Address on the International Court of Justice at the Luncheon of the Associated Press in New York City

Members of the Associated Press:

During the closing days of the last Congress I sent to the Senate a communication asking its advice and consent to the adherence by the Government of the United States to the protocol establishing the International Court of Justice. Out of this simple, natural, normal proceeding has developed so much of mystery, so much of misunderstanding,, so much of protest and approval, so much of threatened muddying of the political waters, that I welcome the opportunity, on so appropriate an occasion, to reveal to the American people both the purpose and the motives impelling.

Ours is popular Government through the agency of political parties, and it must be assumed that the course of the successful party, which is at the same time an honest party, must be fairly charted by the platform of that party, and by the utterances of its candidates when appealing for-popular approval. On that assumption it is seemly to recall the declarations of the party now in power relative to the promotion of international relationships.

In 1904 the national platform of the Republican Party said "we favor the peaceful settlement of international differences by arbitration." Four years later, in the national convention of 1908, the party in its platform alluded to progress made in keeping faith with the previous declaration, and said:

The conspicuous contributions of American statesmanship to the cause of international peace so strongly advanced in The Hague conferences are occasions for just pride and gratification. * * * We indorse such achievement as the highest duty of a people to perform, and proclaim the obligation of further strengthening the bonds of friendship and good will with all the nations of the world.

In 1912 the Republican platform made a very explicit declaration relating to an International Court of Justice. I quote from the party covenant of faith:

Together with peaceful and orderly development at home, the Republican Party earnestly favors all measures for the establishment and protection of the peace of the world, and for the development of closer relations between the various nations of the earth. It believes most earnestly in a peaceful settlement of international disputes and in the reference of all controversies between nations to an International Court of Justice.

The next formal and solemn pledge was made in 1916. I quote again:

The Republican Party believes that a firm, consistent, and courageous foreign policy, always maintained by Republican Presidents in accordance with American traditions, is the best, as it is the only true way, to preserve peace and restore to us our rightful place among nations. We believe in the peaceful settlement of international disputes, and favor the establishment of a World Court for that purpose.

In 1920 the question of our foreign relationship was very acute. The Senate had rejected the Versailles treaty and the League of Nations pact. The convention voiced its approval of the rejection, but was unwilling to pledge aloofness from the world. Therefore it said in its platform pronouncement:

We pledge the coming Republican administration to such agreements with other nations of the world as shall meet the full duty of America to civilization and humanity, in accordance with American ideals, without surrendering the right of the American people to exercise its judgment and its power in favor of justice and peace.

As a participant in the making of some of these platforms and as the banner-bearer of one campaign, I have a right to believe they spoke the party conscience so plainly that it is not easy to misconstrue.

But there are other utterances which it is seemly to recall. I allude to the interpretation of the platform by the candidate in 1920. On August 28, 1920, speaking on the League of Nations proposal, I said frankly and very definitely, I did not favor the United States entering the League of Nations. It was declared then that the issue, as defined by the candidates, "involved the disparity between a world court of justice, supplemented by world association for conference, on the one hand, and the council of the league on the other." Quoting further from the same address, I said:

The one is a judicial tribunal to be governed by fixed and definite principles of law, administered without passion or prejudice. The other is an association of diplomats and politicians, whose determinations are sure to be influenced by considerations of expediency and national selfishness. * * * One a government of laws and one a government of men.

In that same address I commended the Hague tribunal. One paragraph is particularly appropriate to quote afresh:

I believe humanity would welcome the creation of an international association for conference and a world court whose verdicts on justiciable questions this country, in common with all nations, would be willing and able to uphold. The decision of such a court or the recommendations of such a conference could be accepted without sacrificing on our part or asking any other power to sacrifice one iota of its nationality.

So much for political party history. I have quoted it, because I believe in keeping the faith. If political parties do not mean what they say and candidates do not mean what they say, then our form of popular Government is based on fraud, and can not hope to endure.

