Evening Star Newspaper, December 21, 1930, Page 41

STRONGLY URGES U. S. "TO'STAY OUT OF COURT Senator Hiram W. Johnson Assails Body as a Part of the League of Nations. The full text of the speech of Sena- for Hiram W. Johnson, against United Btates participation in _the World Court, in the National Radio Forum last night, follows: At a time of national depression and ter, when there are want and suf- fering in our land, and the energies of those in authority, high and low, are devoted to aiding and relieving our peo- e, the President has seen fit, aiter olding it a year, to send to the Senate the League of Nations' Court; and the Fore Relations Committee of the Senate, at least thus far, has seen fit to Eostpqne its consideration until Decem- er next. The time of consideration is one of relative impartance. Is it more important for the Senate to devote itself to a highly contentious proposition of | S taking America into a European organ- ism, or is it more important immedi- ately to direct our energies to our grave crisis, wherein is not only unemploy- ment, but dire distress of our own peo- ple? Some of us believe we should first remedy our ills and relieve our own people before undertaking to become a part of an international machine whose ald to humanity thus far has been Wholly illusory. But the highly financed international organizations, with their florid and extravagant propaganda, are again in full cry, bludgeoning the Sen- ate and demanding the immediate rati- fication of the present protocols, which Would make us a member of the court World Court and League Linked. A decade has passed since our people | Biad before them the League of Nations. | p: 1920 overwhelmingly they repudiated the League. In 1930 it is sought, in- directly and surreptitiously, to teke us into the League. The same organiza- tions, the same individuals, the same Lewspapers, with exactly the same de- mands, arguments, animadversions, de- nunciations and misrepresentation that thundered for our entrance into the ague of Nations 10 years ago, today like fashion seek to drive us into a mro:m?tleb!..c:guerf ):atlons. ‘Their ¥ _the American people in 1920 taught them the Iessonp:Xpdiplo- macy. By indirection now they en- deavor to remedy their failure then. It is an amazing intellectual stulti- fication to assert that the so-called World Court is not a part of the League of Nations. The League of Nations was tten by the Versailles treaty. The League appointed a committee of ex- perts to draft a scheme for the organi- zation of the court. The secretary general of the League pointed out that the court was to be “most essential| part of the organization of the League | of Nations.” The French representative described the two institutions as com- plementary to each other. The official spokesman of the committee stated “the new court being the judicial organ of the League of Nations can only be created within this League.” The stat- ute of the court came into being by a resolution of the Assembly of the League. The court was intended to be, and is, the judicial tribunal of the . ‘The general policies of the Court are defined by the League. The Judges are selected by the League. The expenses of the court and the salaries are determind and paid by the League, and through its organization the court is attached to the League. But be- yond this, the all-important provision for advisory opinions transmutes this | so-called court from the category of | Judicial tribunals into a_ diplomatic pawn of European politics. “Once before we had this court under discussion and our Nation's adherence to it was rar- rowly averted, and narrowly averted solely because the advocates of the court recognized the dangers inherent in it to our country and themselves insisted upon a safeguarding reserva- America’s Attitude Is Reviewed. In 1926 the Senate passed a resolu- tion adhering to the court with five reservations, the most important of which—the fifth—provided that the court should not, without the consent of the United States, entertain any request for advisory opinions touching any disputed question in which the United States has or claims an in. terest. This reservation was not ac. ceptable to other nations, members of the court, and we were saved from ourselves then by their refusal to con- sent to our conditions. In November, 1926, President Coolidge, in a memora- ble speech at Kansas City, said that the situation had been sufficiently de- veloped so that he felt warranted in saying that he did not intend to ask the gcnwe to modify its decision. Thus the matter rested until the early part of 1929. Unquestionably there Were negotiations between some repre- sentatives of the League of Natio and some individuals in this country Exactly what we do not know, but in the early part of 1929 this great country of ours, having taken its defi- nite position, and having constantly maintained that position until then, went, cap in hand, t> Geneva to beg 8 reconsideration of the position taken the Senate and concurred in, ap- rently, by the President of the nited States. It was the fifth res- ervation, concerning advisory