Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

Doctor LOWELL. Oh, I should hope that he would not be instructed, because the attempt of the Senate of the United States or the President to instruct him as to which Brazilian or Spaniard or Japanese he was to vote for would be a very unfortunate thing. He had better talk with his colleagues on the spot, and find out what they thought; because the chance of a vacancy of an American is very small.

Senator PEPPER. I wanted to bring up that point for your consideration; that if we did anything but give to our representative a wide open power of attorney we would put ourselves in the position of discussing in advance the fitness and qualifications of somebody and then voting for him and perhaps not having him elected.

Doctor LOWELL. I think that is perfectly clear.

Senator SWANSON. I think the person sent to the Council of the League would have to be confirmed by the Senate unless the law otherwise provided. When we were discussing the League the House contention was that unless the law otherwise provided, the President would make the appointment and the Senate would confirm.

Doctor LOWELL. I think it ought to. It falls within the class of officers which the Constitution thought ought to be confirmed by the Senate.

Mr. WICKERSHAM. He would be in the class of a minister or an ambassador plenipotentiary. He might be appointed for a time, or pursuant to law for a fixed time.

Senator PEPPER. That answers my question. I just wanted to be sure that we had the benefit of your suggestion in regard to that.

Doctor LOWELL. I suppose that I have gotten into the habit, not being in political life, but as a historian, of looking ahead, and thinking not what people are going to say now but what posterity will say. I can not help thinking, with Mr. Wickersham, that for our purposes, posterity will say we have taken a long step in the most difficult question that exists to my mind to-day, that is whether mankind shall be able to get over, by any process, killing one another for differences which are not worth it.

BRIEF EXTRACT FROM STATEMENT OF PROF. WILLIAM I. HULL, OF SWARTHMORE COLLEGE, REPRESENTING THE CHURCH PEACE UNION

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen: The Church Peace Union does not officially, but it does informally and it hopes with some degree of accuracy, represent not only the Protestant but also the Catholic and the Jewish churches of this country. It has seemed to me, therefore, appropriate in bringing to you the message from the Church Peace Union to urge upon you the proposition that this World Court is not only a Christian and religious one, but that it is pre-eminently an American one, and in deference to the chairman of the subcommittee I should like to begin my story in trying to emphasize this fact by referring to the experience of Pennsylvania.

As long ago as 1693 William Penn, the founder of our Commonwealth, in the midst of a half century of war that Louis XIV had forced upon Europe, proposed that the future peace of America should be preserved by means of an international court. Ten years before that Penn had entered upon what he called a holy experiment in the wilds of Pennsylvania, where he resorted not to the military method, but to the pacific and judicial method of settling disputes between the colonists and the Indians, an experiment which for 70 years, until his policy was reversed, met with very great success.

One hundred years later, after the time of Penn, the constitutional convention which met in Penn's city of Philadelphia also entered upon another holy experiment. The founders of our Nation faced the question, Shall we repeat upon the soil in this New World the bloody history of Europe, or shall we try to find some other and better, some peaceful, some judicial means of settling disputes between and among these sovereign States? And they set up the Supreme Court of the United States. The Supreme Court of the United States has met with extraordinary success, it seems to me, for it has settled by purely peaceful means, of course, 87 disputes between and among the sovereign States of this Union.

A few years after the Constitution was adopted in 1794 George

Washington's Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Mr. Jay, negotiated a treaty with Great Britain which ushered in the modern history of arbitration. Since 1794 there have been more than 240 disputes among the nations settled by the arbitral method. The United States has been a party to very many of these arbitrations, especially with Canada. And you will recall very well that in 1818 the United States put into practice another great experiment on the Canadian border.

We had fought two wars with Great Britain and the news came to John Quincy Adams and other statesmen of the time that gunboats were being built and launched on the Great Lakes. It seemed inevitable that the expense in the competition in this naval preparedness, this preparedness for the naval settlement of disputes between the two people would be enormous and would inevitably bring about war.

After negotiations the Rush-Bagot agreement was decided upon, and we have celebrated more than a century of peace with Great Britain. We have settled our disputes with Canada and the British Empire back of Canada by means of arbitration.