In compliance with its pledges the new administration, which came into power in March, 1921, definitely and decisively put aside all thought of the United States entering the League of Nations. It doesn't propose to enter now, by the side door, the back door, or the cellar door. I have no unseemly comment to offer on the league. If it is serving the Old World helpfully, more power to it. But it is not for us. The Senate has so declared, the Executive has so declared, the people have so declared. Nothing could be more decisively stamped with finality.

In further keeping of the faith the administration made a treaty of peace with Germany, a just treaty, which so impressed our war-time enemy that when we came, later on, to set up a mixed claims commission to settle the claims of American nationals against Germany, that nation named one commissioner, we named one, and then, for the first time in the history of international relationships, Germany asked us, as a contending nation, to name the umpire, the third member, whose vote would decide all differences. I know of no like tribute to a nation's fairness in all the records of history.

Then in the fulfillment of the pledge of free conference, the International Conference on the Limitation of Armament was called, not in haste, not because some one was prodding, but as early as the barriers to success could be remove. The spirit of that conference and the achievement wrought have been written into history, and will grow immeasurably beyond the almost universal popular favor already accorded. There was not alone the triumph in reducing naval armaments and ending competition which was leading to oppressive naval strength and adding staggering burdens to the treasuries of competing powers; not alone the removal of every war cloud and every reason for conflict in the Pacific, so that now accord and concord abide, where suspicion and fear had previously dwelt; but we gave an example to the world of the conference way to peace, which time will appraise as the supreme accomplishment.

Hardly had this gratifying work been accomplished before the administration began its endeavors for further fulfillment. Meanwhile an International Court of Justice had been established. It was an agency of peaceful settlement which had long been sought. Its establishment previously had failed because no agreement had been possible over the method of electing judges. The existence of the League of Nations offered a solution. Almost all the member nations had signed a protocol establishing the court. The members of the council in which the larger powers have permanent representation, afforded one voting body with a veto on the members of the assembly consisting of representatives of all the nations, and member nations of the assembly could have a veto on the larger powers represented in the council. Here was a device for electing judges which removed the heretofore unsolvable problem of a satisfactory means of selecting them. Not the council, but the nation members thereof, must vote in majority for the same candidates for which members of the assembly voted in a majority, else the election is void until a conference points the way to agreement.

The court was established, and is functioning. An American judge sits on the court, though we had no part in choosing him.

Under the provisions of its establishment the United States can apply for a court decision on any justiciable question, even as any nation participating in its establishment. Perhaps the court is not all that some advocates of the court plan would have it, but it is in a large measure the fulfillment of an aspiration we long have boasted. So I thought, and I still think, we ought to be a party to the agreement, assume our part in its maintenance, and give to it the benefit of such influence as our size and wealth and ideals may prove to be.

For mere eligibility to appeal to the court, nothing was needed. But it didn't seem fair to seek its advantages without accepting all becoming responsibilities, and here developed the stumblingblock. Naturally we should wish to participate in selecting the judges, and the electors designated were members of the league. We had no thought of joining the league, we sought none of its offerings and will accept none of its obligations. The President could propose no solution to the signatory powers, because the world has witnessed in disappointment the spectacle of the Executive proposing and the Senate disposing. It was not desirable to make some proposal abroad that could not be carried out; indeed none would be considered, and it was not pleasing to think of asking the Senate's consent to a program to which the nations concerned would not agree. So, very informally and very discreetly, the situation was felt out, over a considerable period of time, and when satisfied that there was an appropriate course of action without connection with the league, provided the Senate consented, I proposed adherence to the court protocol, and asked the Senate's consent.

The documents speak for themselves. It was pointed out that no rights under the league and no obligations of the league would be incurred, but to make certain that we would not be involved the letter of the Secretary of State suggested suitable reservations to afford ample guaranty.

