Evening Star Newspaper, October 4, 1929, Page 7

THE EVENING STAR. WASHINGTON, D. C. FRIDAY. OCTOBER 4, 1929. ‘- 7 SHANSON UPHOLDS ROOT COURT PLAN Adherence of U. S. Declared a Necessity by Senator in Radio Forum. ‘The “Root formula,” looking to final adherence of the United States to the ‘World Court, will amply safeguard the interests of the United States, Senator Swanson of Virginia declared in an ad- dress last night in the National Radio Forum, arranged by The Star and sponsored by the Columbia Broadcast- ing System. Senator Swanson is the author of the Senate reservation adopted three years ago when the Senate put through the resolution providing for entry of this country to the World Court. He is also the ranking Democratic member of the foreign relations committee. One of the Senate reservations, No. 5, dealing with advisory opinions rendered by the court, has been opposed by member nations. Drafted at Geneva. The Root formula was drafted last Spring at Geneva by Eiihu Root and other members of a committee of jurists engaged in rewriting and amending the statutes of the World Court. Its de- sign was to protect all interests of this country and at the same time wipe away the opposition of the member na- tions to reservation 5. Senator Swan- son_insisted that the formula accom- plished both these desired results. Al- ready it has been indicated abroad that the member nations will agree to the Root formula. It is expected that President Hoover will urge the Senate to accept it when an opportune time arrives, Court’'s Work Praised. ‘The work of the World Court in the past was praised highly by the Virginia Senator, who pointed out that if the 4 Kellogg treaty renouncing war is to live and be effective, such a tribunal is absolutely essential. The Senate reservation number five provides that the World Court shall render no advisory opinion in any case in which the United States has or claims to have an interest, without first obtaining the consent of the United States. The Root formula, Senator Swanson pointed out, provides for full notification of this country, for ex- changes of views, and finally for the withdrawal of the United States from membership in the court, if no agree- ment can be reached regarding an ad- visory opinion. “No detriment can possibly ac€rue to the United States by adhering to the court under the Root formula,” said Senator Swanson. He added he did mnot believe that “an advisory opinion will ever be rendered by the court under the Root formula.” Text of Address. Senator Swanson's address in full follows: In msponse to many requests I have consented to discuss tonight the so- called Root formula providing for the adherence of the United States to the protocol of the statute of the World Court. I was the author of the reso- lution which passed the Senate in 1926 which provided for the adherence of the United States to the World Court upon certain conditions and reserva- tions. This resolution, including the reservations, was very fully debated in the Senate and finally approved by a vote of 76 to 17. I shall discuss these reservations and present wherein the Root formula differs. _The statute of the World Court pro- vides for compulsory jurisdiction in certain specified disputes, which juris- diction can be accepted by states When adhering to the statute. Many states have accepted compulsory jurisdiction. Compulsory jurisdiction, when accepted by a state, enables the court to sum- mons that state to answer a complaint by another state. When a state ad- heres to the statute of the court it may do so by only giving the court volun- tary jurisdiction which prohibits the court from summoning that nation be- fore the court, and it can only have Jjurisdiction in such matters as the state consents for the court to hear. Voluntary Jurisdiction. ‘The Senate of tire United States, when it passed the resolution of adherence, accepted only voluntary jurisdiction which limits the court to hearing and determining only such matters as the United States may agree shall be re- ferred to the court. This voluntary Jjurisdiction is not in the least modi- fied by the Root formula—under it the court would have jurisdiction only of such matters as the United States should consent to have brought be- fore it. The resolution passed by the Senate of the United States also provides that recourse to the court for the settlement of differences between the United States and any other state or states can only be had by agreement thereto through general or special treaties concluded be- tween the parties in dispute. This is similar to the provision contained in the resolution of adherence to the convention establishing the Court of Arbitration at the Hague in 1907. The Root formula continues this provision without any modification whatsoever. ‘Thus under the Root formula, as under the original resolution, all cases that go to the World Court