gov- ! nt.” Adams contended that “nothing 4 gth for the party and for the gountry can come fron { exchange of opinion on all E The Harding i e addcd, “may be depended | pursue the policies insure the contin prosperous conditions.” fo o 13 SEESND 6. 0. P Watson Points 0Out, ever, That Party Is Com- mitted to Isolation Policy. Ry ihe Ascoclated Pross PITTSBURGH, Pa.. republican party, v volver of n he putes Europ to worid irt is in dame Wat he party o 16, ator moof r aders, as ox ddress | American Club bursh ward court ndiana Is as to his American hut he de abroad h hold n qu own att rehip in devel: esh wary Ives Yof world “al ments given ng ours Quotes From President’s Speech Without referring direetly unequivocal stand for A 1 ta by Preside cech hefor Sengte r_portion in which probl rehip th from tent ared rial that was ¢ that "oy v eall f the W he confrof the d senti nts. Rue “I coneur. thow Late on fwell as bill, there were sisted that we osperous times in the unless and until we joi of nations. but the in remains that we are most _remark )t in the league vanishes in t the on the Ta ¢ | degree { the presence Citex Our Exports. “The exports of the Uni for the fiscal year ending 1914, the last vear befor amounted to 4,579,148, the twelve months endins ale $1.400,000,0 t i ns do d4 s June the while i 2 1 not 1 what in the intend And we leag to at =0 in the in time were of in 1921 ame. our im- ports 1913, affrisen after the passa i McCumber bill, of 1o nd vet we the ons and nd league to go in Sees Peace in Ranks, “While some ng differences ', have developed e republican {party over the world court. vet 1 b {1iave that finally they will be smod {ed out without pre i discord jour ranks, r, whatever may be | i said o ne, we all ar termined hot to enter the league of nat {or to permit ves to become i ivolved in the endless turmoil that fo two thousan yeurs has cursed the continent of Europe. & great majori in inte ! ! seem t ours: American idering | people ar o rights, tion to any sch vereignty anywhere ve they any i hidden or expressed. of dr republic into the liast And as a matter of cot iy all republicans are | opposed to any ch How to Hest Serve World, “we can the being able to serve it, and surcly can remain able to s keeping ourselves strong at he we are able to help world for us to say when we shall help and by what method we shall help it ind how much we shall help it and | t is not for any super-zovernment to dictate our course to us | Everything that bas occcnrred in | pe since the treaty of Versailles ejected by the Senate and | evervthing that occurring ther Inow, 1s but fresh warning to us to hold ourselves aloof from the in minable quarrels of those ons. LIBRARY SESSIONS END. National Conference Reports Show | _Association Gains Strength. HOT SPRINGS, Ark April 28 The forty-fifth annual conference of the Amerl, Library Association was concluded with the final session here this morning, at which discus sions were led by Miss Mary . Pal- mer, North Carolina public library commissioner; P. B. Wright, Kans City Public Library; Miss Julia L son, Hou (Tex.) Public Library and Miss Andrews of th New e public library commis- sion, Trenton. Delegates and visitors, a thousand or more, were leaving for their hom in every part of th United States today, expressing the belief that no more ingpiring con- forence of the association had ever Leen held. 1 “The report of the secretary of the | organization, presented at last night's session, showed a substantial gain in the activities and membership of the hody. 1t 'was estimated that 512,000 Ameritan library publications were distributed in the vear just. closed. Present membership was given as More than forty-five Eommittees were reported as active- Iy at work. A gain of 50 per cent in the association’s finances was re yorted by the fiscal secretar: SNATT Renii OUTLIVES FORECAST. PARIS, April 28.—The Eiffel tower will last for twenty-three years more, according to engincers who have been examining its/stability in consequenc of a report that it is falling down. When the tower was built in 1889, as a new world wonder for the Paris exposition, the designer. Alexander Augustus Biffel, maintained that it Would stand for twenty vear: now it promises to outlive him, as he is in his ninety-first year, ! th me of alien super- in the world. ntion. either gging this| of se. practical- | diametrically | heme. interests and i { H world hest ser Eu was | i Il i { an i i i 1 | numbering | l;‘ 1vited |a RINY DAY BE USED TOHELPORY AT Participation Brings Talk of Land Forces Part. BY DAVID LAWRENCE Army well as the Navy Harding with the wrest moment 1 whether runn that whate hed parer precedent respect 1o the be shore, has fon guard may ¢ ident the e servide i violati st and e in the and and dry the | the tea that the statu Looking Up Precedents. ling has Justice linistra full Depar, look th whether mone ngr, originall aval defense civil a s have hor asked the to is up d cri fournd cone be utilized to enforce tnai laws. The lawy of precedent da the 3 the first r and ther 1 Ameri enue Ta difficu Ve lcen the fode to furnis up Troops and quell But the P m uphold state disturlance waters within the not belong to 2 5 i the stion ix tional emergency exists € the Navy to be divert task of ting 1h t foreign nto £ domestic laws the i ic o ont sed in emergen would the Ex Plot and three par whether which perm ed from s tion again con emer; and enouzh, ” t ; the there - of Ereat real iz gi impr w ssion th 10 ve the question « emple ey the fed constituti the used is ad militars t down itted. would ammunition with public gentiment, 14 naturally are h do not_have su I therr t nse of Wets” new < the lat the wr The pre gers whict the be that the Depa nder the the American be engaged ament. s solved, but nent Justice will necessary legal opinion Navy will, befora in proh en- (Congright, 19 APPLE CARNIVAL HERE NEXT WINTER Growers From Four States Outline Eight-Day Exhibition of Wide Scope. Washington is to be the le car 1 next winter decided at a meecting rs from Virginia vland and Dennsy cene of This of apple was grow 3 iRaleizh Hotel today The a the name of the 1 lo C: t air is to be in da Apj astern National b Decen val, and will days duriy dates to bhe the southern states will to attend the carnival, held at Convention Hall loing all the t P. Massey of Winches d held for the Tater be i which with Al announced cording to W who presic ting today. rhousands to Attend. Thousands of apple g 1d, and the National Capital regular riot of apples. the carnival is to show ties contiguous 10 Was ce apples. Millions of 1 the s named Lloom, 1y was pointed out. and hundreds of] thousands of the apples find their way ers will ate Will b un hington pro- pple tree to Washington. The Shenands district famous country. is goi s Mr. Massey 1is held. PUPILS PRESENT PLAY. “The Dream Lady.” a one-act pla let by the pupils of the Bryan Schoc i the annual soring 3 of the Bryan Parent- Association last night at the school. Mrs R. Linkins presided The production was staged un he direction B. K. Lacy se in the ca Thomas Wil- on, Mary F Louize Shackelford, “A. Talbert, bert, Mars and’ Armida also included Miss H. V 30Wersox. h-Cumberlana throughout g 10 he more 1id, when the app! the fa It n Chicea. music Harper The progr: numbers and Durwood TOWANDA, Pa., April 28.—The body of a man found late last night in a marsh near Sayre, was partially iden- tified today as that of Earl Oliver, a Lehigh Valley railroad shop-worker, who disappeared April 7. Mutilations about the face led authorities to believe he was the vic tim of foul play. The body appar ently had been in the swamp ahoot two weeks. Oliver lived Harford, N. Y., was married, and & chlld six months old,