THE WORLD COURT

From the welter of misinformation and popular ignorance that surround the recent Senatorial defeat of the Resolution to join the World Court, certain facts stand out with ironical clarity. It is important to realize that the Resolution was defeated primarily because of the astonishingly effective propaganda aroused over the short space of one week-end by those two staunch protectors of one hundred per cent Americanism, Father Coughlin and the Hearst papers. "Joining the court," said the former, "to maintain peace strongly stinks of diplomatic deceit." He was aided no end by the latters' publishing the pictures of Great American Statesmen, accompanied by the question, "Senators, have you forgotten these men?"

So that the present generation of Harvard men will be able to enlighten their grandchildren when the question of adherence to the World Court is again before the Senate, let it be clearly understood once and for all that by no stretch of the imagination is membership in the League itself an inevitable consequence of membership in the Court. The Court was created in accordance with Articles 13 and 14 of the League Covenant; its expenses are paid by the Secretariat; it is the official Court for the League,--but these are the only connections per so between the two bodies.

Whether or no United States membership in the League is intrinsically good or evil, is beside the point, a matter of personal opinion. One of the most disappointing aspects of the defeat of the recent Resolution is the lack of articulate opinion in favor of the Court, the pitifully loose organization of the Administration's forces in the Senate. Most significant of all, the President failed to take a strong stand on the issue. He had been informed the time was ripe for railroading the Resolutions, quietly through; the Senate; while considerable blame must be attached to the sources of his information, his reluctance to fight those elements which have so grossly deceived American opinion augurs ill for future issues, both national and international, along which party liners are closely drawn.

All in all, the whole affairs is a striking commentary of American public opinion regarding international matters. That such opinion is guided by the pernicious nationalism of the Hearst syndicate has been fully demonstrated. There is little hope for international peace until the American people are shown that the greatest obstacle to understanding and accord is the irrational emotionalism of Mesars. Hearst and Coughlin.