World Court

Last week the Senate voted on the question of joining the World Court with reservations. There was no doubt whatever about the outcome.

For some ten days a filibuster by the opponents of the Court had prolonged debate before cloture was imposed (TIME, Feb. 1). Immediately thereafter the opposition realized it was beaten. Their first reaction was anger, and some delaying tactics began to be employed but as calmer judgment got the upper hand these ceased. Under the cloture rule each Senator might speak one hour, so that there might have been 96 hours of debate. Calculating roll calls, allowing six hours to the Senate's day, adding Sundays, action might have been postponed three weeks. Instead it was concluded in about 17 hours--three legislative days.

The Debate. The chief matter to be disposed of was the question of reservations. First the supporters, of the Court presented their reservations--the Swanson reservations, five in number. They were adopted by large majorities. On the final day the opponents of the Court presented their reservations. Many of these proposed almost impossible conditions, conditions very likely to prevent the nations which have adhered to the Court from accepting our offer to join them--such reservations as that the war fleets of the world be abolished and an International Police of the Seas be established before we join, or that the Court be completely reorganized and given a new constitution. The resolutions of the opposition were voted down--no more than 22 votes could be mustered on behalf of any of them.

Mr. Moses on behalf of the opposition then asked unanimous consent to take the final vote at once. There was no objection. The clerk began to call the roll.

The Vote. A two-thirds vote was required to approve the resolution. Ninety-three Senators answered to their names. Senator Du Pont who has been ill for several weeks was absent; so was Senator Dill of Washington and Senator Greene of Vermont, who earlier in the afternoon had fainted on the floor, been attended by Senator-Dr. Copeland and sent home. Senator Dill (Democrat), against the Court, was the third absentee.

Two Democrats, Blease and Reed (not counting Mr. Dill), voted against the Court. The entire Farmer-Labor party, Mr. Shipstead, was also against the Court. So were 14 Republicans--Borah (Idaho), Brookhart (Iowa), Fernald (Maine), Frazier (North Dakota), Harreld (Oklahoma), Johnson (California), LaFollette (Wisconsin), Moses (New Hampshire), Nye (North Dakota), Pine (Oklahoma), Robinson (Indiana), Schall (Minnesota), Watson (Indiana), Williams (Missouri).

Forty Republicans and 36 Democrats--76 in all--voted for the Court, although the maximum number which might have been necessary was 64.*

The Scene. On the last day, from noon when the debate began to supper time when the vote was taken, the galleries of the Senate were crowded to capacity and the halls were filled with watchers eagerly hoping someone would vacate a seat to make room for them. In the executive gallery Mrs. Wilson watched intently until she saw the Court accepted 76 to 17.

Politics to Come. Several Republicans who voted for the Court did so with trembling tongues, fearing what the irreconcilables may do to them in the next election if such men as Senator Borah carry the fight into states where pro-Court and anti-Court sentiment is nearly equal. Several members of the 17 threaten to do so, but the arguments of the opposition furnish ready-made ammunition to the outs who want to get into places of the pro-Court Senators. At the last minute before the vote, Senator Hiram Johnson exclaimed:

"The deed is almost done. I congratulate you on the Democratic side of this Chamber; I commiserate my brethren on the Republican side. We have acted here on the Republican side upon the theory that-- If it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well It were done quickly.

"And we have done it quickly. It is an historic day today in the annals of the Republic and in the history of this body.

"There was an historic day in this body on March 19, 1920, when a raging press representing international bankers, some representing internationalists, others representing perhaps an emotion and a sentiment, thundered at the doors of the Senate and demanded the ratification of the Treaty of Versailles and the adoption of the League of Nations.

"The traditional policy of the United States is about to be altered now--altered by the great Republican Party, God help it!"

Getting In. When the resolution was passed, a Senate messenger rushed it to the White House. The President referred it to the Secretary of State. There was some confusion as to just what action would be required to join the Court. All the nations now adhering to the Court must approve the U. S. reservations before U. S. adherence is accepted. They are expected to do so, but one objection would mean new difficulties. State Department officials expected the U. S. to be admitted within a few months. A copy of the acceptance will be sent to the Secretariat of the League of Nations, and perhaps also to each of the 48 nations adhering to the Court.

