New-York tribune., 1921-11-22

desertion.
That no one Of the Allied and assoc
lated powers will be guilty of such a
reproach is evident from the com
ments that followed upon M. Brands
masterly exposition on the part of the
delegations of Great Britain, Italy and
Japan. and the reassuring summary of
the situation by the American Secre-
tsry Of State.
1t was, however, not alone. for even
in the first degree the statistics and
the citations presented in the address
of the Premier of France to demon
strate the grave character of the Euro
pean situation and the grounds for
solicitude entertained in France for
the permanence of peace and the Sc
curity of the republic which were the
most impressive to thoughtful minds
Convincing as these statements were
that France cannot hastily and without
assurance lay down her arms, they were
surpassed in weight by the postulate
that underlay them.
Principle Not Debatable
Whether Germany is really disarmed
or not, whether her remaining quasi
military organizations are formidable
or not, whether she could reconstYtute
an aggressive force or not, may be de-
batable questions. What is not de-
batable or susceptible of contradiction
is the priciple that underlies the whole
of M. Brands argument, namely:
that material disarmament, unaccom-
panied by moral disarmament, is not a
step toward peace but a provocation to
the renewal of war.
No one has ventured to dispute the
truth and validity of this principle.
Every speaker who followed NJ BRAND
or the occasion Of his discourse virtu-
ally conceded it, Mr.. Balfour, in his
prompt and persuasive assurance of
British sympathy with France, not only
conceded it, he emphasized it. He did
more. He made it the basis of strik-
ing contrast between the limitation of
armament on land and naval armament.
The distinction needed only to be
mentioned to become clear in the mind
OF every one. The situation of Europe,
composed of great number of indie
pendent and mutually jealous powers,
many of which are new, most of which
are distrustful of their neighbors or
, dissatisfied with arrangements some
of which have proved disappointing, is
full of complexities and unsettled dis
putes. Until these conditions are over
come, undesirable as it may be, dan
gerous as it surely is, considerable
reliance must still be placed upon
armed self-defense.
Naval Situation Different
The naval situation, Mr.. Balfour
thinks, is quite different, and we must
all agree with him. There are only a
few strong naval powers. In fact, for
practical purposes there are only three
For them a limitation of armament is
easy, mutually advantageous and in ef-
feet already agreed upon.
What has rendered this agreement
,, possible, the British delegate affirms, is
the fact that M. Brands principle is
here in perfect operation. Material
limitation is possible, Mr.. Balfour
already been accomplished. There are
no causes of disagreement between the
chief naval powers. They neither fear
one another nor distrust one another
They are celebrating love feast
Great Britain is happy and satisfied
WITH her existing naval strength. ia
pan is almost satisfied, but would like
few ships in addition. The United
States has no ambition for naval su-
premacy The moral situation, there
fore, justifes the material reduction of
naval force on the part of these three
great maritime powers.
This is of most happy augury. 1t
would imply that all being satisfied
there is nothing left to be done but to
write the final act of the conference
refrain from pressing disarmament
upon France, terminate the negotia-
tion and all go home to enjoy Christ
mas dinner, when every delegate might
country has won a great diplomatic