until the League is put under the great American principle of non-coercion of sovereign states. . . .

...

Mr. PINSON. Mr. Chairman, may I ask Doctor Hull, with his knowledge of international affairs which is so deep and so fundamental, whether or not he is in favor of the United States going into the Court as it is? Of course, these other questions have been raised not on his motion.

Professor HULL. Under Mr. Harding's and Mr. Hughes's reservations?

Mr. PINSON. Yes.

Professor HULL. Oh, absolutely.

FROM THE STATEMENT OF WALKER D. HINES, ON BEHALF OF THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am a member of the foreign relations committee of the Chamber of Commerce of the United States. I have been requested by President Barnes, of that Chamber, to appear before you and state the position of the business men of the United States as that position is expressed in the attitude which has been taken from time to time by the Chamber of Commerce of the United States.

This national organization embraces in its membership a thousand local organizations of chambers of commerce, boards of trade, and other organizations of that character, and 300 trade associations. In addition to that, it has direct, associate, individual, and firm members of 14,000, and it represents through these commercial organizations an underlying individual membership of about 750,000.

The methods employed by the National Chamber of Commerce in ascertaining and expressing the sentiment of its membership are careful and thorough, and when the Chamber undertakes to speak it does speak with definite authority and with precision as to the general sentiment.

Its interest in a World Court was first expressed in 1915, and at that time the Chamber resorted to the method which it has evolved for obtaining a careful and accurate expression by means of taking a referendum. The referendum question which was

submitted at that time to the constituents of the Chamber was, in effect, this:

That the United States should take the initiative in joining with other nations in establishing an international court for the decision of questions which arise between nations, and which can be resolved upon the application of established rules, or upon a determination of facts.

That referendum was adopted by an overwhelming vote, and was taken by the Chamber as fairly expressive of the deliberate sentiment of the business men of the country.

In 1922, seven years later, at the annual convention of the Chamber, which was attended by approximately 2,500 delegates from all these constituent organizations, the Chamber adopted this resolution:

The United States by tradition and practice stands and always has stood committed to the promotion of international justice through the process of the peaceful solution of controversies rather than through force. Concrete expression was given to this attitude in The Hague conferences of 1899 and 1907, which were participated in by the delegates of our Nation under positive instruction to exert every effort toward the establishment of an international court. Such a court, through the active participation of American statesmen, and consistent with the principles laid down by our Government, has now been established, and most of the leading nations of the world have recognized and declared their adherence to it. Consistent with the attitude which the United States has always manifested, this Chamber urges that our Government promptly take its place with the other nations of the world in the International Court of Justice.

As I say, that resolution was adopted at the annual convention of the Chamber in 1922. This past year, when the annual convention met, there had been recommended to the Senate by President Harding participation in the International Court of Justice, and at that annual meeting there was a representation of 3,000 delegates of the constituent bodies. The Chamber at that time adopted unanimously a resolution to this effect:

The Chamber reiterates its conviction that the United States should adhere to the protocol providing for the establishment and maintenance of a Permanent Court of International Justice, and expresses gratification in the measures which are being taken by our Government to that end. . . .

Mr. Chairman, I submit this, as I say, as the deliberate sentiment of the business men of this country. It is to be considered along with the sentiment which will be submitted to you by a great many other classes of the citizens of the country; but I believe you will find that the conclusion is irresistible that there was never any proposal arousing public interest in this country which enjoyed so widespread and so diverse and so deliberate an insistence for its adoption as the present one relative to the Permanent Court of International Justice.

EXTRACT FROM STATEMENT OF PROF. MANLEY O. HUDSON, OF THE HARVARD LAW SCHOOL

Professor HUDSON. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, it is a great privilege indeed to appear before your committee to present my views on the proposed adhesion to the protocol of signature of the Permanent Court of International Justice.

As a student and a professor of international law, I am naturally interested in any movement that has in it prospect for extension of the field of justice according to law. I am particularly interested, because my specialty happens to be the international field, in any movement which may hold any prospect of an extension of the field of law and order in international society; and I am interested in the proposal made by the President and the Secretary of State because it seems to me to relate to building up our machinery for extending the field of law and order.

