New-York tribune., 1921-12-13
he called for It's limitation
and ultimate bnnishmont.


and ultimate banishment.
| Referring to the fact that In view
Of the origin of the suggestion Of limit
Ing the Notwithstanding the sug-
gcstion Of Great Britain--therc was la
some quarters fear Of "sinister or
ulterior motivc," Senator Borah held
this ought not be permitted to prevent
right action. He touched on the diff
ference between England and France in
these nations should havo fear Of their
relationship.
Then, taking up the four-power treaty,
| Senator Borah said:
"My attitude toward It will be deter
mined by what the conference docs with
reference to real disarmament and with
reference to China"
Giving his views on Article II OF the
four-power treaty, he contended that
Pacific islands leading to the calling
of a conference, the four great powers
assembled, being the great naval pow
crs of the world, would resort to force
to meet the exigency.
Senator Reed interrupted to say that
Japan and England, shave together
seized every island in the Pacific
ocean" and under the alliance the
United States would be involved with
|
islands"
Senator poindexter contended the
new treaty Imposed no obligation on
the United States which did not al
ready exist.
Contemplatcs Force, Says Reed
Senator Reed insisted that the
to protect the rights Of tho four ma
tions in the Pacific, and Senator
Poindcxter dissented from this view.
The moral obligation under Article
II was just like that Of Article X, ac
cording to Senator Borah.
"This Article II does not provide for
anything but aggression" he said. He
added once more the decision of Amer
lean representatives in tho conference
would be morally binding.
But they could not go beyond the
constitutional right Of Congress-" said
! Senator Poindexter.
"Tho moral obligation is there SO
long as the treaty is in existence"
said Senator Borah.
Senator Reed recalled that exactly
the same argument as that Of Senator
| PoindeXter with relation to the con-
stitutional right of Congress to make
final decision on war was brought forth
in the debate on Article x.
Under Article II, there is no legal
or moral obligation to preserve ter
ritorial integrity" said Senator Poin-
dexter.
Likened to Article x
"The obligation under Article X and
Article III is exactly the same" said
Senator Robinson. "The Senator from
Idaho is exactly correct"
He proceeded to argue that Article
x was not as strong as Article II
coupled with the first clause of Article
| of the four-power treaty 1t was con-
tended by Senator Poindexter the new
treaty did not obligate the United
States to preserve territorial integrity
and political independence, but Sena-
tor Reed held the obligations under it
were like those under Article Y.
Senator Watson, of Georgia, wanted
to know of Senator Poindexter whether
he thought the Japanese would end the
Angl lo-Japanese alliance unless they
got something equally as good. Senator
Borah observed Japan was fully capa-
Bile of taking care of herself, as was
demonstrated at Versailles and at this
conference.
Senator Poindexter put into the rec.
ord letter from a Seattle constituent
denouncing activities Of the Japanese
on the Pacific coast Of the United
States and declaring they had violated
the immigration agreement Of the
Roosevelt Administration.
Senator Reed thought it singular
that a defense of the alliance by Sena-
tor Poindexter should be followed by
a letter accusing Japan of direct VIC.
lation of an agreement already made"