\ a-rn. // \. Coolidge and the World Court By FREDERICK J. LIBBY Just the Facts You Want to Know cooltdge’s stand WHO OPPOSE IT WHO ENDORSE IT WHAT IT IS $20 per thousand $3 'per hundred 5 cents a copy postpaid National Council for Prevention of War 532 17th St. N.W., Washington, D. C. First Edition Sept. 1, 1925; Second Edition Sept. 10; Third Edition Sept. 24 How many copies of this pamphlet will you distribute? The material in this pamphlet is from a peace worker’s handbook which will he issued in October, 1925, by the National Council for Prevention of War. NATIONAL CAPITAL PRESB, INC., WASKINOTON, 0. C. DECEMBER 17, 1925 Last March, just before adjournment, by a non-partisan vote of 77 to 2, the United States Senate, after over two years’ delay, appointed December 17, 1925, as the date for beginning what is expected to be the final consideration of the long-delayed Harding-Hughes-Coohdge World Court proposal. On the Senate calendar this measure figures as SENATE RESOLUTION 5. It is also called the SWANSON RESO- LUTION, since Senator Swanson, of Virginia, introduced it. This fact, quite apart from its endorsement in the platforms of both parties, indicates its non-partisan character, since Senator Swanson is a Democrat and the measure he intro- duced is the product of two Republican administrations. “Party politics should stop at the 3-mile fimit.” The Five Reservations The Swanson Resolution embodies the Harding proposal of adherence to the Court with five reservations. The first four reservations were drawn by Secretary Hughes. They protect us from inadvertently joining the League and give us our full rights with other nations in the election and payment of judges. The fourth reservation prevents the Court from being altered without our consent. ) The fifth reservation embodies a further safeguard recom- mended by President Coolidge in his Message to Congress, December 3, 1924, providing that the United States be not bound by an advisory opinion unless the United States has joined in the request for it. Why the Pepper-Borah Plans are Impractical All of these reservations are practical, since they will require no fundamental changes in the constitution of the Court. Amendments, on the other hand, such as are pro- posed by Senators Pepper and Borah, would require imani- mous consent, usually with parhamentary action, on the part of the 48 nations now in the Court and would postpone our adherence indefinitely. Regarding Senator Pepper’s new proposals, published August 2, 1925, there is no reason for supposing that they 4 Harding-Hughes-Coolidge World Court Measure would ever be accepted by the other nations for the simple reason that they are not devised primarily in the interest of the World Court but to reconcile the irreconcilables. Regarding Senator Borah’s proposals that the Senate combine entrance into the World Court with the codification of international law, and that the Comt be deprived of the valuable function of rendering judicial advisory opinions, the latter effort, if successful, would weaken the Court, and the former would postpone our adherence to it by perhaps a generation. One Step at a Time The effort to weave the outlawry of war into our adher- ence to the World Court is unsound for many reasons, one being that there are not 64 Senators that will vote for the Borah method of outlawing war. Few people, in or out of the Senate, have yet given his specific plan for ridding the world of war serious consideration, although the purpose of his measure is universally popular. The ingenious Pan- American proposal to banish war by taking the profit out of it for nations may prove more fruitful. Progress is made a step at a time. The last step cannot come first. After we have finally achieved the relatively short step of joining the World Court, for which we have striven for three years, it will be time to decide in the light of public opinion what the second step in the outlawry of war will be. Why Stand by the Harding-Hughes-Coolidge Plan? It is the Harding-Hughes-Coolidge proposal that now has the support of more than two-thirds of the members of the Senate regardless of party. It is the Harding-Hughes- Coolidge proposal that has the President’s support as the “most practical” proposal before the country. It is the Harding-Hughes-Coolidge proposal that received the en- dorsement of both party platforms in 1924. It is the Hard- ing-Hughes-Coolidge proposal that has been approved over- whelmingly by the peace forces of the nation, as the amazing list of organizations that have endorsed it indicates. It is the Harding-Hughes-Coolidge proposal, and no other, that can pass the Senate this winter, and should therefore have the support of every lover of peace who hopes ultimately to outlaw war. Harding-Hughes-Coolidge World Court Measure 5 COOLIDGE LEADS FIGHT Bans Partisanship from Ottr Foreign Relations Pending before the Senate is a proposal that this Government give its support to the permanent court of international JUSTICE. . . . This is not a partisan question. It should not assume an artificial importance. The Court is merely a convenient instrument of adjustment to which we could go, but to which we could not be brought. . . . Partisanship has no place in our foreign relations. As I wish to see a court established, and as the proposal 'presents the only practical plan on 'which ■many nations have ever agreed, though it may not meet every desire, I therefore commend it to the favorable consideration of the Senate, with the proposed reservations clearly indicating our refusal to adhere to the League of Nations. — Annual Message December 6, 1923. Deems Harding-Hughes Proposal the Most Practical One As a result of American initiative, there is already in existence The Hague Tribunal, which is equipped to function wherever arbi- tration seems desirable, and based in part on that and in part on the League, there is the international court of justice, which is already functioning. . . . Other plans for a World Court have been broached, but up to the present time this has seemed to me the most 'practical one. — Address to Associated Press, New York City, April 22, 