THE WORLD COURT

Address of Hon. William E. Borah before the Idaho

State Bar, Lewiston, Idaho, September 6, 1925.

(Note: The following is the report of Senator Borah's address as it appeared in the Lewiston Tribune of September 7, 1925. The address was unwritten, and on account of the press of public business Senator Borah has been unable to check its accuracy in detail or its completeness.)

"It is a great pleasure and honor for me to be a guest of the State Bar Association of Idaho and to speak on this very important subject under its auspices. I thank you sincerely. You heard last night the very able argument of my friend from California. I have for a long time had the opportunity of hearing arguments on this subject, but I can say that I have never heard an abler presentation of the matter than was made by your distinguished guest last night.

"I have the impression that he was discussing the court he would like to have rather than the one proposed. He stated that the burden of proof was on myself and others who agree with me, and that there are few who do not favor it, and that therefore the majority must have the conclusive reason on their side. I am not so sure about that overwhelming majority. I have had some experience with majorities. When the League of Nations was proposed, but few newspapers opposed it, but within six months after that a president was elected who absolutely opposed it. I propose to wait until the debate is over.

"When President Wilson returned from Versailles, he proposed that we enter the League of Nations, but claimed that no change could be made in it. I spoke on the subject in February, 1921, and was requested to speak against the league at Boston and consented to do so. Although warned by Mr. Lodge that it would be a "frost," Tremont temple where I spoke had no standing room left and I afterwards addressed an overflow meeting. It is dangerous to say just where the American people are on a political subject, by circulation of propaganda about the country. The League of Nations was defeated by the common people of the United States.

REASONS FOR THE FAITH IN HIM

"I propose tonight to give you a reason for the faith that is in me with reference to this issue. We are wide apart as to what constitues the facts on this important subject. It is claimed that I have joined the reactionaries. The question is whether one is in harmony with the principles and interests of this republic. I think that the world court is as much against such principles as is the League of Nations itself.

"My opponent says he is in favor of a world court. So am I, but there is no such thing as a world court proposed. The men who organized what is now called a world court did not intend to create a world court. They stated that they intended to create a world court as a judicial department of the League of Nations, and that is precisely what they did do. If we join this court, we will be in a department of the League of Nations. When it has been divorced from the League of Nations it will go through the senate in twenty minutes, so far as I am concerned.

"Those who formed the court were informed and declared that

they were not creating an independent judicial tribunal. Those of us who have fought the League of Nations for the past five years have no doubt that if we enter it would be entering a department of the League of Nations. I thought my friend last night was exceedingly adroit in attempting to disentangle this court from the League of Nations. It is the most entangled proposition that could possibly be conceived. It is entirely subject to the League of Nations, both as to the election of judges and the right to use the court. If the league disappears, the court disappears.

"It has been said by a member of the court that 'the court is an agent of the League of Nations and is most intimately connected with it.' Judge Logan, who is now sitting in the court, says that it occupies a place similar to that of a supreme court to the state. We haven't any world court. We have a legal department of the League of Nations, and this we are asked to join.

WHY NOT SEPARATE THEM?

"Why not separate this court from the league? I want it absolutely uncontrolled by a political institution that has to do with 10,000 political questions that arise internationally. I have not discussed the wisdom or unwisdom of advisory opinion. Here is a league not connected with the court that may call on the Court for an advisory opinion just as the President of the United States may call upon the attorney general. I am concerned to know what relation is sustained between the League of Nations and the court. No closer relationship could be established. Only the league may call upon the court for an advisory opinion.

"The principles which I contend for have been the principles advocated by leading men of both parties for the past fifty years. John Bassett Moore, an eminent authority, says that the giving of an advisory opinion is fundamentally contrary to the proper function of an international court. Shall we heedlessly disregard the opinions of such men?

As

"Let us now consider the court as a judicial body. I want you to separate in your minds the two different phases of this court. now proposed, this court is not any more like that proposed by Elihu Root than night is like day. Under Mr. Root's proposition, any nation could be heard. Under the League of Nations, no nation can be heard except by consent of the offending nation.

"Over in China tonight, we see the League of Nations working and the court, breeding another world war; and yet they say to me that this League of Nations is promoting the peace of the world.

"They said that all of the press were for this court. They were about all for the League of Nations, but I don't know if any of them are for it now, or not. President Harding, from the first, favored a world court and not a League of Nations court, and I supported him on that proposition. The sole contention is that we have the court separated from the league. Who makes the laws for the court? The Versailles treaty is the international law of Europe. It is necessary to have an international code of law, as clearly stated by Mr. Root.

"As my friend from California said last night, the world court is not under the control of anyone. If that does not constitute judicial despotism, I do not know what it is.

"We could divorce the court from the league and thus stay out of the league and join the court, but the league will not consent. They feel that they have an opportunity to do what they have failed hereto

fore to do, get us into the league, tie us up with the league, so they will not consent to have an independent court. They are not primarily interested in the court; they are primarily interested in the league. We could keep our pledge to stay out of the league and still be a member of an independent world court, but the league people say you must have a league court, you can have no other. So this is a fight not against the world court but against the league court, and the battle goes on just the same as it did five years ago. Hundreds of thousands of dollars are being expended by the same organizations and under the same direction and by reason of the same influences which tried to put us into the league. Speakers are employed and writers are paid by the same organizations as tried to entangle us directly in all the political affairs of Europe.

