With Lenroot chaperoning the victors and Johnson thundering for the opposition, the World Court rode through the Senate, 76-17. Wilson is dead; Harding is dead; Lodge and LaFollette are dead. What does this tardy victory of the proponents of international cooperation mean? Is it, as Johnson solemnly warned, "the way towards the League?" Is it a sop, alike to the leadership of Coolidge and the idealism of the nation?

The resolution reads simply enough. The United States has voted to join the World Court of International Justice without acceding to the optional clause giving the Court compulsory jurisdiction. The United States disclaims any legal connection with the League, exacts the right to participate in the choosing of judges, promises to share the expenses of the Court, asserts the right of withdrawal, requires that all advisory opinions be public, and none rendered touching the United States without its consent. A nation sitting in the League Council can, because the Council functions by unanimity, prevent any request for an advisory opinion. The last reservation but secures an equal power to the United States.

Upon the probable consent of the member nations to these reservations the United States will become, to all intents and purposes, a full member of the World Court. As an international event, this move is of moment. As a political accomplishment, it presents a nice problem. The adherence has been promulgated under a resolution requested by a Republican president, introduced by a Democratic senator, sponsored by a non-partisan majority, and opposed by an irregular Republican minority. Does the act but fulfill the old Republican promise of 1920? Does it vindicate the leadership of Calvin Coolidge? Or does it split his party irreparably? Does it end an old battle or begin a new?