1924. Opposes Material Changes in Harding-Hughes Plan More than a year ago President Harding proposed that the Senate should authorize our adherence to the protocol of the PERMANENT COURT OP INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE with Certain Con- ditions. His suggestion has already had my approval. On that I stand. I should not oppose other reservations, but any material changes which would not probably receive the consent of the many other nations would be impracticable. — Address at Arlington National Cemetery, May 30, 1924. Believes National Safety Points to Court While there are those who think we would be exposed to peril by adhering to this Court, I am unable to attach great weight to their arguments .... I am one of those who believe we would be safer and that we would be meeting our duties better by sup- 6 Harding-Hughes-Coolidge World Court Measure porting it and making every possible use of it. I feel confident that such action would make a greater America, that it would be productive of a higher and finer national spirit, and of a more complete national life. — Address at Arlington National Cemetery, May 30, 1924. Says World Court Expresses Our Faith in the Rule of Reason As peace means fundamentally a reign of law, we propose to become a member of the permanent court op international JUSTICE. Such action would do much to indicate our determination to restrain the rule of force and solidify and sustain the rule of reason among nations. — Address of Acce-ptance, Washington, D. C., August 14, 1924. Suggests One Additional. Reservation Covering Advisory Opinions Our representatives took a leading part in those conferences which resulted in the establishment of The Hague Tribunal and later in providing for a permanent court of international JUSTICE. I believe it would be for the advantage of this country and helpful to the stability of other nations for us to adhere to the protocol establishing that Court upon the conditions stated in the recommendation which is now before the Senate and further that our country shall not he bound by advisory opinions which may be rendered by the Court upon questions which we have not voluntarily submitted for its judgment. [This has been made Reservation 5. See bill.] — Message to Congress, December 3, 1924. Declares No Petty Subterfuges Should Outweigh Duty of Adherence to World Court In conformity with the principle that a display of reason rather than a threat of force should be the determining factor in the intercourse among nations, we have long advocated the peaceful settlement of disputes by methods of arbitration and have nego- tiated many treaties to secure that result. The same considerations should lead to our adherence to the permanent court of inter- national JUSTICE. WTiere great principles are involved, where great movements are under way which promise much for the welfare of humanity by reason of the very fact that many other nations have given such movements their actual support, we ought not to withhold our own sanction because of any small and inessential difference, hut only upon the ground of the most important and compelling fundamental reasons. We cannot barter away our independence or our sovereignty, but Harding-Hughes-Coolidge World Court Measure 7 we ought to engage in no refinements of logic, no sophistries and no subterfuges to argue away the undoubted duty of this country by reason of the might of its numbers, the power of its resources, and its position of leadership in the world, actively and comprehensively to signify its approval and to bear its full share of the responsibility of a candid and disinterested attempt at the establishment of a tribunal for the administration of even-handed justice between nation and nation. The weight of our enormous influence must be cast upon the side of a reign not of force but of law, and trial not by battle but by reason . — Inaugural Address, March 4, 1925. Says We Must Act Before Too Late Those who lived and saw and felt and knew these things will pass on. They will be succeeded by others to whom a distorted picture of glory and heroism will make its appeal. . . It is for the generation which saw and survived to devise measures of preven- tion. If we fail in this, we shall deserve all the disaster which will surely be visited upon us because of our failure . — Address to dele- gates of Conference on Cause and Cure of War, Washington, D. C., January 24, 1925, Relies on Forces Already Successful Within States It is not thinkable that the forces are available and adequate to maintain order within the limit of a great state or nation, and yet incapable of adaptation to the international, intergovernmental differences which grow into the causes of war. Nor is it believable that a world-wide public opinion which frowned upon war would be defied by any nation, however powerful. Interdependence of peoples and nations becomes more marked with every year. None can stand alone. None dare court isola- tion. None may risk ill opinion of civilization. It is through the establishment, then, of means for formulating and promulgating honest judgments and matured public opinion of the world, that I believe that we shall advance towards assured peace. Thus shall we begin the actual outlawry of war. Thus shall we lay a foundation for that wider, more intimate, more vital coopera- tion which at last will make the nations truly neighbors. Thus, without sacrificing the independence of nations, or the quality of their varied cultures, we shall guide humanity toward a realization of the noble conception of the brotherhood of man . — Address to delegates of Conference on the Cause and Cure of War, January 24, 1925. 