"They talk court but they are fighting for the league. The hand is the hand of Esau, but the voice is the voice of Jacob.

HARDING ON COURT

"Here let me quote the words of President Harding in one of his last utterances upon this subject:

'Two conditions are indispensable to our joining the court. First, that the tribunal be so constituted as to appear and to be, in theory and in practice, in form and in substance, beyond a shadow of a doubt a world court and not a league court.' When that statement was made, I declared publicly from my home in Boise that upon that platform I would support the president to the end. When I met him at Pocatello a few days afterward on his fateful trip, he said, referring to my declaration, 'Bill, that is my platform. If the reservations offered do not accomplish that, make them so they will and I will support them.' And then he added, 'We want this court absolutely disassociated with the league.' I will gladly, enthusiastically support a world court which is divorced from the league, uncontrolled by any political and international institution, a court operating under law. That kind of a court will serve the cause of peace. I will not support any other.

"In conclusion, I think we ought to have a body of international law to govern the court, and written into this law a declaration to the effect that war is a crime and that those guilty of planning it and bringing it on are condemned. President Wilson well said that the people do not make war. I say to the nations of Europe: If you are not willing to write this declaration into your code of law, for your court, we'll stay out until you do. The United States ought to say to the nations of Europe: 'Yes, we will help you, but you should punish the men who are plotting for another war.'

WHERE AMERICA'S POWER LIES

"They say that the nations of Europe will not consent to any such thing. I propose to keep this republic on safe ground. We have been for 150 years going on the doctrine of George Washington. We have simply done as he told us we should do. We have not entangled ourselves in the affairs of Europe. This is as essential for the next 150 years as it has been for the past 150 years. It means that we shall never enter into any combination, but decide questions that arise on the basis of justice.

"I suppose every sane man and normal woman wants peace. There is no glory awaiting mortal effort equal to the glory which will come to those who really rid the world of war and all its misery, but what is

the greatest guarantee of peace in the world today? It is this free, uncontracted and untrammeled republic. What is the most powerful balance wheel, the greatest steadying force in this world of tumult and strife? It is this republic uncommitted and independent, free to throw its influence and its moral leadership on the side of order and law, of righteousness and peace. Anything which ties this nation into the policies of Europe and commits it to the politics of Europe, anything which entangles us in European affairs, anything which commits us to the Versailles treaty and its basic principles of imperialism is not only a menace to our people and to our institutions, but make against the peace of the world.

"So far as I am concerned, I shall test every proposition submitted to me by the question as to how it affects the independence and the untrammeled power of this government. I shall do so not only because I believe it to be the best for our own country and our own people but because I believe it to be the best service we can render to the cause of peace."

A STUDY OF JUVENILE DELINQUENCY IN THIRTY

COUNTIES OF IDAHO

By Robert D. Leeper, Lewiston, Idaho.

INTRODUCTION

In view of prevalent public discussion, it has occurred to me that an investigation of juvenile delinquency in a rural field would be of interest and benefit to many citizens concerned with the problem. The light of scientific research along this line seldom penetrates into the small communities where the majority of our people live, and a scientific discussion can be of no particular value to those who do not understand it. Therefore, in approaching this work, I have been actuated by a wish to present a study which would be accurate, and at the same time of interest to the average citizen in rural communities.

I have purposely avoided all technical and scientific discussion, in which I realize my field would be extremely limited, and have relied entirely on knowledge derived from non-scientific sources. The statements which I make are based on statistics, records, and opinions of laymen in the thirty counties who happen at this time to be charged with responsibility by law.

The statistics represent a fairly accurate cross section of the entire problem in Idaho. The opinions of the contributors express in homely language what is undoubtedly the trend of thought of the average citizen upon the subject, and will be readily understood and appreciated.

The conclusions which I have drawn are based entirely upon the information received from those non-scientific sources, and from my own observations as a layman. Thus, I have hoped to present an accurate and just exposition of two things-First-the existence of a juvenile delinquency problem in rural communities. Second-the trend of untrained lay thought upon the subject. If I shall have succeeded in doing this, it will be interesting to note whether there is a coincidence with scientific thought along the same line.

In preparing the report I have gone directly to those charged with the enforcement of the juvenile laws in this state, the probate judge of each county. These men are not trained in any sense of the word, as they are elected politically every two years. The information herewith submitted was compiled by them. Each one was asked to submit his views on the subject of child delinquency, and nearly all of them did so. I also have received help from Mr. Vincent, the superintendent of our State Reform School, and several sheriffs and some private citizens. I asked for two typical cases from each county, and have appended hereto many such transcripts. With very rare exceptions I found these untrained political officials deeply interested in child welfare, and ready and anxious to do everything which I required. The demands made on them were very heavy, and were cheerfully met except in one instance. It appeared to me best to go to these sources for information, because it is by these untrained men and others like them that most of our laws are administered.

As far as I know, this is the first compilation of statistics on delinquencies in Idaho. I have made no statements except as shown by the records of the various counties, but in considering these it must be borne in mind that of necessity these records are very incomplete. Some of the small counties have no records of juvenile cases at all, and in some whole years are missing. In the smaller counties a great