Chance to Go Forward

Through Washington this week spanged the opening shots of a battle over whether or not the U.S. will work wholeheartedly to help develop a world rule of law. The battleground was the 83rd annual meeting of the American Bar Association. Drawn up on one side were the forces that want the U.S. to lead in establishing a workable system of international law, on the other a determined rear guard, that is ready to fight tooth-and-nail to halt a necessary practical step. Point at issue is the so-called Connally Reservation, by which the U.S. reserves the right to label any international dispute involving itself as a "domestic" issue and thus escape jurisdiction by the World Court at The Hague.

The reservation was highballed through the Senate by Texas' Tom Connally in 1946. The following year the A.B.A. resoundingly urged its repeal on grounds that the Connally Reservation, rather than protecting the U.S.. would cripple the workings of the World Court to the eventual detriment of U.S. interests. A bipartisan campaign to repeal the Connally Reservation has won the backing of President Eisenhower, Vice President Nixon, Secretary of State Herter, Attorney General William Rogers, Democratic Senators Hubert Humphrey, J. William Fulbright and John Kennedy. It may pass the Senate next year. Hoping to influence the Senate's decision, a conservative faction in the A.B.A. has been working hard to persuade the bar association to reverse its 13-year stand in condemnation of the Connally Reservation.

Fears of Disarmament. Captain of this legal rear guard is a militant A.B.A. past-president, Frank Holman. 74, of Seattle, author and bankroller of a 32-page pro-Connally pamphlet that is being circulated to leaders of the 99,400-member association as well as to women's clubs, veterans' groups and editors around the nation. Dismissing the proponents of repeal as "internationalists" and "world government enthusiasts," Holman argues that "the Connally Reservation is necessary to protect the U.S. against a program of supernational supervision of its citizens," imposed by alien jurists who could make up rules as they went along because the body of international law is incomplete and indecisive. His conclusion: "In view of the present state of the world, we should not legally disarm any more than we should disarm militarily."

Leader of the repeal forces is hardworking Charles Rhyne, 48, past president of the A.B.A. (TIME Cover, May 5, 1958), and chairman of the A.B.A.'s Special Committee on World Peace Through Law. His case rests on one powerful point: if the world is to avoid war it must turn, step by step, toward the rule of law which promises orderly settlement of disputes through the administration of international justice. Under the terms of the

United Nations Charter, the World Court cannot interfere in domestic disputes. The Connally Reservation, by empowering the U.S. to decide what disputes are domestic, encourages other nations to use the same device to stay out of the reach of international justice. For this reason, argue Rhyne & Co. in reply to the Holman rear guard, the Connally Reservation itself really legally disarms the U.S.

Moment of Opportunity. "The rule of law is our greatest strength, and lack of it the Communists' greatest weakness," concludes the Rhyne committee, in a report to be presented to the A.B.A. this week. "We, of all nations, must play the role of leader, not follower, in the search for peace. And in the legal field we are obviously lagging badly behind the other great free world nations rather than assuming our leadership position."

President Eisenhower has promised that if the Connally Reservation is rescinded, he will use the moral and political authority of the U.S. to urge all the nations of the globe to accept compulsory jurisdiction by the World Court.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.