8 Harding-Hughes-Coolidge World Court Measure TEXT OF SENATE RESOLUTION 5 \Miereas the President, under date of February 24, 1923, trans- mitted a message to the Senate accompanied by a letter from the Secretary of State, dated February 17, 1923, asking the favorable advice and consent of the Senate to the adhesion on the part of the United States to the protocol of December 16, 1920, of signatirre of the statute for the Permanent Court of International Justice, set out in the said message of the President (without accepting or agreeing to the optional clause for compulsory jurisdiction con- tained therein), upon the conditions and understandings hereafter stated, to be made a part of the instrument of adhesion: Therefore be it Resolved (two-thirds of the Senators present concurring). That the Senate advise and consent to the adhesion on the part of the United States to the said protocol of December 16, 1920, and the adjoined statute for the Permanent Court of International Justice (without accepting or agreeing to the optional clause for compulsory jurisdiction contained in said statute), and that the signature of the United States be affixed to the said protocol subject to the following reservations and understandings, which are hereby made a part and condition of this resolution, namely: 1. That such adhesion shall not be taken to involve any legal relation on the part of the United States to the League of Nations or the assumption of any obligations by the United States under the covenant of the League of Nations constituting part 1 of the treaty of Versailles. 2. That the United States shall be permitted to participate through representatives designated for the purpose and upon an equality with the other States, members, respectively, of the council and assembly of the League of Nations, in any and all proceedings of either the council or the assembly for the election of judges or deputy judges of the Permanent Court of International Justice or for the filling of vacancies. 3. That the United States will pay a fair share of the expenses of the court as determined and appropriated from time to time by the Congress of the United States. 4. That the statute for the Permanent Court of International Justice adjoined to the protocol shall not be amended without the consent of the United States. 5. That the United States shall be in no manner bound by an advisory opinion of the Permanent Court of International Justice not rendered pursuant to a request in which it, the United States, shall expressly join in accordance with the statute for the said court adjoined to the protocol of signature of the same to which the United States shall become signatory. ' The signature of the United States to the said protocol shall not be affixed until the powers signatory to such protocol shall have indicated, through an exchange of notes, their acceptance of the Harding-Hughes-Coolidge World Court Measure 9 foregoing reservations and understandings as a part and a condi- tion of adhesion by the United States to the said protocol. WHO OPPOSE IT Senators Pepper and Borah are the surviving leaders of the opposition to America’s adherence to the World Court on the Harding-Hughes-Coolidge plan. Both Senators oppose it first as opponents of the League of Nations. Borah deems it inconsistent to accept the Court as one of the “fruits of the League ” “ and still continue to fight the League.” His statement on this point may be found in the New York Times of April 27, 1923. The answer is that a step on a road does not bring the traveller to the road’s end. The World Court is being kept a distinct issue by means^of the reservations drawn for the purpose. We agree, in other words, to feel our way in the realm of international cooperation one step at a time. The United States at last accounts had been represented in some way on 19 commissions of the League of Nations. What does this signify? It signifies that we have taken 19 steps towards fuU participation in the League and, it may be added, without protest as yet from any quarter. Each step has been deemed fully justifiable on its own merits. Yet no one knows better than Senator Borah that this journey is not ended and that actual membership in the League will be very carefully considered by the Senate as a distinct issue, quite regardless of the logic of the 19 steps aheady taken. If determined upon, our membership will be care- fully safeguarded by reservations just as has been our proposal for adherence to the World Court. Both Senators oppose the Harding-Hughes-Coolidge plan again because the World Court has the power of rendering judicial advisory opinions and these Senators want this power embed. Senator Pepper is reported in the New York Times of August 2, 1925, as demanding that “the other signatories, 48 in number, shall agree by a statute to the Comt that . . . there shall be no secret and advisory opinions except under well defined conditions.” Senator Borah seems to want to take away the function altogether. The importance of the Comt’s retaining this function of “preventive adjudication” is discussed at some length below. To anticipate the argument in a word, the advisory opinions rendered by the World Comt are not “ secret ” and they are 10 Harding-Hughes-Coolidge World Court Measure not mere “opinions.” They are fully argued and docu- mented decisions rendered publicly by the full Court on a written question exactly stated after due notice to the United States and the members of the League before conflict breaks out. Such a fimction is obviously important since it may prevent wars. Senator Borah’s third and most appealing, though not most convincing, argument against the World Court plan is that it is not good enough. He would like to see this Court abolished in order that the world may start afresh with a code of international law as the first step and a new and perfect Court to administer it. He would give the new Court power even to summon the United States Government before it to answer for violations of the code. On this point one must agree with Senator Pepper’s criticism of the Borah plan as quoted in the New York Times of August 2, 1925 : “I do not want to enter into any controversy with Senator Borah,” Mr. Pepper said, “but I would be sorry to see our adherence to the Court wait upon clarification of interna- tional law. The Court with Americans in it could take large part in clarification. Senator Borah seems to insist upon perfecting codification before adhering, which would be the work of generations.” Republican and Democratic Leaders Assail Policy of Irreconcilables Senator