in which the United States is interested must be by general or special treaty made by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, and the consent of the Senate when given to either a general or special treaty must be by a two-thirds vote of thos: present and voting. Every right and interest of the United States is fully and completely protected as required by the Federal Constitution. Doubts Relieved. The next reservation to be considered is the one declaring that adherence to the World Court shall not be taken to involve any legal relation on the part of the United States with the League of Nations or assumption of any obli- gations by the United States under the ‘Treaty of Versailles. This reservation was not necessary as the World Court has a statute, assented to by 48 nations, absolutely distinct from the statute creating the League of Nations which has been assented to by 58 nations. ‘The World Court is controlled by its own statute, adopted separately and in- dependently and derives no authority from the statute creating the League of Nations, The League cannot in any way modify or amend the statute of the court. “This provision was included to allay the apprehension entertained by some and the clamor sought to be created by opponents of the court, who argued that adherence to the court would mean entrance into the League. This reservation relieves all doubts and completely answers the charges. The Root formula does not in any way modify this reservation. The next reservation permits the United States to participate, through representatives designated for the pur- pose, upon an ecuality with other state ‘members respectively of the Council and Assembly of the League, in any and all proceedings of either Council or As- semblv for the selection of judges or deputy judges of the court, or for the filling of vacancies. The Root formula does not in any way interfere with this Teservation. Participation in Expense, ‘The next reservation to be considered is the one providing that the United States shall pay a fair share of the ex- penses of the court as determined and appropriated for from time to time by the Congress of the United States. It should be notea that this reservation provides that tte amount to be paid by the United States shall be determined and appropriated by the Congress. ‘Therefore, Con determines the ex- penses to be incurred by the United ifllfl a8 her share of the expense of broadcast over the Columbia system. GIVES WORLD COURT VIEWS SENATOR SWANSON, Speaking last night in The Star studio on the “Root formula.” The speech was —Star Staff Photo. the court. The Root formula does not gm any way interfere with this reserva- on. ‘The next reservation to be considered is that which provides that the United States may at any time withdraw from adherence to the court and that the statute creating the court shall not be amended without the consent of the United States. The statute of the court I ing a treaty, the Unitcd States by a joint resolution of Congress may at any time withdraw her adherence. The Supreme Court has held that a joint resolution of Congress repeals a treaty or convention that had previously been ratified. The Root formula does not in any way modify this reservation. Avoiding Controversy. It was believed that since the United States gave her abherence to the existing statute of the court, it was wise to reserve the right that the statute could not be amended without her consent, and thus avoid any con- troversy in the future upon this ques- tion. 'This also relieves the appre- hension that some entertain that the court in the future might become dif- ferent from the one to which the United States gave her adherence. This provision completely _eliminates this foreboding and gives full assurance that the court cannot be changed with- out our consent. The Root formula does not in any way modify this pro- vision. The resolution of adherence ..n- tains a declaration of policy upon the part of the United States which does not in any way affect the statute of the court, or require the assent of cther nations. This declaration of policy emphasizes that the United States in adhering to the court should not be construed in any way as an abandonment of its foreign policy, gen- erally known as the Monroe Doctrine. This declaration clearly emphasizes the fact that the United States would not, at this time or at any time, abandon its long-cherished foreign policy known as the Monroe Doctrine, and relieves all apprehension that this well known American policy has been in any way jeopardized or altered by adherence to the World Court. The Root formula does not in any way modify this dec- laration contained in the Senate reso- lution. In Thorough Accord. ‘Thus upon all these important mat- ters the Root formula is in thorough accord with the reservations contained in_the Senate resolution of adherence. I will now