Evening star., 1921-12-13
OPPONENTS.
/. FACE HARD TASK
Determined Effort to Take
Issue to Next Election
Is Forecasted.
TWO TELL Of OPPOSITION

heed ana watson OF Georgia. Vnly
Senators 0utspoken Against
Terms Of Pact. 81
BY LEROY r. VERNON.
Whether or not the settlements Of
the conference on the limitation Of
armament reach the electorate Of
the United States in the congress
sional elections next fall, deter
mined effort will be made in the
United States Senate to send them
there for a final decision. At the
present time the hope Of success for
the opponents Of the tentative treaty
covering the island possessions Of the
United States, Britain, Japan and
France in the Pacific Is not good. Not
only are the mild reservationists" In
the Senate coming out rapidly in ap-
proval of the new treaty, but the "irre-
concilables' themselves. except the most
rabid Of that small coterie. are divided.
Unless there is some other development
of this conference which completely up
sets the first favorable impression made
upon the Senate by. the new treaty.
ton by that body.
The outspoken comments Of the oppo-
nents Of the treaty, which thus far. In
clude only Senators James A. Reed OF
Missouri and Thomas Watson Of
confined to assertions that the Pacific
pact is no different in principle from the
covenant Of the league of nations IN the
Versailles treaty. Many good demo-
Gratis who will vote for the new treaty
for giving 1t their support. On tho con-
trary. II the treaty could be definitely
shown to be similar in principle to arti-
Gle x Of the league covenant. the oppo-
sition to it in the Senate would be con-
siderable.
Opponents Face Hard Task.
1t is this doubt which at present IS
restraining unqualified approval Of the
new treaty by some of the ''irreconcila- :
bles." but it is'noteworthy that most Of
the former mild reservationists," some
Of whom, like Senators New and Wat
son Of Indiana, bordered on the 'frre-
concilable." have already resolved their
the task Of it's opponents harder than
ever before. 1t is the opinion of many
influential senators that only a failure
to arrive at a satisfactory solution Of
the naval ratio question or a genuine
failure to receive the Chinese problem
GUS shoals in the Senate.
Singly and by groups the 'irrecon-
cilable" element in the Senate Is Civ
ing its careful attention to the new
treaty, and Senator Borah, who. up
to this time. has withheld his judg-
ment. is preparing a careful analysis
from his point of view which will be
forthcoming soon. In their study of
the treaty they have discovered that
lit deals exclusively with islands now
owned by the signatory powers and
that it has as yet no ,, relation to
displeased with the time limit Of ten
years placed on the life of the treaty
or with the specific method provided
for its abrogation at the end Of that
time. Those of them who favor the
principle Of the Bryan treaties are
limit on the cooling off" process
provided, including the proposal to
discuss the issue at a joint confer
ence.
Question Meaning Of Text.
The first provision in the treaty
upon which the ''irreconcilables" will
ask more information is that provi-
sion which empowers this conference
of the signatory powers Ito adjust
the differences which may arise be-
tween themselves. Primarily. the
powers in controversy are to en-
deavor to reach a settlement diplo-
matically. failing in which the joint
conference" procedure is to be fol-
lowed. Apparently there is a moral
obligation involved here and the
treaty itself does not elucidate this
point further. However. nowhere is
there any mandatory provision re-
quiring any of the signatories to ac-
cept an adjustment" which is not
satisfactory. This provision differs
| fSo1o nf a o.
nant, which asserts that ANY war
or threat of war is matter of con-
Germ to the whole league and en-
powers the council of the league to
take "any action deemed wise and
effectual to safeguard the peace of
nations"
Likewise in the matter of "aggres-
sive action by any power not sig
natory to the treaty. affecting the
rights" on the signatories in their
island possessions in the Pacific. the
"irreconcilables" have found vast
treaty and the Versailles pact. Under
the new treaty the signatories are
bound to confer with one another I'm
order to arrive at an understanding
as to the most eficacious measures
to be taken" as each particular stu
alton" arises. but each is left free to
say whether it will act with the other
powers or separately" after that
Understanding" is reached.
Differs With Versailles Pact.
In the Versailles covenant the coun-
Gil of the league is required TO ad-
wise upon the means by which thls
obligatinn shall be fulfilled" in the
a provision written in mandatory Ian
guage. although. in practice. tndivid-
ual nations have followed "the advice
Of the council or not. as they have
seen fit. In the new treaty the limi-
tation of exchanges of opinion to a
walton that the signatory powers may
act, with all the facts before them,
Separately or jointly" doubtless EN-.
bodies an attempt to resolve many OF
the Senate's objections to the league
covenant in clear and definite Ian
guage.
is a provision that ratification must
be had "in accordance with the con-
stftutional methods of the high con-
tracing parties wholly unneces-
sary provision SO far as this govern,
be ratified otherwise. As an evidence
of the good faith of President Hard
ing and the American delegation to-
ward Congress and the people, how
ever, its inclusion attains more than
ordinary importance II. It was shain 1nteneHd doeHa
ment and as evidence in support OF
the assertion of those who drafted 1t
that no step can be taken under the
treaty. other than communications
and conferences looking to an un.
derstanding." without the consent of
whether the opponents Of the treaty
can successfully combat the dec
iaration that Congress has it's full
constitutional rights adequately safe