World Court

A year ago most U. S. citizens thought the World Court issue was settled in the affirmative. The Senate by a vote of 76-17 had decided that the U. S. should enter the World Court with five reservations. Notes were sent to the Adherent Powers; scarcely an answer came back; Europe was not willing to accept glibly the U. S. scheme of entrance. Early last autumn the Adherent Powers met at Geneva, attached counter-reservations to the U. S. reservations. Several Senators who had voted for the World Court did an about-face. President Coolidge in his Kansas City speech (TIME, Nov. 22) said that, unless the U. S. reservations were accepted in toto, he was through with the World Court.

Last week the issue was again settled. The Senate voted, 59-10, to table Senator Trammell's resolution which would rescind last year's acceptance of the World Court. Said Senators: "We do not wish to waste time discussing it." On the heels of this vote came reports that Great Britain and two other nations had refused to accept the U. S. reservations. A coincidence is always a matter of some importance. Senators issued brief hosannas.

Senator Moses: "Let us now arise and join in three lusty cheers for John Bull, savior of America."

Senator Watson: "Let all the earth be glad and rejoice with exceeding great joy."

Senator Nye: "Well, glory be!"

Senator Borah: "I assume that this ends the question of our becoming a member. I am gratified that it is so."

Senator Reed of Missouri: ". . . English statesmen recognize the absurdity of the reservations which undertook to put us half way in and half way out of the Court."

Technically, however, the resolution for U. S. adherence to the World Court still stands. Senators have repudiated it with words; Great Britain with action.