opinions, around which the controversy raged, and I repeat that this fifth reserva- tion was prepared by those who fa- vored the adherence of this country to the court, in collaboration with at least one great international jurist, inti- mately connected with the court itself. | What caused the sudden shifting in position announced by President Cool- idge in November, 1926, to the preca- tory attitude of February and March 1929, is yet an unsolved mystery. Mr. Root, during the latter period, took to Europe the Senate reservation and he brought back something entirely dif- ferent, and it is this entirely different thing we are now asked to accept. It is difficult to explain to the lay mind the mischief of the so-called advisory opinions of the court to describe these advisory opinions as opinions rendered by the court at the request of the League of Nations upon matters of controversies deemed perti- nent or appropriate by the League, ZLawyers have often described the court ®s functioning, not only as a quasi- RESORTS AUGUSTA, GA. Less time on the way I‘It"l FINEST WINTER GOLF A winter golf in America. Donald Ross courses. Grass greens. Tennis, Polo, Huns- ing, Riding. Daylong sunshine —mild bat exhilarating climate. Resort hotels among the world’s most distinguished. Write for “Golf in Augusta,” by O. B. Keeler, other information furnished ber of Hotel (N. Y. address, Vanderbilt Hotel), Forrest Hills.-Ricker Hotel (N. Y. address, 680 Fifth Avenue), The Partridge Ina, It may suffice | court by deciding cases brought to it by peoples interested, but also as a political arm of the League, rendering | to the League, at its demand, advisory opinions of possible far-reaching con- | sequences, All jurists concede the evil | of these advisory opinions, and until | now there has been substantial una- | nimity against the United States, with- out our consent, being in any wise a | part of them. Compared to Spider's Web. The Senate, in plain and unequivocal language, stated that the League of Na- tions’ Court could not entertain even a request for an advisory opinion in which our country has or claims an interest without the consent of the United . ‘When Mr. Root, with Sir Cecil of England, had finished with the Senate reservation they agreed, and the President accepts their agreement, that the United States would join the court, and thereafter, if advisory opin- fons were sought in which the United States claimed an interest, a protest might be filed, which, if unavailing and still persisted in, might entitle the | United States to withdraw from the court “without any imputation of un- friendliness or unwillingness to co-oper- ate generally for peace or good will.” If advisory opinions are as vicious as they have been represented to be by practically all jurists, and particularly by friends of the court; if the United States in 1926 could not safely join the court unless in advance it were agreed that no request for an advisory opinion n which the United States has claims an interest could be enter- tained; if the Senate and President Coolidge were right in our fcrmer deci- sion, the present suggested solution is disingenuous, and is no solution at all. The argument that is now iterated and reiterated, that the United States after joining could withdraw if a controversy arose concerning advisory opinions, is the European diplomatic invitation of the spider to the fly. Once we're in this court, any endeavor to withdraw—and who would make it or how it would be made, no one knows—would be met with such ‘a storm of protest all over the world, and particularly from our own internationalist organizations, which are constantly seeking to take us into Eu- tope, that withdrawal would be utterly impossible. If we attempted to with- draw, the same internationalists and the same internationalist press that so loudly proclaim they express the senti- ment of the country, would, with the same propaganda now showered on us, prevent our withdrawal. But beyond this, for cne who believes in America, | proud of her long record of intern: tional fair dealing and good faith, de- termined to maintain & world position of candor and amity and justice, fo forego what we know safeguards us, and accept instead a humiliating permission to run, is so repellant as to be unthinkable. Substitute Reservation Ambiguous. Remember, that the important, and perhaps the most important, act of the court is the rendition of advisory opinions. Remember, too, that they are rendered upon the request of the League of Nations, and that they form part of the League of Natlons procedure. Up to the end of 1929, there had been 17 judgments rendered by the court, and 16 advisory cpinions upon the re- Quest of the Council of the League of Nations. No defender of the court has thus far defended advisory opinions. All have sought to have this country evoid them. We did by the Senate resolution safeguard ourselves. We do not by the Root-Sir Cecil Hurst for- mula protect our country from them. The Seneate reservation is plain, brief and unambiguous. The substitute for it is wrapped in words, lengthy, involved and disingenuous. Internationalists