consider the fifth reserva- tion in the resolution of adherence and compare it with the Root formula and point out the differences between the two: The fifth reservation, which has been the subject of much discussion, relates to advisory opinions which the court may give when requested to do so by the Council or Assembly of the League of Nations upon any specific matter or question., The rendering of advisory opinions is optional with the court. Since the Council or Assembly of the League alone has the righy to ask the court for an advisory opinion, it was thought but right that the United States, when it adhered to the court, should have the same right and pro- tection possessed by nations that were members of the League. Reservation 5 was prepared to accomplish this pur- pose and give this equality of right and protection to the United States. This reservation is as follows: “That the court shall not render any advisory opinion except publicly after due notice to all states adhering to the court and to all interested states and after public hearing or oppor- tunity for hearing given to any state concerned; nor_shall it, without the consent of the United States, entertain any request for an advisory opinion touching any dispute or question which the United States has or claims an interest.” Difficult Question. The most difficult question to solve in providing for the adherence of the United States to the statute of the World Court upon an absolute equality with other mations was that relating to advisory opinions. As previously stated, all requests for advisory opinions were confined to the Council or bly of the League. As the United States was ‘not a member of the League, this presented a most difficult problem for solution. The solution was provided for in the latter part of reservation 5. 7TH & This reservation was addressed to the Jurisdiction of the court by its terms and so intended. It would prohibit the court from entertaining any request for an advisory opinion upon any matter in which the United States was interested or claimed an interest. It gave & veto power on the part of the United States to any request to the court for an advisory opinion on any matter in which the United States was interested. If the United States appeared before the court and claimed an interest and would not consent to an advisory opinion, the jurisdiction of the court to render an advisory opinion ceased. It was believed that this reservation was necessary in order to place the United States on an equal- ity before the court with other nations that were members of the League. Equal Rating Desired. 1t was believed that in asking for an advisory opinion the Council or Assem- bly could only act by a unanimous vote. Hence the veto of the United States for an advisory opinion was only equal to that possessed by the nations that are members of the League. But there are those who insist that the League in asking for an advisory opinion is only exercising methods of procedure which, under the terms of the League, requires only a majority vote. The court has not passed upon the question whether the request must be by a majority or unanimous vote Can't [) Be Beat Century Heat ENTURY UIL DURNER J. L. ASTON, MGR. 1319 F St. N.W. District 7408 of the Council or Assembly. If the court should decide it requires a unani- mous vote the veto of the United States would be effective, since the Root formula provides: “There shall be attributed to an ob- Jection of the United States the same force and effect as attaches to a vote against asking for the opinion given by a member of the League of Nations in the Council or in the Assembly.” ‘Thus the Root formula gives the United States equality in this respect to that possessed by members of the League, whether the court decides it requires a majority or a unanimous vote of the Council or Assembly, But res- ervation 5 was intended to protect the United States, even if the court should decide that a majority of the Council or lnA!:umbly could request an advisory opinion. States’ Consent Needed. Under the statute of the World Court, in order for it to obtain jurisdiction and render judgment, it must have the con- sent of the states that are litigants. No state can be haled before the court without its consent given either volun- tarily or by the acceptance of the court’s compulsory jurisdiction. In either case the consent of the state must be ob- tained. The same principle should ap- pl to advisory opinions. All members of the League that have adopted the Covenant of the League consented that the Council or Assembly could act as their agents in requesting an advisory opinion. The Council or Assembly as agents created by nations that are mem- bers of the League could ask or refuse to ask for an advisory opinion. All that reservation 5 gives to the United States is that the United States as prin- cipal acting for itself snould have the 3 Saks store Washington. ity and of Satisfaction. flect—and EXPERTS adyvise this a complete change of tubes at least once a year. For all fine radio sets RCA Radiotronsthrough- out are recommended. RADIOTRON *Radiotrons are the heart of your Radio Set” EISEMAN'S F ST5. to Match Odd Coats! 