Great Falls tribune., 1921-12-04
AT THE WASHINGTON
CONFERENCE


~ succeeded to the feeling OF
optimistic enthusiasm that broke
loose in Washington in the early
days of the disarmament confer
.nee. Agreement "in principle" has
as it generally does in diplomatic
contests, turned out to be very
different thing from agreement in
detail. Land disarmament faded
out Of sight as Premier BRAND sail
ed away to France after delivering
his ultimatum. That was, that
France would keep an army capable
of defending its frontiers from ag-
gression until adequate treaty en-
gagements on the part Of the United
States and Great Britain gave it alb
solute guarantees against new war
of revenge on the part Of Germany
So far as this country is concerned,
there is no present possibility OF
meeting that demand and as long
as France remains armed to the
teeth, there will be no general dis
armament in Europe. The Pacific
problems seem also to have struck
some snags, though there is yet hope
that China and Japan may be
brought into agreement.
The three power naval disarma-
ment seems to be in more hopeful
stage, inasmuch as the two largest
naval powers in the world, are in
agreement over it, though the third
power-Japan-is holding out for
a larger ratio than that assigned
to her. But even here. there are
yet many difficulties to overcome
The agreement, if it is made, must
be submitted to congress in the
shape of treaty, we expect. There
is no power lodged in the hands OF
the executive that would permit
him to destroy hundreds of millions
Of dollars worth Of naval property
already in existence, and to counter
mand and set aside a law of con-
gress under which new vessels are
being constructed. Still less, has
he power to agree without consult
ing congress that no laws will be
passed by that body commanding
the construction of new ships dur
ing the next ten years. Indeed,
congress itself, has no power to
bind succeeding congresses and
new presidents in their action on
this matter. The only security we
can give other nations that we will
live up to our agreements on such
a matter lies in our national sense
of honor, and they would insist that
congress should at. least ratify our
agreement. President Harding has
been quoted as saying, that he
would as soon have gentlemen Is
agreement as a treaty, but the OBJ
vious necessity of congressional
approval Of such treaty is SO clear
that we hardly think he would try
to do without it. The agreement
for naval disarmament would, we
think, meet little opposition in con-
gress, but evidently it would only
be binding on the three nations par
ticipating. France has served notice
that it considers itself entitled to
as large a navy as Japan and Italy
has done the same. Holland, Swed-
en-, Norway, Denmark and Spain
are not bound at all. Neither is
Russia. 1t is evident that exten-
sive building by any of these ma
tions in the near future would
probably bust up the naval holiday
in spite of the big three agreement,
if it is reached. ".
Considerable comment has been
aroused by the very vague refer
ence of President Harding to an
association Of nations to grow out
of this meeting, bound by no obli-
cations and being merely an inter
national conference. Until some
further details arc. given, it is not
much use to discuss such a propo-
sition. 1t has already evoked the
Ire of Senator Borah who denounces
such a plan as worse than the
League Of Nations. It is sufficient
to say, that we have exactly that
sort Of an international association
in The Hague Peace Conference,
with no power to enforce any of its
decisions over the OBJECTION Of any
member. The final act Of the Hague
conference Of 1907, contained this {:
Finally, the conference recon-
mends to the powerS the assembly
Of : third peace conference. which