Lenroot (Rep.) of Wisconsin and Senator Swanson (Dem.) of Virginia, as spokesmen for more than two-thirds of the Senate, took up the cudgels against Senator Pepper immediately after he had revealed his plan of campaign. Senator Lenroot, according to the New York Times of August 5, 1925, said: There seems to be an organized effort to misrepresent the situa- tion in the Senate regarding the World Court. The opposition, knowing that ratification of the Protocol estab- lishing the World Court cannot be defeated by a direct vote, are attempting to make the public and Senators believe that the only way by which favorable action can be secured is by compromise with those who are opposed to it. * Their hope is that Republican Senators wiU agree to such com- promises upon reservations that on the final vote the Democrats wiU vote against the resolution and thus defeat it. Harding-Hughes-Coolidge World Court Measure 11 Seventt-Five Senatoes for Haeding-Hughes-Cooiadge Plan I am satisfied that there are at least seventy-five Senators who will vote for ratification of the Protocol with the Harding-Hughes- Coolidge reservations if they have an opportunity, and the only danger lies in compromise upon reservations that may defeat it. Both parties in their platforms have declared for the Court as recommended by President Coolidge. This is a plain and unequivo- cal pledge, and is subject to but one construction. While this is not a partisan question, because both parties are in accord upon it, I hope and believe that a majority of the Eepub- lican Senators will support the party platform, in the making of reservations and in the final action, but if they should not, a suf- ficient number of Republicans will join with the Democrats, who are in accord with the pledge, in determining what the reservations shall be. As a member of the Committee on Foreign Relations, and as a Senator on the floor, I shall do everything within my power to carry out the pledge of the Republican Party and will enter into no compromise with the enemies of the Court that will in any way conflict with the contract the party has made with the people. Swanson Supports Leneoot’s Position Senator Swanson of Virginia, ranking Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, said today he expected to see the W orld Court accepted if the President enforced the terms he himself had laid down, according to an Associated Press despatch in the New Y ork Times of August 5, 1925. He added : Over two-thirds of the Senate are willing to accept President Coolidge’s recommendations, provided the President will adhere to them and not consent to reservations urged by the opponents of the League of Nations and of the World Court who are now insisting that the pathway shall be made easy to them and who will, should the President traffic with them, bring the World Court into disrepute. U. S. House of Representatives for the Harding- Hughes-Coolidge World Court Proposal The House of Representatives on March 3, 1925, by a recorded vote of 301 to 28 adopted the following resolution endorsing the Hardin g-Hughes-Coohdge World Court pro- posal; Whereas a World Court, known as the Permanent Coiut of International Justice, has been established and is now functioning at The Hague; and 12 Harding-Hughes-Coolidge World Court Measure Whereas the traditional policy of the United States has earnestly favored the avoidance of war and the settlement of international controversies by arbitration or judicial processes; and Whereas this Court in its organization and probable develop- ment promises a new order in which controversies between nations will be settled in an orderly way according to principles of right and justice; Therefore be it Resolved, That the House of Representatives desires to express its cordial approval of the said court and an earnest desire that the United States give early adherence to the protocol establishing the same, with the reservations recommended by President Harding and President Coolidge: Resolved further. That the House expresses its readiness to par- ticipate in the enactment of such legislation as will necessarily follow such approval. — Congressional Record, vol. 66, p. 5413. Republican and Democratic Platforms, 1924, Bind Parties Tightly The Republican Party reaflirms its stand for agreement among the nations to prevent war and preserve peace. As an immediate step in this direction we indorse the permanent court of inter- national justice and favor the adherence of the United States to this tribunal as recommended by President Coolidge. — Republi- can Campaign Text Booh, 1924, p. 67. It is of supreme importance to civilization and to mankind that America be placed and kept on the right side of the greatest moral question of all time, and therefore the Democratic Party renews its declaration of confidence in the ideal of world peace, the League of Nations and the world court of justice as together constituting the supreme effort of the statesmanship and religious conviction of our time to organize the world for peace. — Democratic Campaign Book, 1924, p, 40. MAIN FACTS ABOUT THE WORLD COURT The Permanent Court of International Justice is the formal title of the Court popularly called the “World Court.” It is a permanent body comprising eleven judges with four deputy judges who act as substitutes for absent judges. How Superior to Hague Tribunal The World Court is to be distinguished from the Hague Tribunal, whose oflBcial name is the Permanent Court of Arbitration, by the fact that it has a fixed personnel like Harding-Hughes-Coolidge World Court Measure 13 our own Supreme Coiui — though elected for nine years and not for life — whereas the Hague Tribunal is merely a list of 132 names from which, in case a dispute arises, an Arbitra- tion Board of not over five members may be specially chosen to hear and determine the controversy. The Hague Tribunal could never become a Supreme Court of the World, while the World Court is potentially exactly that. Its Judges Not National Advocates but Impartial Jurists It is important to remember that the judges constituting the World Court do not represent the nations from which they