Justice. I believe it would be for the advantage of this country and helpful to the stability of other nations for us to adhere to the protocol establishing that court upon the conditions stated in the recommendation which is now before the Senate, and further that our country shall not be bound by advisory opinions which may be rendered by the court upon questions which we have not voluntarily submitted for its judgment. This court would provide a practical and convenient tribunal before which we could go voluntarily, but to which we could not be summoned, for a determination of justiciable questions when they fail to be resolved by diplomatic negotiations. DISARMAMENT CONFERENCE Many times I have expressed my desire to see the work of the Washington Conference on Limitation of Armaments appropriately supplemented by further agreements for a further reduction and for the purpose of diminishing the menace and waste of the competition in preparing instruments of international war. It has been and is my expectation that we might hopefully approach other great powers for further conference on this subject as soon as the carrying out of the present reparation plan as the established and settled policy of Europe has created a favorable opportunity. But on account of proposals which have already been made by other governments for a European conference, it will be necessary to wait to see what the outcome of their actions may be. I should not wish to propose or have representatives attend a conference which would contemplate commitments opposed to the freedom of action we desire to maintain unimpaired with respect to our purely domestic policies. INTERNATIONAL LAW Our country should also support efforts which are being made toward the codification of international law. We can look more hopefully, in the first instance, for research and studies that are likely to be productive of results, to a cooperation among representatives of the bar and members of international law institutes and societies, than to a conference of those who are technically representative of their respective governments, although, when projects have been developed, they must go to the governments for their approval. These expert professional studies are going on in certain quarters and should have our constant encouragement and approval. OUTLAW OF WAR Much interest has of late been manifested in this country in the discussion of various proposals to outlaw aggressive war. I look with great sympathy upon the examination of this subject. It is in harmony with the traditional policy of our country, which is against aggressive war and for the maintenance of permanent and honorable peace. While, as I have said, we must safeguard our liberty to deal according to our own judgment with our domestic policies, we can not fail to view with sympathetic interest all progress to this desired end or carefully to study the measures that may be proposed to attain it. LATIN AMERICA While we are desirous of promoting peace in every quarter of the globe, we have a special interest in the peace of this hemisphere. It is our constant desire that all causes of dispute in this area may be tranquilly and satisfactorily adjusted. Along with our desire for peace is the earnest hope for the increased prosperity of our sister republics of Latin America, and our constant purpose to promote cooperation with them which may be mutually beneficial and always inspired by the most cordial friendships. FOREIGN DEBTS About $12,000,000,000 is due to our Government from abroad, mostly from European Governments. Great Britain, Finland, Hungary, Lithuania and Poland have negotiated settlements amounting close to $5,000,000,000. This represents the funding of over 42 per cent of the debt since the creation of the special Foreign Debt Commission. As the life of this commission is about to expire, its term should be extended. I am opposed to the cancellation of these debts and believe it for the best welfare of the world that they should be liquidated and paid as fast as possible. I do not favor oppressive measures, but unless money that is borrowed is repaid credit can not be secured in time of necessity, and there exists besides a moral obligation which our country can not ignore and no other country can evade. Terms and conditions may have to conform to differences in the financial abilities of the countries concerned, but the principle that each country should meet its obligation admits of no differences and is of universal application. It is axiomatic that our country can not stand still. It would seem to be perfectly plain from recent events that it is determined. to go forward. But it wants no pretenses, it wants no vagaries. It is determined to advance in an orderly, sound and common-sense way. It does not propose to abandon the theory of the Declaration that the people have inalienable rights which no majority and no power of government can destroy. It does not propose to abandon the practice of the Constitution that provides for the protection of these rights. It believes that within these limitations, which are imposed not by the fiat of man but by the law of the Creator, selfgovernment is just and wise. It is convinced that it will be impossible for the people to provide their own government unless they continue to own their own property. These are the very foundations of America. On them has been erected a Government of freedom and equality, of justice and mercy, of education and charity. Living under it and supporting it the people have come into great possessions on the material and spiritual sides of life. I want to continue in this direction. I know that the Congress shares with me that desire. I want our institutions to be more and more expressive of these principles. I want the people of all the earth to see in the American flag the symbol of a Government which intends no oppression at home and no aggression abroad, which in the spirit of a common brotherhood provides assistance in time of distress. THE WHITE HOUSE, December 3, 1924. CALVIN COOLIDGE LIST OF PAPERS [Unless otherwise specified, the correspondence is from or to officials in the Department of State.] GENERAL PROPOSALS For the Adherence of the UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS TO THE SPITZBERGEN TREATY OF FEBRUARY 9, 1920 Date and Subject Page 1924 Mar. 20 Apr. 30 From the Norwegian Minister Inquiry whether the United States would raise any objection if Russia should be invited to adhere to the Spitzbergen Treaty at the same time as other nonsignatory powers. Information that other governments signatory to the treaty have also been approached. To the Norwegian Minister Opinion that the question raised by Norway appears to be Undated Memorandum by the Secretary of State of a Conversation with the June 23 June 27 Ambassador's suggestion of a protocol providing for Russian adherence to Spitzbergen Treaty notwithstanding provisions of article 10 of the treaty. Secretary's promise to consider whether the suggestion amounted to amendment of article 10, which could not be accomplished without consent of the Senate. From the Norwegian Minister Synopsis of replies received by Norway from France, Netherlands, Great Britain, Italy, Denmark, and Sweden in regard to Russian adherence to the treaty. Request for U. S. reconsideration. (Footnote: Synopsis of Japanese reply to Norwegian inquiry.) To the Norwegian Minister Information that the United States would raise no objection should the powers signatory_to the Spitzbergen Treaty desire to invite the adherence of Russia, provided such absence of objection is not construed as constituting recognition of the present regime in Russia. Undated To the French Embassy Proposed draft of agreement relative to adherence of regime of Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to Spitzbergen Treaty. 1 2 2 3 4 5 XXV |