as- sert the substitute does just what the Senate did. And yet these same inter- nationalists denounced the Senate in unmeasured terms when the Senate reservation was adopted. Now with beautiful language, soft and sweet, in- sidiously they say they offer us the same | thing. The ordinary man in perplexity | asks, if both are alike, what need is there for any substitute at all? Those who know little of the genesis or the constitution of the court, who | have no conception of its possibilities | and who have an obsession our Na- tion can only play its part in the world by joining the League of Nations in- sistently implore us, in the sacred name of peace, to become a part of the League of Nations court and yield our cherished views and alter what has ever been our national policy. Every- body believes in peace. There are none who would not contribute to the utmost to prevent another World War cata- clysm. We have, however, peculiarly in our country a class of people who look upon patriotism as a sin and love of country as an outgrown heresy. This class have constituted themselves the monopolists of international amity and have become mere poseurs for peace, who forget the lessons of the past of this Nation, its present position in the world and its future welfare. These poseurs for peace, with their organized propaganda, would force us into any | European combination. They forever prate of what we might do for foreign | nations, while decrying any effort to protect and safeguard their own. Internationalism Begins at Home. | They are aptly described by Theodore | Roosevelt in his book “The Great Ad- venture” thus: “The professed inter- | nationalist usually sneers at national- | ism, at patriotism and at what we call Americanism. He bids us forswear our love of country in the name of love of the world at large. We nationalists | angwer that he has begun at the wrong end; we say that, as the world now is, it is only the man who ardently loves his country first who in actual practice | can help any other country at all.” | " Joining the court would not contrib- uate to world peace or a better under- standing among the nations of the world. On the contrary, misunderstand- ing would be certain to result and strained relations to follow. The very position we occupy today, unless we are blind to passing events and deaf to | the opinion o often expressed of us, makes it imperative that we do our|Z RESORTS. AUGUSTA, GA. More time to play -~ OVERNIGHT TO is close to you. Here is the finest by Augusta Cham- f Commerce, Bon Air-Vaaderbilt ' rn.nmr own wa THAE SUNDAY STAR, for peace and better understanding o free and unfettered from any European organization. Every argument made in behalf of the court minimizes its functions and its usefulness. Its advocates seek to demonstrate to our people its inutility and its futility, and they succeed ad- mirably. They suggest the court amounts to so little Wwe ought to join it anyway, merely politely to accept the invitation to join, and then after hav- ing demonstrated that it is of little or no consequence, they paradoxicalls claim that it is so important, our mem- bership in it is essential for the peace of the world. The President in his re- cent message, in three short sentences, presents the internationalist: mizing argument. He says: “We can- not be summoned before this court. We can from time to time seek its services by agreement with other nations. These protocols permit our withdrawal from the court at any time without re- proach or ill-will.” The ordinary Ameri- can, with his conception of the courts of this land, can be pardoned some con- fusion of thought concerning the kind of court this is. A nation cannot be summoned to it, say its advocates. From time to time its services may be sought, but only by agreement with other na- tlons, and we can withdraw at any time without reproach or ill-will. But the emphasis is always laid by its advocates upon the cowardly right to scuttle and run. If this court has so little power, if it 1s without jurisdiction, if we can withdraw at any time without reproach or ill-will, why join a tribunal so weak and feeble? If, on the other hand, it is the entering wedge of the League of Nations, if our withdrawal would be well-nigh impossible under existing conditions, and if this court even pos- sibly has a power, menacing or danger- ous to our policies or our institutions, we ought not, upon any specious plea of its futility or its Inutility, to become a part of it. The court has now been in existence for nearly 10 years. There is no American question that the most perfervid and hysterical internationalist can suggest that in all that 10 years would have been submitted by our country to the court Innumerable questions will suggest themselves to the st sluggish intellect that might have been submitted to the court against us. I do not say decided, but submitted, and the consequent embarrassment and humiliation of our Nation can readily be foreseen. Upon the arguments of the internationali: we do not join the court, therefore, to solve any par- ticular problem of our own. We need no