come any more than the judges of the Supreme Court of the United States represent the States from which they come. On the other hand, the election of more than one judge of any particular nationality is forbidden, and the statute prescribes that the Court as a whole should “repre- sent the main forms of civilization and the principal legal systems of the world.” This explains why a jurist from the United States, John Bassett Moore, is a member of the Court despite the fact that the United States does not adhere to it. As an apparent concession to national feeling, it is pro- vided that when a case is being tried which concerns a nation from which no national is on the Court, it shall have the privilege of appointing one to sit with the other judges on that case. How THE Judges are Elected The choice of 11 judges from 65 nations is on the face of it an insoluble problem in a world where jealous nationalism is as prevalent as it is today. It proved insoluble at the Second Hague Conference in 1907, where the United States delegation sought in vain to secure the setting up of this very Court and failed because it lacked an answer to this question. There is a further complication in the fact that the great powers, including the United States, have always expected to be assured membership on the Court regardless of how the little powers fared, and this attitude has aroused bitter antagonism and resistance. The double problem of satisfying all nations and par- ticularly the great powers was solved finally through the 14 Harding-Hughes-Coolidge World Court Measure mechanism of the Council and the Assembly of the League of Nations. On one day in nine years — the next election will be in 1930 — these two bodies sit as electoral bodies, and by the terms of our proposal the United States would be represented in both bodies and on equal terms wdth the League members. Nominations will be before them, made by the national groups in the Hague Tribunal on the basis of their intimate knowledge supplemented by other expert advice as to the leading jurists of their respective countries and of the world. At the first election on September 14, 1921, 85 nominations were considered. The Council and the Assembly ballot independently first for the eleven judges. They compare their slates after the ballot, and only those names that are in both lists are de- clared elected. Thus the Assembly, on which all nations are or may be represented, has a check upon the Council in which the gTeat powers have predominant influence, and the great powers, in turn, have a check upon the more repre- sentative Assembly. Probably only a part of the 11 judges would be elected in the first ballot. Accordingly, a second ballot and a third ballot are provided for. The same procedure holds for the four deputy judges. If after three ballots the Court has not been completed, a Joint Conference Committee of six, representing both electoral bodies, may be chosen, whose duty it will be to complete the Court if possible. If this fails, the Court may complete its own roster. Secretary Hughes, in an address before the American Society of International Law at Washington, D. C., April 27, 1923, declared that “without a solution of this sort which will enable the great powers to have a check upon the smaller powers and the latter to have a check upon the former, a permanent comt cannot be established. ... A wdse practicality has enabled the nations to attain the ideal of an impartial court.” Does the Couht Represent Europe or the World? The judges now on the Comt come from the Netherlands, France, Great Britain, Brazil, Denmark, United States, Cuba, Spain, Japan, Italy and Switzerland. The deputy judges are from Yugoslavia, Norway, Rumania and China. Hardiiig-Hughes-Coulidge World Court Measure 15 Has the Court Had Cases? The World Court was opened to all nations on May 12 , 1922 . It had rendered ten judicial advisory opinions and five judgments up to May 1, 1925. Both functions seem to be needed and to be appreciated. Difference Between Court and League The question is sometimes asked whether the World Court is intended to be a substitute for the League of Nations. No more than the Supreme Court of the United States is intended to be a substitute for Congress. The League of Nations is designed to promote international cooperation and by methods of conciliation to prevent political and economic controversies from developing into wars. The World Comt is designed to deal particularly with legal disputes such as may arise over the interpretation of a treaty or of international law or of facts that may be breaches of an international obligation. Its statute provides that in rendering decisions it shall apply international conventions, international custom, the general principles of law recognized by civilized nations, and judicial decisions and teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations, as subsidiary means for determination of rules of law. Thus it will be one factor in developing international law. The League will be another by processes of legislation ratified. Is It a World Court or a League Court? Let Secretary Hughes answer: “It is not too much to say that there will be no world comt if this Court cannot be made one, and whether or not it is to be in the fullest sense a world comt depends upon our own action” (Address before the American Society of International Law, April 27, 1923). Is THE World Court a “Servant” of the League? Let Secretary Hughes answer again: “It is not a servant of the League. . . . The Court is an independent judicial body with appropriate judicial functions and abundant safeguards for their proper discharge” (from the same address). 