not intended to constitute another tribunal. The parties may submit matters to arbitration outside of this court, if they deem
proper. When they so submit them to arbitration, they determine to whom they will submit them. There is in ,the covenant provision for the creation of one court, and one court only; I am speaking now of the court proper. There is provision for the constitution of bodies to decide certain questions about transit and communications but looking at it from the point of view of the court of justice, this is the one court.
This is, as I understand it, the court that was suggested, so far as any court was suggested, by the United States of America. Mr. Root, as I pointed out, took a most prominent part in the work of the committee.
with a plan can be said to have been suggested by the United States of America, officially, the United States have never suggested any court at all, so far as I know. Of course, if the hon. gentleman has information that they have, then I am speaking about something that I do not know.
limited, but by reading the Bill and the schedule attached to it, I notice that this tribunal only refers to members- of the league. The United States is not a member of the league. Therefore, how can this tribunal be suggested by the United States?
I have not stated that the United States of America in any official way suggested this court, but I may point out that by provisions of this very statute itself the United States of America has access to this court, if it so desires, even though it should not become a member of the League, because to all those nations mentioned in the schedule to the covenant access to the court is extended. I do not want to be misunderstood. I was not in any sense speaking with any suggestion of criticism when I said that possibly the hon. gentleman had information with regard to the United States that I had not, because I am perfectly free to confess that I have never concerned myself with endeavouring to find out in any definite way whether the United States had ever made any concrete proposal for a court. If I am to give what I gather from the newspapers, I
gather that after Mr. Root's return he did speak in(high terms, as I understood him, of the court as projected in the plan to which he was a party, and I am under the impression that that was followed by certain expressions by a gentleman who at that time was a candidate for the presidency with regard to the value of a court, and I think he spoke of a court with teeth in it.
Any state not a member of the league that avails itself of its access of the court, will then find itself subject to having determined by the court what contribution it ought to make to pay the expenses entailed by the court by reason of that nation using it.
I have endeavoured to put before the committee what seemed to me to be the salient features of the project. I shall be very happy, if hon. gentlemen have questions to ask, to answer them to the best of my ability.
The jurisdiction, as I 'have already said, as a rule depends on the referring of the matters by the party. Then that is extended. Article 36 provides that the jurisdiction of the court comprises all cases which the parties refer to it, "and all matters specially provided for in treaties and conventions in force."