court for America or American ques- tions. We would join it to be a part of other nations’ problems. We would have abjured our policy of minding our own business to be a meddler in every other country’s affairs. It is exactly this we would prevent. America’s Problems Individual. Our problems and our policies are pe- culiar to ourselves. These we never should submit to any foreign tribunal. We have our tariff, immigration and prohibition policies, and our great Mon- roe Doctrine, the problem of the foreign debts due to us, the Panama Canal, about which there is the ever-recurring controversy as to tolls, and many others that no American in his right senses would tolerate interference with. The realities of the present day for- bid our adhesion to this court. Out of the welter of the World War came vast changes in the nations of the earth. The United States today is the creditor na- tion of the world. Other nations re- sard us exactly as debtors, who do not want to pay, regard their creditors. It is neither wisdom nor statesmanship to complicate the situation. We are none too well liked as a people, and our poli- cles as a nation are detested; and yet, we are asked to submit ourselves to a so-called court of 15 judges, 14 of whom re foreigners. I do not speak in criti- ism of the judges of the court, but even judges possess a love of country, even Judges have sympathies, and judges, after all, are human. Imagine an Italian judge going home to Mussolini after rendering a decision 2gainst Italy! And while European diplomacy has been constantly shuffiing the cards since the great World War, have you heard of any real question vitally affecting any of the great na- tions which has éome before the eourt end been decided? Of the few decisions rendered some have been openly flouted; end we know that although we pledged Justice and equality to racial minorities, the weak who were ruthlessly taken by the Versailles treaty are still crying in | vain for justice to the League of Nations | and the court. And ever remember this | 15 the League Court, and our people are being cajoled and beguiled and deceived into joining by League advocates. I have the literature of the League of Na- tions Association of California, and it is the source in the West of propaganda | for the court. Its . president is the | Western spokesman for the court, and | with perfect frankness he says entrance into the court, will ultimately take us enter the League by the back door, he | is willing to enter that way in order to | get in. He simply avows openly what | other League supporters, emulating the | bad example of European diplomacy, | concealed. It is quite true that as a member of the court we would not be required to submit purely domestic questions for its adjudication; but there are domestic questions which it might be claimed | threatened peace or were involved in treaties. The League takes cognizance under Article XI of any war or threat of war and any circumstance whatever | affecting international relations which threatens to disturb either the peace or | the good understanding between na- tions, and the court has jurisdiction of the interpretation of treaties. World Court Not Court. The exclusion law was at one time asserted to be a violation of our treaties. The alien land law of California, de-| signed to preserve our agriculture for | our own, is yet the subject of contro- | versy and resentment. When Califor- nia enacted the law, feeling ran high in Japan, and the claim was distinctly | made not only thai the good under- standing between two nations was dis- | turbed, but some pro-Japanese citizens | of the United States even yet assert that the law violates existing treaties. | We deny it, of course, and it is to be hoped that the most fatuous admin! tration would never submit what we| had the legal and the moral right to do to the arbitrament of any foreign tribunal. But assume us to be members | of the court and the demand made with the claim that we not only violated a treaty but destroyed the good under- standing_between nations, our refusal | to submit the question to a court we had just joined and extolled as the onc | means in all the world of preserving peace and maintaining good under- would _meet | | THE CLARENDON ESTORED to its former grandeur and prestige. Completely modernized and newly furnished Augusta, or Richmond Hotel, Augusta. ugusta CEORGIA course two blocks Now open, American Luke Glennon, Manager EARLY SEASON RATES icto the League, and while we will thus | __ WASHINGTON, with hot resentment from other couu-} tries and cause humiliating embarrass- ment without our own. The Magdalena Bay incident, so vivid in our recollec- tion, with the resolution still fresh in our memories, affords another instance of what might occur if we really accepted the jurisdiction of this court. Mexico has full power over her own territory. If she saw fit to trans- fer a bay, with contiguous territory, to another “country, no international law (if there be such a thing) forbids. But with a doctrine peculiarly ours we served solemn notice that such a trans- fer the United States would not