16 Harding-Hughes-Coolidge World Court Measure Does the British Empire Have “Seven Votes” in the Election of Judges? Secretary Hughes discusses this also. He points out that among the 52 votes in the Assembly (now 55) Ireland, South Africa, Australia, Canada, India and New Zealand have votes like other nations, as they should, but that in the Council the British Empire has but one vote as would the United States; and the Council has a check on the Assembly. Moreover, here, if anywhere, Anglo-Saxon nations will be friends, not foes. Does the Fact That the League Pays the Salaries of THE Judges Give it Control of the Court? No more than the fact that Congress appropriates money for the salaries of the judges of the United States Supreme Court gives Congress control over its decisions on contested legislation. What Is the Optional Clause for Compulsory Jurisdiction? The Harding-Hughes-Coolidge proposal specifically refuses to accept what is called the “Optional Clause for Compul- sory Jurisdiction.” This clause, when adopted, provides that the jurisdiction of the Court is accepted in advance in interpreting treaties, etc., in relation to any other State which accepts the same obligation. Twenty-three nations had on May 1, 1925, accepted this “compulsory jurisdiction.” Our caution in not doing so imitates that of the other great powers, but both in England and in France there are strong movements in favor of its adoption. Is the World Court “Private Counsel” for the League OF Nations in Rendering Advisory Opinions? An examination of the judicial procedure in rendering advisory opinions described below and of the ten advisory opinions already rendered will convince any open-minded student that such interpretation would grossly and in- excusably misrepresent the nature of the World Court’s advisory opinions. Harding-Hughes-Coolidge World Court Measure 17 THE WORLD COURT’S ADVISORY OPINIONS The Court shall be competent to hear and determine any dispute of an international character which the parties thereto submit to it. The Court may also give an advisory opinion upon any dispute or question referred to it by the Council or by the Assembly . — Covenant of the League of Nations, Art. 14. The Rules of Court That Govern Advisory Opinions Permit No Secrecy Senator Pepper in his statement to the press published August 2, 1925, attacked the World Court’s advisory opinions as “secret.” The best answer is the publication of its Rules of Court governing its advisory opinions. They are Articles 71-74. “No secrecy attaches to the procedure at any stage,” says Prof. Manley O. Hudson, “and the opinion is always read in open court and given the notoriety of wide publication.” Art. 71. Advisory opinions shall be given after deliberation by the full Court. The opinions of dissenting judges may, at their request, be attached to the opinion of the Court. Art. 72. Questions upon which the advisory opinion of the Court is asked shall be laid before the Court by means of a written request, signed either by the President of the Assembly or the President of the Council of the League of Nations, or by the Secretary-General of the League under instructions from the Assembly or the Council. The request shall contain an exact statement of the question upon which an opinion is required, and shall be accompanied by all documents likely to throw light upon the question. Art. 73. The Registrar shall forthwith give notice of the request for an advisory opinion to the members of the Court, and to the Members of the League of Nations, through the Secretary-General of the League, and to the States mentioned in the Annex to the Covenant. Notice of such request shall also be given to any international organizations which are likely to be able to furnish information on the question. Art. 74. Any advisory opinion which may be given by the Court and the request in response to which it was given, shall be printed and published in a special collection for which the Registrar shall be responsible. World Court’s Advisory Opinions Judicial in Character The leading authority on the subject of advisory opinions is John Bassett Moore, the American member of the Court. In his essay on the World Court in his recent book, “Inter- national Law and Some Current Illusions,” he says, y“ The 18 Harding-Hughes-CooUdge World Court Measure Court has not thought it feasible to fill a dual role, acting at one moment as a judicial body rendering judgments on international differences, and at the next moment as a board of counselors giving private and ex-parte advice on such matters. Indeed, an auditor or spectator would detect no difference between a proceeding for a judgment and a pro- ceeding for an advisory opinion.” Commenting on this question, J. P. Chamberlain, Profes- sor of Pubhc Law in Columbia University, says in a letter to the New York Times of July 19, 1925; “The Court does not act as a counsel of the League; it acts judicially after full hearing.” Example of World Cotjbt’s Advisory Opinions Professor Chamberlain in the letter to the New York Times already quoted describes briefly the procedure in a typical case requiring an advisory opinion. He chooses the dispute between France and Great Britain over the rights of France in Tunis and Morocco. He says: The Court followed its regular course, the British and French Governments submitted cases and countercases, exactly as if they were parties in a suit, their counsel were heard, briefs submitted, and the Court finally gave its opinion in a public sitting. The advantages of this procedure in questions of law and inter- pretation of treaties in which several nations were concerned are that all the parties interested are afforded an opportunity to appear and argue their views, and that the question may be pre- sented promptly after the need for its decision has appeared without making necessary an open conflict between two States. The Court proceeds in a judicial manner, gives public notice of the question, hears argument of counsel on both sides, has briefs submitted, receives all the evidence which the industry of the interested parties can assemble, and delivers its opinion in public. Nations Now in Court Will Not Abandon Advisory Opinions, Hudson Reports The sentiment in Europe is unanimous for maintaining the World Court’s power to render judicial advisory opin- ions, says Prof. Manley O. Hudson, writing from Geneva, in a letter to Hamilton Foley of Pittsburgh, Penna., and quoted by him in a communication to the New York Times of August 8, 1925 : I have consulted many people about the proposal of Senators and others in the United