45 Eiseman’s carry the trousers in Washington. largest stock of special Any man can find the EXACT pair he needs to fill out that suit. Just bring in your coat or vest. {OPEN A CHARGE ACCOUNT! 0 T, FOR almost 62 years, the writing its name into the merchandising history of IT has been writing that name in terms of Qual- of Service; terms of Confidence and OING on 62! understand what kind of a store this has to be, to keep growing all that time, and to stand out as the leader after so many years! fimmnmnmummm|m|||||||m||||||m|mmm||mnumnuu BROWNS! ... . . . GRAYS! AND BLUE BLENDS! ... . 2-TROUSER same power as members of the League had conferred on their %mmdy the Council or Assembly, In respect there seems to me an equality of right. But the nations refused to give the ab. solute veto power to the United States upon requests for advisory opinions eg were apprehensive this power might be abused and would interfere with the valuable work of the League in connection with advisory opinions. Many nations belonging to both Court and League felt this would be a danger- ous power to give any nation. A solu- tion was sought by Mr. Root whereby all the rights and interests of the United States could be fully protected a..d other nations be relieved of any ap- prehension of danger in giving the Unit2d States veto power in connection with advisory opinions. Solution Presented. The so-called Root formula presents as a solution of this question the fol- lowing: “With a view to insuring that the Court shall not, without the consent of the United States, entertain any re- quest for an advisory opinion touching any dispute or question in which the United States has or claims an interest, the secretary-general of the League of Nations shall, through any channel designated for that purpose by the United States, inform the United States of any proposal before the Council or the Assembly of the League for ob- taining an advisory opinion from the Court, and thereupon, if desired, an ex- change of views as to whether an in- terest of the United States is affected shall proceed with all convenient speed between the Council or Assembly of the League and the United States. “Whenever a request for an advisory ELEQIHIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII|I|IIlIIIII|I||I!Il|||IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII||||||IIIIIIIIIIII!IIIlIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIlllIIIIIIIIII|I|I|IIII||||IIII L GOING ON 62 has been in A OO SOD OA 0 Just re- you will SUITS opinion comes to the Court, the trar shall notify th: United States thereof, among other states mentioned in the now existing Article 73 of the Rules of Court, stating a reasonable ulnme-llmlt fixed by the President with- ning the requcst will be received. If for any reason no sufficient opportunity for an exchange of views upon such request should have been afforded and the United States advises the Court that the question upon which the opinion of the Court is asked js oae that affects the interests of the United States, proceedings shall be stayed for a period sufficient to en- able such an exchange of views be- tween the Council or the Assembly and the United States to take place, * * * Withdrawal Automatic. “If after the exchange of views pro- vided for in paragraph 1 and 2 of this article it shall appear that no agree- ment can be reached and the United States is not prepared to forego its ob- Jection, the exercise of the powers of withdrawal provided for in article 8 hereof will follow naturally without any imputation of unfriendliness or un- willingness to co-operate generally for peace and good will.” An analysis of the Root formula shows that it provides: First—That the United States shall be notified of any proposal before the Council or Assembly for obtaining an advisory opinion from the Court. Second—That there shall be an ex- change of notes between the Council or Assembly and the United States as to whether it has an interest in the pro- posed advisory opinion. Third—That whenever a request for 0 Saks— regis- | an advisory the registrar of the court shall the United States thereof, fixing a rea- sonable time limit in which a written statement from the United States con- cerning the request will be received. Postponement Provided. Fourth—If for any reason no suffi- clent opportunity for an exchange of views upon such request should have been afforded and the United States advises the court that the question upon which the opinion of the court is asked is one that affects the inter- ests of the United States, proceedings shall be stayed for a period