New-York tribune., 1921-12-11
Treaty Fortified
By Signatories'
Will for Peace
League of Nations Bound
4dhcrenfs 10 Protect Adj
vantages Won in War, as
Simonds Sees Difference
Force Idea Now Absent
Similar Pact Impossible In
Europe Until Existing
Feuds Can Be Reconciled
Ry Frank II. Sironda

WASHlNGI YIN. 0eC- &oe--Q OVlOASIy
.s.rs srs msny angles to the treaty Of
Washington a. proposed to-day which
asv;de interest, but there is one sur
,sss;ng all others. We have fro
mentIy been told in recent days by
President Harding and By others Of the
,ossibility that one result OF the pres
.rt conference would be the establish
-, Of the conference idea ard another
.ss creation OF Al association OF ma
scns. What, then. is the bearing OF
.,e rrescnt proposal upon these earlier
expectations
r. seeking TO meet this question one
r.v dismiss as obvious the necessity
,.r some agreement which would re-
,,see tbs Angio-Japanese treaty and
,r.pa-s the way FOR later agreement
.,ou a limitation Of naval armament.
Co far the adequacy of the proposed
trsatv is unmiseakabfe, but obviously
sonethinc more was sought for and, in
the minds OF the makers OF the present
secument, has been attained.
Compared With Article X
N this connection it is natural and
tnevitable that Article II of the pro
nased treaty should be compared with
Article OF the covenant of the
lsarue Of Nations, and. indeed, that
here should be q wide comparison Of
both documents. AT the outset how
aver. one clear distinction must be rec
ognixed. Each document carries with
!. a sanction of the status quo, but
rhereas in the Paris treaty Arclcle Y
Of the covenant binds the members OF
tie esgue TO preserve as against ex-
ssrnal aggression the territorial in
.errity and the existing political inde-
oendence OF all members of the league,
and in case Of aggression or threat OF
aggression imposes upon the Council
f the League Of Nations the duty OF
detsrmining the means by which this
obligation should be fulfilled, Article
q OF the Washington document i'm
ycses no other obligation than that the
oowers shall communicate with one an
a.her fully and frankly in order to ar
rive at an understanding as to the most
sfic;ent measures 30 be taken jointly
gr separately to meet the exigencies OF
the particular situation.
The difference between the two IN
'srakings is then fairly patent. In
.aeory the United States was bound,
when Russia invaded Poland two years
ago. to abide by the decision OF the
-puncii OF the League OF Nations as
. what u as it's duty in the premises,
ssuning that it had ratified the treaty.
u the presen. case, if the kingdom of
hyssinia should attack French New
Caledonia the extent OF the obligation
II the United States would be to enter
into communication with France,
Great Britain and Japan as to what
should be done about the matter.
The difference there is real If some
That technical. What signifies, how
ever, is the fact that the covenant OF
the League of Nations was made st
nations concerned, but as guaranty
u the possessions acquired by certain
nations as the result OF war against
ether countries which were not men,-
bers Of the league and were not likely
70 be.
League Protected Wax Gains
In other words, the League Of Ma
( ions guaranteed status quo created
i By war and guaranteed it against sub
Il ssquent effort on the part Of the ma
Hons not members OF the league to re-
i gain territory taken from them by the
Washington made in full peace between
all the great powers concerned is not
n any sense an alliance against any
sns, Id not a guaranty of q possession
challenged by any great power. In
s nality it is no more than self-deny-
lne ordinance which binds all this
high contracting powers to respect tho
nsit and sovereignty Of sll others.
great deal has been talked and
1,ittsn about the differences between
league OF nations and an association
u nations. There is q very geuerH
sad profound hope that what has been
cone hers in Washington may prove to
- nrss stop In . general world re-
adjustment.
NOW, It seems TO me that the sjRnih-
aus shing about the present treaty Of
nssnington newly proposed ia that it
ID presents voluntary association of
~ parties with interests in the prem
s. II, for example, one could sup
eSe an agreement between Germany,
lance, Italy and Great Britain couched
:. me same language and voluntarily
ssosnlzlhg the existence OF some
.asas quo in western Europe mutually
.ssp'abls TO all four it is patent how
"'s would be the gain for peace.
u distinction Clearly Apparent
AZ Is perfectly clear how different
ss would be from the guaranty con-
sasa IN the Covenant Of the League
Nseons, assuring France. Italy and
10y britain, as members of the
sr, AVE-, from attack by Germany, a
aember Germany signed the
ssaIy OF Versailles under duress, as
s.s.s sse signed the Treaty Of Frankfort
yay nalf century before. But no
s,shchman ever accepted as matter
sustice the settlement of 1871, and
YET remains TO be seen whether Ger
n5 will accept save as a matter of
q sS sne settlement Of 1919
4 sun, 1t seems clear that, while 1t
.e,sas'oie to point to manifest diff
day l'e between the language Of Arti-
ys,,ssoi VI sne Covenant Of the League of
arsoa anS ard that Of Article II of the
III tsg'sed a:d treaty Of Washington, the
~ .IIaaerence must be found in the
ssk .ass the earlier document under
" preserve situation created SIS
suissa sit OF successful war and to
nsmhs. " against challenge by non
tn ~ ., the league, and was, there
AN n aiiiance pure and simple, while
avsociation created by the treaty
.saaington is a friendly agreement
hdvsin, Tour nations long accustomed
lssr;rs IN peace. no one of them pos
,authss anything claimed or coveted by
Vn ~ and each relying implicitly
nesss good faith Of the other three.
A4ssss from this angle. the difference
ceasne sne treaty of Washington and
Mh.eaanS of the League Of Nations