World Court Debate

As agreed last spring, consideration of the resolution for U. S. adherence to the Permanent Court of International Justice began last week in the Senate. It was quite apparent that the serious struggle would not take place until after the holiday recess. The first day was taken up by a four-hour speech by Senator Swanson of Virginia:

"Mr. President, I am strongly persuaded from every moral con- sideration, and from every material consideration, and from every political consideration of duty and responsibility, not only to ourselves but to the world, that we should adhere to this World Court, with the reservations suggested, and be one of the potential factors in shaping its destiny, in extending its usefulness, in giving wisdom to its decisions and in making it a world temple of justice and law, where all nations can go to have their international differences and disputes decided."

The very learned and independent Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee plunged into the argument (the first of a series of speeches he had promised):

"My purpose today, is to confine my remarks to the sole question of what is the relationship of this tribunal, to which we are asked to adhere or become a member, to the political institution known as the League of Nations.

"First, the League elects the judges, it pays the judges, it fixes the salaries of the judges, it fixes the salaries of all the employes of the Court, it fixes the pensions of the judges. But coming more directly to the important feature, the League may call upon this Court at any time for advice or counsel upon any dispute or any question which the Council of the League sees fit to submit to it. It makes it the consulting legal adviser of the League, which the League only controls."

Senator Walsh of Montana said:

"The Court rests on its own bottom, has its foundation, not in the Treaty of Versailles or in the covenant of the League of Nations but is built upon a separate treaty we are asked to approve, promulgated Dec. 16, 1920. By that treaty we assume no obligations whatever, either under the Versailles Treaty or the covenant of the League of Nations or otherwise. Our status toward the League is in no wise affected by the adherence contemplated by the pending resolution. . . ."

And so on, for this is only the beginning of a debate that will probably go on for at least a month. And in the end? Probably from present indications the resolution for adherence will be passed. Thirty-three votes are needed to defeat it. At present it hardly seems that half that number could be summoned by the opposition.