sufficient to enable such exchange of views between the Council or Assembly and the United States to take place. Fifth—It provides if after this ex- change of views no agreement is reached and the United States is not prepared to forego its objections, then the United States may withdraw without any im- putation of unfriendliness or unwilling- ness to co-operate generally for peace and good will. Thus under the Root formula the court can render no advisory opinion without the consent of the Uni States and require the United States to continue a member of the court. Under the Root formula the United States is given the option of making reservation five of the Senate reso- lution operative or else tgrcrmmlv withdrawing its adherence to the court. The United States will have the full protection of reservation five so long as it is a member of the court and when this ceases the United States can im- mediately withdraw. Thus no detri- THE AVENUE AT SEVENTH A PLANNED EVENT! SOFT, LUXURIOUS, W 2 L A TOPCOAT EVENT! SUPERB TOPCOATS OF EXCLUSIVE FABRICS— INCLUDING 1009, IMPORTED CAMEL’S HAIR! $3450 7JYHOSE who watch fashion have observed the trend toward Topcoats of soft, luxurious finish; Topcoats of Camel’s Hair and the Camel’s Hair family of fabrics. AKING our cue from this fashion-tendency, we secured the co-operation of our finest makers in the development of a feature value such as you have never known in Topcoats of this character! 7E now present the result in an extraordi- nary collection, embracing the newest single- and double-breasted models, in light, medium and dark shades of Blue, Gray, Brown and Tan—each coat magnificently made of one of these fabrics of luxury: Goyart’s 100% Pure Imported Camel’s Hair! Fine, Silken Kingsley Fabrics! ganized ited | international differences. to-the court | ment can possibly accrue to the Dnited States by adhering to the court under necessary for the proper pro- tection of the United States and when it is ignored by the court it is time for the United States to exercise its right of withdrawal. It would not do for the United States to continue a member of the court and have an advisory opinion rendered without its consent and not operative the fifth reservation, but if it develops that it does mot, the United States can and . shmragd promptly withdraw from the court. I can see no danger that can come to the United States by adhering to the court under the Roo* formula. I believe the United States should join the World Court, as it is the only or- court for the settlement of ‘The decislons and work of the court have been of potential factor for world peace. The Kellogg pact outlawing war makes & World Court indispensable for us and other nations to hear and settle inter- national disputes which will inevitably arise. Without such a court, the Kellogg peace pact will become a fail- ure, and practically all disarmament and peace conferences futile. E - - - Hmmmwan 39 1 45 O the man who seeks ut- most correctness in shade as well as style, Saks recommends the mnew warm Browns—they are rich; the new crisp Grays—with their many soft modulations; and the very, very new Blended Blues —which do handsome things to Blue that you never saw done before! new Suits—their values are in class with their smartness! Saks—Third Floor i Let us show you the It Fashionable Lynx Cloths! New, Soft-Finish Llamoras! Saks—Third Floor T R ] +5.00 *8.00 THE “HOMBURG” A SAKS HEALTH SHOE! a SHOE scientifically de- 'YOU recognize the Homburg signed 16 suppece the seek hat when you see it—it is . correctly; to give comfort at |:'|e very smart style v_ulh the once without breaking in; to simall, closerolled brim. To outwear the usual shoe at the find the authentic Homburg at i d give utmost foot-ease $5 so finely made, and s o many new colors, is a feat! besidest . Made of Genuine Vici and soft pli id, is a special value which Saks R i has brought about! HAT! our special comfort-curve com- bination lasts. Sizes AA to E. Saks—First Floor Saks—First Floor OO0 0 AR THE “KARLTON JR.” THERE ARE LOTS OF 4-PIECE SUIT FOR REASONS FOR PICKING BOYS IS A WINNER! THE SAKS “PREPSTER” $14.95 $99.50 HERE'S “something about’ EASON after season, the the Saks 2-Trouser Prepster Karlton Jr. 4-Piece Suit Suit. It has the lines that smart for Boys goes right ahead young fellows look for. It is leading the procession. After made up in just the right shades all, such excellence of fab- that appeal to chaps of 13 to rics; such sterling tailoring in 18. It is easy to see that it every seen and unseen part; is designed exclusively for the such genuine smartness— young fellow—and nobody else. these qualities MUST create a reputation, when the price THE new models are in— is 80 very low! See the new single and double breasted. models —in the handsome See them. Tans, Browns, Grays, Blues, Tans and Grays! Blues and others. 0 O Saks—Second Floor Saks—Second Floor