States that the advisory opinions of the Harding-Hughes-Coolidge World Court Measure 19 Court be abolished. The unanimous opinion which I have found is to the effect that this would constitute a very unfortunate and backward step. It is only in small circles in America that the Court is viewed as the legal adviser to the Council of the League. In Europe, among all the people I have met, the advisory opinions are looked upon as a necessary exercise of the judicial function, and most people find it difficult .to envisage the successful working of the League’s machinery for the pacific settlement of disputes without this aid. I am satisfied from what I have learned that the various Governments would be unwilling to give up this function of the Court, and most of the people with whom I have talked find it wholly impossible to understand why there should be any such tendency in that direction in America. Advisory Opinions Rendered by Our Supreme Courts While the Supreme Court of the United States lacks the power of rendering an advisory opinion, the Supreme Courts of several States have this power. Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Maine, Rhode Island, Florida, Colorado and South Dakota have successively incorporated this provision in their constitutions. We quote from Prof. Manley O. Hudson’s article on “Advisory Opinions of National and International Courts,” 1924, the following interesting ac- count of the growth of the practice in the United States; The justices of the Massachusetts court had the duty to give advisory opinions under the Massachusetts constitution of 1780. The first opinion was given in 1781. And to date approximately one hundred and forty advisory opinions have been given. [One was given this year.] It is interesting to note that many of these opinions have related to the constitutionality of proposed legisla- tion, and the justices have frequently forestalled the necessity of declaring acts of the legislature unconstitutional by giving opinions in advance From Massachusetts, the provision for advisory opinions was copied into the constitutions of other states. It was adopted in the New Hampshire constitution of 1784, in the Maine constitu- tion of 1820, in the Rhode Island constitution of 1842, and it still maintains in aU of these states. The second Missouri constitution also adopted the provision in 1865, but it was dropped from the third constitution of 1875. The practice was also adopted in the Florida constitution in 1868, in the Colorado constitution of 1886 and the South Dakota constitution of 1889. Some Organizations That Endorse World Court American Bar Association, American Federation of Labor, Chamber of Commerce of the United States, Federal Council of 20 Harding-Hughes-Coolidge World Court Measure Churches, World Alliance for International Friendship through the Churches, General Federation of Women’s Clubs, National Board of Young Women’s Christian Association, National Congress of Parents and Teachers, National League of Women Voters, National Service Star Legion, American Association of University Women, American Federation of Teachers, National Education Association, National Association of Credit Men, United Society of Christian Endeavor, American Unitarian Association, Presbyterian Church in the U. S. A., Reformed Presbyterian Church, Methodist Episco- pal Church, Evangelical Lutheran Synod of New York and New England, Northern Baptist Church, Central Conference of American Rabbis, National Council of the Congregational Churches, Peace Association of Friends in America, Philadelphia Yearly Meeting of Friends, House of Bishops of the Protestant Episcopal Church, Methodist Episcopal Church (South), Presbyterian Church in the U. S., Reformed Church, Southern Baptist Convention, Church of the New Jerusalem (Swedenborgian), Conference of Foreign Mission Boards, Council of Women for Home Missions, United Synagogue of America, American Society of International Law, National Economic League, Union League Club, National Asso- ciation of Manufacturers, International Kindergarten Union, Modern Woodmen of America, League of Nations Non-Partisan Association, International Missionary Union, Baptist World Alli- ance, Association to Abolish War, National W'^oman’s Christian Temperance Union, National Council of Jewish Women, Girl’s Friendly Society in America, National Council of Women, Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, World Peace Foundation. Warns Against “Eleventh Hour” Amendments The executive committee of the National League of Women Voters issued to the press on July 13, 1925, the following statement warning its members against “eleventh hour” amendments to the World Court resolution and specifically against the proposals of Senators Pepper and Borah. The Executive Committee of the National League of Women Voters asks all of its members to fix their attention on one date — December 17 — when the Senate of the United States will bring up for action the resolution designed to make the United States a member of the Permanent Court of International Justice. The League of Women Voters for over two years has educated itself not only to the importance of this step to the peace of the world but also to the difficulties to be removed at home before the treaty is signed. It supports the measure as proposed by Presidents Harding and Coolidge and by Secretary Hughes and does not favor amendments which are likely to kill the proposal or delay its pas- sage indefinitely. Harding-Hughes-Coolidge World Court Measure 21 The question has been asked — will the League of Women Voters accept in place of the resolution and reservations offered by Mr. Harding, Mr. Hughes and Mr. Coolidge such proposals as have been made by Senator Pepper and Senator Borah? Is it willing to support the organizing of a new Court around the old Hague tribunal? Does it insist that no advisory opinions shall be asked of the Court for fear of causing it to be politically dominated? To all these questions the answer is “No.” Having examined the proposal for so long a time, the answers to the two main questions, “Does entry into the Permanent Court of International