Pine Bluff daily graphic., 1920-01-31
4CE TREATY WILL B() BACK TO FLOOR: CONFERENCES FAIL
Partisan Movement Meets I Disaster On Article Ten
TIER AFTERMATH IN I STORE, IS PREDICTION
Ehcock and Lodge, to Take Up
 Battle Where It Left Off With Conference Failure As An
 Added Issue

Conference Failure As An
 Added Issue
 fashington, Jan. 30.-Efforts to
 kk the peace treaty deadlock by
 fficial bipartisan negotiations
 ed suddenly in failure today and
 hocratc senate leaders began
 paration to bring the treaty back
 the open senate for considera-
 was over the long debated ar
 10 that the bipartisan move
 t after bringing republicans and
 bocrats together on many collate-
 Issues, finally met disaster. The
 came after Senator Lodge of
 sachusetts, the republican leader,
 renewed his refusal to compro-
 e on that article and had rejected
 Reservation on the subject, writ
 by former President Taft and
 sented to the bipartisan concilia-
 committee by the democrats.
 Walking out of the conference
 the announcement that further
 berations there were useless, the hocrats quickly drafted plans to
 lew the fight in the open. The
 Ing party leader, Senator Hitch K of Nebraska, announced that ice would be given in the senate borrow of his intention to move
 February 10 to take up the treaty
 ratification.
 Opinion was divided as to wheth- such motion would prevail. If it does, Senator Hitchcock. ex- fts to propose, he said, that the bate adopt those reservations or ich tentative agreement had been Ached in the committee and then Int but differences over the others. Idraft of the committees work kde public by MT. Hitchcock did F correspond with a review of it's eomplishments given out by Sena- f Lodge, however, and bitter termath seemed in store should the mocratic plan of open discussion Ecarried out.
 Tentative agreement Sena t o r (tchcock said had been reached by F committee on the preamble and of the IA proposed reservations, only subjects remaining at issue Ing article 10 and the Monroe doc he. Senator Lodge maintained ht there were in all six of the on which no agreement, even of a ntative nature, had been consum- lted.
 The move of the democrats in this reservation came
 a surprise, the leaders on both les having indicated before hand at any discussion of article 10 obably would be put over until xt week.
 What happened was described thus Senator Hitchcock in announcing e negotiation were at end.
 Hitchcock's Statement We presente dthe Taft reserva- 'n on article 10 as our proposi- ,n.
 There was some consideration as
 it's act meaning. We urged them accept it, or to take a few days decide, but Senator oLdge said he uld not accept it.
 We then asked them if they had y counter proposal or would make e. MT. Lodge said he could not Ike any counter proposal. l sug- sted that we try to agree on a " for taking up the treaty in the nate, but Senator Lodge did not mt a meeting on that subject. So
 are going to proceed to call 1t To this Senator Lodge had noth- 3 to add. In his statement review the accomplishments of the however, he set forth at lgth his reasons for refusing .o mpromise on article 10 and the 'nroe doctrine.
 Speaking for myself alone," said state, q have only this to say: That I was unable to agree to y change in reservations two and 'e, dealing with article 10 and the 'nroe doctrine. In my opinion servation number two, which pro les that we shall assume no obli- tion of any kind under article 10, cept the one mentioned in the saty that we should ourselves re- ect the boundaries of other na- ms, cannot possibly permit ot angc.
 The change proposed in reserva- 'n number five in regard to the 'nroe doctrine was an absolutely al one because it was accepted as
 official interpretation by the presentative of Great Britain that e Monroe doctrine under the 'aty was to be interpreted by the ague. To this I, for one, could yer assent and in view of the atement made in Paris by the Brit ! delegation to which I have refer d, l regard the line which it was opposed to strike out as absolutely cessary.
 "The United States has always terpreted the Monroe doctrine alone
 IS our policy. No one else has CT attempted to interpret it and it something, in my judgment which gnt never to be permitted even by P most remote implication. If we ould strike out that phrase now ter it has been accepted by the nate, 1t would lead to a direct in renee that we left that question en. The right to interpret the onroe doctrine pertaining to the 1lted States alone must. never be en to question:"
 The proposed change referred to
 the senator was suggestion by e democrats to strike out the re- loilcan reservation the words