One hundred years after the Union was founded, in 1899, President McKinley and Secretary of State Mr. John Hay instructed the American delegates at the first Hague conference to advocate the creation of a court of arbitration. So successful had been these arbitral tribunals that the time was evidently ripe for the setting up of an international court of arbitration. That court was agreed upon.

In 1903 President Roosevelt sent to this court its first case, a dispute between the United States and Mexico. In the dozen years between the first case and the beginning of the World War, 15 disputes among the nations had been settled by the international board of arbitration, and since the war three more have been settled, our own dispute with Norway having been the last of the series.

Senator SWANSON. Was that settled in pursuance of The Hague Tribunal?

Professor HULL. The regular court of arbitration.

Senator SWANSON. Settled by that?

Professor HULL. Yes, sir; the eighteenth case in the series. It seemed, however, at the second Hague conference in 1907

that a more adequate, an international court of justice, should be established, and President Roosevelt and Secretary of State Mr. Root instructed our American delegation to work for the creation of this improved court of justice. It was agreed upon in all its details except in the method of selecting its judges. The great problem was how shall 15 judges be selected in order that they might equally represent the 45 or 50 members of the family of nations.

That problem remained unsolved at the second Hague conference, but when the League of Nations created the Assembly and the Council, Mr. Root and the commission at The Hague realized that here was a possible means of solving that problem and they provided, as you know, for the election of the judges by means of the Assembly and the Council. In case of disagreement between the Council and the Assembly another American device, namely, a joint election on the part of both bodies, should be resorted to.

And so, all the way down through the last two centuries and more, this has been a great American proposition, and it does seem that the statesmen of to-day are trying to put into effect on the world's stage the great experiment which our American forefathers tried so well back in 1787 and 1789. . . .

Senator SWANSON. You do not believe in delaying our entrance into this Court until international law can be codified, do you?

Professor HULL. Indeed I do not.

Senator SWANSON.

do you?

You do not know when that will occur,

Professor HULL. I do think that the two things are going on side by side. And, if I may be permitted just one more moment of your time, I feel as if there must be a natural parallel development. It has delighted, it seems to me, the hearts of the American people that the President and the Senate are so mindful at present of the problems of armaments.

When the Constitution of the United States was adopted, when the Supreme Court was set up for the settlement of disputes between the States, it was realized by the founders of our Republic that that court could not possibly succeed in its method of judicial settlement if at the same time it was to have as its rival a military

settlement, and so in the Constitution there was placed the essential prohibition upon the States against the maintenance of armies and navies in time of peace. And I have referred to the RushBagot agreement of 1818. Who of us can believe that those scores of disputes, or dozens of disputes, between the United States and the British Empire and Canada could possibly have been settled by judicial means if at the same time we had prepared to settle them by the military method? The two things are going in opposite directions. They are inevitable foes one of the other.

We see how it worked in 1914. Here were international commissions of inquiry, permanent court of arbitration, extension of good offices and mediation had been developed. Why was it that those judicial methods were not resorted to? Well, now, clearly the answer is because the nations had prepared to the limit to try the other method. And so it has seemed to us in thinking about this judicial settlement of our time that we have got to turn right about face on the use of armaments for international purposes. .

Senator PEPPER. I understand you agree with ex-Attorney General Wickersham that this Court is created by the statute, which is like a treaty, and that the Court is not a creature of the League, but the creature of the statute that creates it?

Professor HULL. Absolutely.

Senator PEPPER. And that the League, so far as it elects judges and so far as it pays their salaries, is simply an agent or machinery that this statute provides for accomplishing these purposes?

Professor HULL. Precisely.

Senator PEPPER. That in the same way that the President selects the judges with the consent of the Senate, and Congress pays the salaries, and it does not interfere with the independence of the Court.

Professor HULL. Absolutely not.

Senator PEPPER. Do you understand that contention is correct? Professor HULL. I do, and it seems to me it is utterly baseless to fear that if we go into the Court under these conditions it will inevitably mean that we will be drawn into the League of Nations. I do not believe for a minute this country is going to be drawn into the League of Nations, even though it does enter the Court,

« ÎnapoiContinuă »