Justice commit the United States to entry into the League of Nations?” and “Is the Court an instrument for peace?” are found to be “No” and “Yes” respectively. The League of Women Voters is not prepared at this eleventh hour to accept reservations which will defeat the entry of the United States into the Court and will be impatient with lukewarm leader- ship and long drawn-out and pointless debate on the part of Sena- tors who wish to be counted as friends of the proposal. Elihu Root Favoes America’s Adherence This court is the latest institution wrought out by the civilized world’s general public opinion against war, for the purpose of giving effect to that opinion. It is an essential and indispensable institution for the effectiveness of that opinion and the proposal that the United States take part in supporting the court should be welcomed as an opportunity by all the people who have been talking in favor of abolishing war and preventing war and out- lawing war, but who have not as yet arrived at any practical steps tending in that direction. — “Steps Toward Preserving Peace,” World Peace Foundation Pamphlets, Vol. VHI, No. 4, 1925. Reference Material Important reference material may be had on application to : The World Peace Foundation, 40 Mt. Vernon St., Boston, Mass. The American Association for International Conciliation, 405 West 117th Street, New York City. Excellent brief pamphlets and leaflets may be had from ; The League of Nations Non-Partisan Association, 6 East 39th St., New York City. The Federal Council of Churches, 105 East 22nd Street, New York City. The American Peace Award, 565 Fifth Ave., New York City. The National Council for Prevention of War, 532 17th St., N. W., Washington, D. C. 22 Harding-Hughes-Coolidge World Court Measure Reference Book “The Permanent Court of International Justice,” Manley O. Hudson. A collection of Prof. Hudson’s essays reprinted (unedited) from periodicals from January, 1922, to January, 1925, with extensive bibliography. PRACTICAL SUGGESTIONS 1. Call on your Senators while they are at home. 2. Telegraph or write them when they are in Washington. 3. Discuss the World Court situation in your club, lodge and church — in aU of them — and move that resolutions be sent to the President and your two Senators endorsing adherence to the World Court on the Harding-Hughes- Coohdge terms. 4. Organize a World Court Committee to arrange a community meeting this fall. (a) Secure representation of all sympathetic organiza- tions. (5) Appoint a program committee to secure speakers and music, using local talent if possible. (c) Appoint a finance committee to raise the money required. (d) Appoint a publicity committee to advertise the meeting thoroughly. (e) Present resolutions endorsing the Harding-Hughes- Coolidge World Court plan and send as above. 5. See that similar meetings are held in surrounding towns. 6. Distribute copies of this pamphlet and other material where they will be read. 7. Reprint in leaflet form for wide local distribution what the President has said on the World Court and other im- portant sections of this pamphlet. 8. Write a letter on the subject to your local paper for publication, using this and other material. 9. Start your plans now. OUR TIMES CALL TO ACTION All nations, including the United States, are prepar- ing for more wars. The Williamstown Institute of Politics has been considering this summer the grave situation in Europe. A dozen new Alsace Lorraines have been set up by the Versailles Treaty where there was one before. The new nationalism of the subject States of Asia and North Africa is shaking the founda- tions of empires. The relations between the United States and Japan have not been improved by our Japanese Exclusion Act and the drift on the Pacific is towards a dangerous balance of power. The same is true in the two Americas, Dr. L. S. Rowe, Director of the Pan-American Union, has gravely reported. Hatreds are more violent than in 1914; causes of war are more numerous; weapons are many times more deadly. Winston Churchill says that we are passing rapidly through the blessed respite of exhaustion, offering to the nations a final chance to avert what may well be a general doom.” “It is for the generation which saw and survived to devise measures of prevention.” We must not drift, as the nations did before 1914, until it is too late. Now is the time to stop the next war. The World Court is universally regarded as the first step towards permanent security and peace. It is not perfect. With the Hughes-Coolidge reservations the step is indeed a short one, yet this step must be taken if other steps are to follow and if ultimately war is to be outlawed and permanent peace to be achieved. He Relies on Loyalty to Him of Candidates for Election in 1926 to Back World Tribunal. From Special to The New York Times SWAMPSCOTT, Mass., Aug. 13, 1925.— It became known in official circles today that President Coolidge feels more confident than at any previous time of the adoption by the Senate of the World Court protocol. The visit of Senator Moses this week and re- ports which have come to him privately from different Senators, as well as surveys made by Committees interested in the Court, all go to give the President hope that this one of his three leading policies will be carried into effect in the next Congress. President Coolidge is going to call for affirm- ative action on the World Court in no uncer- tain terms, according to those who have dis- cussed the subject with him in the last ten days. Though the President was thought to be lukewarm in his support of the World Court some months ago, that is not his attitude now. He has become an aggressive advocate of the Court with reservations protecting American interests and freeing the United States from any obligations to the League of Nations. Another reservation which he wants is a statute defining what the Court can do with respect to advis- ory opinions. President Coolidge is letting the Republican Senators know of the platform declaration of 1924 on the World Court and they know that Mr. Coolidge is a stickler for carrying out his pledges to the people.