tolerate. Examples of our policies different from_those abroad could be multiplied indefinitely. It has a set of primary interests which to us have none or a very remote relation.” We have a set of primary interests all our own, some of which unfortunately greatly concern Europe, and which Eu- rope deeply resents. Joining a court, partly political in character, would be the most likely course to intensify that resentment. The so-called World Court fails be- cause it is not a world court or a court at all. It was deliberately made a part of the League of Nations, and extrang ous political groups control its desumi Through advisory opinions, it respon to the dictation of Old World diplom: S negatives its presumed judicial character. Its advocates in this coun- try are the League of Natlons enthu- siasts. It was Mr. Root and Mr. Hoover, with others, who in 1920 told the American people in substance to vote for Mr. Harding as the means of having America join the League. They were wrong then; but if they have since re- eanted their opinion of the League and their desire to have the United States a part of it. the American people have not been taken into their confidence. The present Secretary of State enter- tained the same view. He now advises most strongly that join the court. In our diplomacy we have a fatal fa- «ility for backing the wrong horse; and our recent experiences with Brazil and in other directions might at least teach us to be wary of official diplomatic ad- vice. Washington’s Policy Urged. This is an era of myth and mis- nomers. Not the least of these is the League Court. In the sacred name of peace, timid and weak legislators can be frightened or cajoled into any ill- considered policy which is demanded by organized wealth or power. The sole defense of our country is the common sense and considered judgment of the people themselves. Under a definite and distinct national policy, we have reach- ed our present pre-eminence and our national greatness. The policy first de- clared by Washington was enunciated, not for a day, but for all time. Jefferson, Adams, Monroe emphasized that policy. It was reiterated by Polk, Grant, Cleve land and Roosevelt. In the Senate, our beloved Senator Knox of Pennsylvania stood in the front rank of those who met the assault of our day. And since our birth as a Nation, the attack upon the course which, until now, the Re- public has followed, has been repelled by the American people. “Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that’ of any part of Eurcpe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice?” With our first President, the effort was made, and his firmness and courage kept us on our chosen path. The assault from without upon our definite national policy was as vigorous and as specious in 1820 as in 1920. At every possible interval be- tween, the endeavor has been renewed, sometimes in honeyed phrases and often in blunt demands; but ever before us has been the admonition of our first President, and preserved inviolate has been the policy he inaugurated. And now again, when the Creator has be- stowed an unrivaled greatness upon our Nation, comes from those who represent us, the assault which in days past has come from those without our borders. “The insidious wiles” bid us perpetuate a misnomer and embrace a myth. The first false step means our undoing. Join- ing the court means ultimate member- ship in the League; and then, God help us we'll be subject to Old World diplo- macy and in the maelstrom of European politics. Play our part in the world? Yes. Contribute our mite to peace and good understanding? Yes. But do it in our way, under cur methods, Wwith American leadership and guidance, pur- suing our own unhampered course, al- ways with justice, fairness, amity and generosity to all nations, but preserv- ing inviolate our own cherished policy. and = New 'York Gty has more than one- | half million commuters. They spend | about $50,000,000 a year for transporta- tion between their homes and the cit; ATLANTIC CITY A MERRY HOLIDAY we: d plus the old time home spirit and minus the old time home All the Christmas jollity ting will be yours at Atlantic City's newest centrally located, fireproof hotel. 220 ROOMS WITH BATH SUNDECK . . . . SOLARIUM FREE FIREPROOF GANAGE s 20 Wed.Thur.Fri. Sat.Sun. INCLUDING ALL MEALS SPECIAL XMAS DINNER s1'75 A WHOLE TURKEY TO CARVE YOURSE SERVED TO PARTIES OF EIGHT. R. B. LUDY, M.D. ‘Two Famous Hotels Under New Ownership-Direction on Renowned Ormond-Daytona Beach ?&EQI.“NA WO Hundred feet from finest 18-hole golf course in Florida. Di * _ rectly on the famous beach and the Ocean Shore Boule Moderate charges. Boernstein's beautiful music. Open Jan. 1. Paul Moldenhauer, Manager * * + AMERICAN PLAN HARRINGTON MILLS + + OWNER AND OPERATOR D. C, G ] DECEMBER .21, 1930—PART TWO \\\\\\\\\\\ It eneral John J. PERSHING has written the most vivid account of The World War. His Story— “MY EXPERIENCES THEWORLD WAR?” begins Monday, January Twelfth, and will appear daily and Sunday for more than two months in he Star ORDER YOUR SUBSCRIPTION NOW * The Great Newspaper of the¢ Nuasion’s Capital .