This is the complete recital. It is in harmony with platform pledges, candidatorial promises, and, I believe, with American aspirations. The Senate's decision was hardly to be expected amid the enormous pressure of business incident to the closing weeks of the short session. But I felt that the Senate, the country, and the friendly nations whose council we had sought were entitled to know that our gestures abroad were sincere, and our own people should know there are no secrets about our purposes at home, once they are matured.

Excessive friends of the league have beclouded the situation by their unwarranted assumption that it is a move toward league membership. Let thim disabuse their minds, because there is no such thought among us who must make our commitments abroad. And the situation is likewise beclouded by those who shudder excessively when the league is mentioned, and who assume entanglement is unavoidable. Any entanglement would first require assent of the Senate, which is scarcely to be apprehended, and if by any chance the Senate approved of any entanglement, the present administration would not complete the ratification. If in spite of these statements, uttered with full deliberation, there are excessive and unfounded hopes on the one hand, or utterly unjustifiable apprehensions on the other, I know of no word fittingly to apply.

Frankly, there is one political bugbear. When we discussed the League of Nations and its rule of force, with its superpowers through a political council and assembly, I myself contended as a Senator for equal voting power on the part of the United States with any nation in the world. With her dominions members of the league assembly the British Empire will have six" votes in that branch of the court electorate, but it has only one in the electorate of the council. In view of the fact that no nation can have more than one judge, it is a less formidable objection than when applied to the league as a superpower, dealing with problems likely to abridge a member's national rights. I appraise the objection as one who voted against this disparity of power in the league assembly, but in an appraisal now I do not hesitate to say that if other great powers can accept without fear the voting strength of the British dominions, when they are without ties of race to minimize international rivalries and suspicions, we ought, in view of the natural ties of English- speaking kinship, feel ourselves free from danger.

The perfected court must be a matter of development. I earnestly commend it because it is a great step in the right direction toward the peaceful settlement of justiciable questions, towards the elimination of frictions which lead to war, and a surer agency of international justice through the application of law than can be hoped for in arbitration which is influenced by the prejudices of men and the expediency of politics.

We can do vastly more to perfect it in the capacity of an adherent than in an aloofness in which we arrogate to ourselves the right to say to the world we dictate but never comply. I would yield none of our rights, none of our nationality, but would gladly give of our influence and cooperation to move forward and upward toward world peace and that reign of justice which is infinitely more secure in the rule of national honor than in national or international force.

I have indulged the dream, nay, a justified hope, that out of the encouraged and sustained court might come the fulfillment of larger aspirations. In proof of its utility and a spirit of concord among nations might come that voluntary conference of nations out of which could be expected a clarified and codified international law to further assure peace under the law, and bring nations that understanding which is ever the first and best guarantor of peace.

I would not have it thought that I hold this question paramount to all others confronting our Government. I do not hold it a menace to the unity of any political party. It is not to be classed as a party question, but if any party, repeatedly advocating a world court, is to be rended by the suggestion, of an effort to perform in accordance with its pledges, it needs a new appraisal of its assets.

Our problems at home invariably call for first consideration. Our own house must be kept in order, our own good fortune must be assured before we can be large contributors to world progress or measurably helpful to humanity. I have little patience with the contention of those who believe large commercial advantages will attend our larger assumption of world responsibility. Nations are not engaged in bartering their trade advantages for larger fellowships. We do not do it ourselves, and we need not ask what we do not give. Commerce is the very lifeblood of every people's existence, and a nation's commercial opportunities are valued little less than the security of its citizenship.

A restored Europe, with less consumption in conflict and more production and consumption in hopeful peace and banished hate, would add to the volume of world commerce. We would gladly acclaim such a restoration. Our influence and helpfulness are ready when they will avail, but we can not intrude where we ourselves would resist intrusion.

Our position commercially is gaining in strength, because we are free from political entanglements, and can be charged with no selfish designs. In the making of new pacts and the remaking of old, we ask no more and accept no less than the equal opportunity we are ever ready to grant others, and the position is unassailable. The nation which grants justice may confidently ask it, and the world— social, political, or commercial—which would promote justice through association or judgment of its court, must practice justice in its daily transactions.

