The Washington herald. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1906-1939, 1921-12-11

Foreign Delegates Fear
Senate Action on China

view OF Harding and Hughes and
the American delegation. Whatever
they may think about the best theo-
retical form for an agreement. they
must take into account the problem
OF what the Senate would be will
ing to ratify. The question of what
the Senate will do undoubtedly
marks the limit of what Hughes and
Harding and the American delega
ton regard as feasible for them to
attempt. Persons whose opportun-
tiles for knowing cannot be doubted
have been quoted publicly as say
ing that Harding regards a gentle
mems agreement to be just as sat
isfactory as the most irOnclad
treaty. The President has been de-
scribed as feeling that the essential
thing is mutual trust and that this
must be depended on more than the
letter of any contract possible to be
written.
AS to the Senate itself. what II
Will actually do when the time
comes can only be estimated after
we know more fully and accurately
just what form the outcome OF the
present deliberations is to take. The
possible forms which the outcome
can take are several. There could be
q very binding treaty in the matter
OF naval limitation and the matter
of the Far East could be put in a
| treaty or an agreement of a less
binding form. on the other hand.
the two things. naval limitation and
the Far East, can be combined in
a single agreement. Several differ
ent variations of this combination
are possible. AS to the Senate, IL
IT were presented with an agree
ment about naval limitation. stand
ing alone, there could hardly be
any question that il would ratify
such treaty and would not be dis
turbed by any degree of rigidity or
binding quality in it.
ship Agreement Easy.
A treaty for the Limitation of
naval armament would pass the
Senate almost unanimously Pos
sloly few Senators would take ex-
treme positions of one kind or an
other, but all the objections that
would be raised in the Senate to n
treaty on naval limitation alone
would be negligible
But treaty embodying agree
ments about the Far East would
stand on quite different basis in
the eyes of the Senate. How the
senate would act upon it can not be
discussed with any adequacy until
the form and substance of 1t are
better known. If the agreement
about the Far East were in such a
form as to be called IAN alliance"
the Senate would look upon it with
suspicion. The word alliance" in
the eyes OF the Senate has come to
be a sign of something to be scru-
tinized with jealous care.
Speaking in the broadest way, we
must all remember what the tim
orous and less well-informed for
eigners forget, namely. that In the
league of nations debate Wilson
was of one party and the Senate
was of the opposition party, where
as now the Senate and the President
are of the same party. What a Re-
publican Senate would do with a
treaty by Republican President is
dinerent from what the Republican
Senate did with a treaty negotiated
by Democratic President. This
may be sad, but it is an actuality.
OF course, the irreconcilables are
still with US. Most OF the irrecon-
cilables are less bound by party
discipline and party loyalty than
the other Senators are. Senator
Borah, Of Idaho. for example, who
was unquestionably the leader OF
the irreconcilables. would not be
moved from any course that seemed
to him right by the fact that he
was in opposition to a Republican
President. There was much truth
in the humorous line in which wal