The Reservations. The Senate advised and consented to U. S. adherence to the World Court so that it may voluntarily (but not by compulsion) submit cases to the Court, with the following "reservations and understandings":

1) That it involves no legal relation to the League of Nations and no assumption of obligations under the Versailles Treaty.

2) That the U. S. shall participate with the members of the League in electing Judges of the Court.

3) That the U. S. shall pay a fair part of the Court's expenses as determined by the U. S. Congress.

4) That the U. S. may at any time withdraw from the Court, and that the constitution of the Court shall not be changed without the consent of the U. S.

5) That the Court shall not render any advisory opinion affecting any question in which the U. S. has an interest unless the U. S. consents.

And further it was provided that the U. S. shall not ratify until the other nations shall consent to its reservations, that the U. S. shall take no case to the Court unless an agreement by treaty is made for doing so, and that in adhering to the Court the Monroe Doctrine (not mentioned by name) is retained as a U. S. Policy.

These reservations were framed by a committee of supporters of adherence to the Court, which called in John Bassett Moore, the present U. S. member of the Court, who went over the reservations and suggested phraseology.

The Court. The establishment of the Court was provided for in the establishment of the League of Nations. In 1920 Elihu Root was called upon and participated in drawing the Court's constitution or statutes. Forty-eight nations signed a protocol setting up the Court in December of that year. Eleven regular and four deputy judges were elected by the Council and Assembly of the League of Nations concurrently, for terms of nine years. The Court sits at The Hague, where it interprets treaties and international law, decides whether specific acts constitute breaches of treaties, and what reparation shall be made in such cases. It first met in June, 1922, and since then has held ten sittings and delivered 18 judgments and opinions.

Prospects of the Court. Since the Court has in most cases jurisdiction only by the consent of the parties concerned and since it has no means of enforcing its decrees, its effectiveness is practically limited to cases in which there is a determination of the parties to a dispute to seek a peaceful settlement. In cases wherein a nation feels that its vital interests are at stake, it is not likely to call upon the Court for a decision. The function of the Court seems mainly to be in the easing of minor diplomatic difficulties, and building up a body of legal precedent which will tend to prevent major misunderstandings. The U. S. already has arbitration treaties with Great Britain, France, Japan, Portugal, Norway, Holland and Sweden which, after the U. S. joins the Court, will permit the two parties if they wish to lay any disputes before that body.

The Judges. The full roster of the Court is as follows: Rafael Altamira y Crevea (Spain), Dionisio Anzilotti (Italy), Antonio Sanchez de Bustamente y Sirven (Cuba), Robert Bannatyne, Viscount Finlay (Great Britain), Bernard C. J. Loder (Holland), Yorozu Oda (Ja-an), Charles Andre Weiss (France), John Bassett Moore (U. S.), Didrik Galtrup Gjedde Nyholm (Denmark), Max Huber (Switzerland), Epitacio da Silva Pessoa (Brazil). The deputy judges are: Dumitriu Negulescu (Roumania), Wang Chung Hui (China), Mikhailo Jovanovitch (Jugoslavia), Frederick Valdemar Nikolai Beichmann( Norway). Their salaries are $6,030 to $14,070 a year, depending on the amount of time the Court sits.

The U. S. Judge. Ever since 'the Court was established, an American, John Bassett Moore, has been a member of it. Italy proposed him and he was elected to membership. It was he who was called upon in drafting the reservations adopted by the Senate.

He is a robust man with a brisk and busy, if unruffled manner, a native of Delaware, a lawyer by training. At 25 he gave up practice at the bar to enter the State Department. He has several times been Assistant Secretary of State, several times represented the U. S. in diplomatic conferences. But his service in the State Department has been disjointed. When he was only 31 (he is now 65) he accepted the chair of International Law and Diplomacy at Columbia University--the first chair of its kind in the country. He was made a judge of the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague in 1913, a judge of the World Court in 1921. As an authority on international law and diplomacy he is known the world over, and his choice for the World Court was a tribute to known merit.

*Of those Senators who in 1920 voted on the question of entering the League of Nations, 38 were present and voting last week. Eleven of them were Democrats who voted against the League of Nations because President Wilson was opposed to the reservations attached to the resolution for League entrance. All the rest of the 38, with only two exceptions, voted for or against the Court as they had voted for or against the League of Nations. The two who voted differently were Norris of Nebraska, who voted against the League and for the Court, and Watson of Indiana, who voted for the League and against the Court.