I made allusion in the beginning to political charts and the good faith of political parties. Sometimes there must be a variation from the charted course, because of the unexpected development of impassable shoals. This administration, pledged by a sponsoring party for a quarter of a century to the building up of a merchant marine, was unable to secure the enactment which was believed to be the way to fulfillment. But it would be a small administration which would surrender the aspiration for an American merchant marine and scrap or sacrifice our great merchant fleet in a pique of disappointment over the Senate's failure to give approval.

For security of defense, for the avoidance of a like extravagant and ineffectual outlay in case of future war, for the promotion of our commerce and our eminence on the seas, I believe a great merchant marine to be an outstanding American requirement. Since we can not hope for Government aid to private ownership, we propose to do our best to organize and consolidate our lines and service, applying the lessons of experience which cost us hundreds of millions in operation alone, then offer for sale. If we can not sell, we will operate, and operate aggressively, until Congress inhibits.

Confessedly, this is a contradiction to the proposal to have less government in business and more business in government, but if we can not get out of the shipping business in a practical way and be assured of privately owned and privately operated shipping, it is the business of the Government to conserve our shipping assets and make for our self-reliance on the high seas.

One more thought, little expected on this occasion, I am sure, but particularly appropriate before a highly representative body of the American press. I know from experience how a newspaper man confidently prints opinions on public affairs. He has a marked advantage, because he is seldom called upon to make good, unless he happens to be elected President, and apparently no newspaper man was ever put to the test heretofore. You have been saying a lot about the failure of Congress, and the lack of teamwork between the Executive and Congress, and many of you have deplored that some strong man is not in the White House to make Congress do his bidding.

But a great change has taken place, vitally influencing the work of administrative and legislative fulfillment. This effectiveness is no longer influenced by war stress or Presidential personality. The great change has come about unawares, and as molders of public opinion you have ignored the fundamental reason. It is the change in our political system, the rule of the primary, the drift toward pure democracy, and the growing impotence of political parties. We have gotten away from the representative system; we have reached a point where the lack of party loyalty has made party sponsorship in government less effective than it was. We have come to the time when a party platform is regarded by too many men in public life as even less important than a scrap of paper, and groups or blocs are turned to serve group interests, and many individuals serve their own, while contempt for party conference or caucus has sent party loyalty pretty much into the discard.

I believe in political parties. They were the essential agencies of the popular government which made us what we are. We were never perfect, but under our party system we wrought a development under representative democracy unmatched in all proclaimed liberty and attending human advancement. We achieved under the party system, where parties were committed to policies, and party loyalty was a mark of honor and an inspiration toward accomplishment. Nowadays, in many States, party adherence is flouted, loyalty is held to be contemptible, nominations for office are often influenced by voters enrolled under an opposing party banner, and platforms are the insincere utterances of expediency, influenced by nominees, rather than by advocates of principle.

Let no one misconstrue me. I am not advocating the abandonment of the primary which gives to every voter a voice in nominating men for office and determining party policy. I would carefully preserve and safeguard it against the old-time abuses which impelled its adoption, but I would make it an agent of indisputable party expression rather than a means of party confusion or destruction. I like the inculcation of loyalty, the pride of association, and the inspiration to accomplishment. I like the party government where purposes are reached in the reasoning of honest representation, and I like a party which is commissioned to govern to strive in good conscience and all loyalty to keep the pledges which brought it popular approval.

Our drift to-day is toward pure democracy, and no pure democracy ever long survived. We talk solemnly and earnestly about preserving our world civilization. I have every confidence in its survival, but it may be assured only by humankind reaching the proper appraisal of the secure avenues of twenty centuries of progress, in our America we have the freest and best press in the world. In its power of to-day only the press can sound the warning and reason to that conviction which will enable us to play our full part in the work of preservation.