I have endeavored during the last few years to make a study of that machinery as it exists, and of its functioning. I have also attempted, in connection with the Court, to maintain contacts with lawyers in this country and in other countries, and have attempted to know what it is that they are thinking about this subject.

I have but recently had the pleasure of addressing the Missouri Bar Association, the Ohio Bar Association, and the Bar Association of the City of Boston; and, wherever I have gone in the United States among lawyers I have found that the sentiment is overwhelmingly that of the resolution of the American Bar Association adopted at Minneapolis last summer. In all of the bar associations

that I have mentioned, and in numerous others which have recently adopted resolutions-the Nevada Bar Association, the Oregon Bar Association, the Erie County Bar Association, the New York State Bar Association, the Mississippi Bar Association— there has been an overwhelming demand that the support of the United States should be given to maintaining the new Permanent Court of International Justice. Indeed, I think this was to be expected of American lawyers, in view of the history of the last generation with reference to this subject.

Among lawyers in other countries it has been my privilege to have certain contacts during the last five years, first at the Peace Conference and later at the various international conferences that have been held since the Peace Conference, and I think I should be safe in reporting to you that it is the overwhelming sentiment of the lawyers that I have met from other countries that an excellent beginning has been made by the Permanent Court of International Justice. I think I am safe in reporting to you that the lawyers of other countries are, as a body, hopeful about our new approach to international justice.

When the jurists met at The Hague in 1920, they proceeded immediately to adopt as the basis of their deliberations that plan which had been drawn up at the Second Hague Conference in 1907. Their first act was to adopt this plan of 1907 as a basis of discussion.

The statute which was drawn in 1920, then, represents a continuation of ideas which had been current in the world, which had been espoused by the United States for a generation prior to that time.

Senator SWANSON. What striking parts of the plan of 1907 or the Second Hague Conference were included in the plan of 1920 which constituted the Court?

Professor HUDSON. The general procedure, Senator Swanson, of the Permanent Court of International Justice is precisely that which had been outlined for the Court of Arbitral Justice in 1907. The significant difference between the two is, of course, the method of choosing the judges of the new court.

Senator SWANSON. What was the difference in connection with the rules prescribed for the determination of questions? Professor HUDSON. The new statute of the Permanent Court

of International Justice is much more explicit than the Second Hague Conference had attempted to make its definition of the jurisdiction of the Court of Arbitral Justice.

Senator SWANSON. This is an improvement on that, you think? Professor HUDSON. I think every one has agreed throughout the discussions that this is a big improvement on the 1907 draft, though it follows in the main the lines of the 1907 draft.

What we are doing, therefore, at the present time, is to carry on an institution which had its beginning in The Hague Conferences. I think one may say that we are simply carrying out the ideas of the two Hague conferences.

It was my purpose, however, to speak more specifically. I take it that your deliberations have already covered the content of the statute of the Court, the content of the protocol by which that statute has life breathed into it; and I wanted to speak more specifically of what has happened in the three years since 1920, when the protocol was drawn up.

In 1921 we succeeded in getting a sufficient number of ratifications of the protocol for the protocol to come into force, and the first election of the judges was held in September, 1921. The election went off very smoothly, indeed. It was a difficult job. There were 89 nominees nominated by members of the Permanent Court of Arbitration. It was a difficult task to fill the 15 posts— 11 judges and 4 deputy judges—but it went off with surprising smoothness, and at the end of 48 hours after the election began the election was completed, and there was general satisfaction with the result. Among my friends at the bar in other countries I have frequently asked the question how they are satisfied with the personnel of the new Court, and I have always had the reply that they are entirely satisfied with the judges that were elected at that time.

I think one can say that the eleven judges represent about as nearly as would be possible the different systems of law in the world, and the judges are all leading jurists in their respective countries.

May I just go through the roster of judges, Mr. Chairman?because on occasion I have heard it said in this country that we were uncertain as to who the judges are.

Senator SWANSON. We shall be very glad to have you do that.