The Morning Tulsa daily world. [volume] (Tulsa, Okla.) 1919-1927, 1921-12-25

I'm relation 10 their respective insular pos
sessions ia the Pacific
respect to tho commitment contained above
these nations commit themselves 10 invite
all other parties To the engagement to
conference TO which the controvcrted points
shall be submitted "for consideration and
adjust m"nt"
r. ~ the same rights unsular possess
sionA - each ln the faclu"j are threat
ened by the aggressive action OF any Other
power The high contracting parties shai
communicate with one another tuly ana
frankly In order 20 arrive al an underHtand-
ing to the cYigcuclcs of 10" particular
situation This ls article H. uf the pact
and IL the nub on which hinges al contro-
vcrsy concerning the wisdom Of ratitylns ~
Tho succeeding articles merely FIX tho torn
Of lts duration. provide for us termination or
renewal and describe The manner of its rati-
Ncauou.
surely there can bc no objection TO the on
gagcmont contained p paragraph "a' first
stated above. which is merely an agreement be-
tween the contracting parties not 10 undertake
conquest In the Pacific ut the expense Of any
other one of the contracting parties. nor In
paragraph "b." which merely engages the con-
tracing parties TO meet and discuss any differ
cuccs which may arise over their holdings In
the Pacific before going TO war
The whole objection turns on article H. Of
the treaty which is reproduced in the para
graph above designated ~ "c'
II is held by some Of the obicctors. men OF
unqucstoucd patriotism and who rendered
splendid service to their country in the league
controversy that this article Is practically the
Same as the Objectionable article y. Of the Yer
sailles pact This IL view which submit
viii not bear careful examination Because
article Y. in the Versailles pact. when taken
together with provisions preceding and sue
ccedIng II. constitutes an unacceptable commit
ment to defend by force Of arms commercial
boycott and in every other manner possible. the
territorial frontiers OF the whole world rrovid-
Ing the whole world should ratfy the pact.
while in the treaty under discussion there
but two commitments direct or indirect. The
first is to respect the territorial frontiers of
each others property in the Pacific; the second
Is TO meet and DISCUSS any matter OF contro-
versy relating to that specifically defined zone,
including attack on any such property by
some other power not included among the
signatories to the treaty
We do not think the objections to the treaty
on the ground that II either does or does not
apply to the main islands OF the Japanese en-
pire valid. considering the phraseology of
the treaty itself because there being dam
RerOuS commitment IN article IL. II ~ OF Httlo
consequence whether It applies to the main
lands Of Japan or merely to lnsular possess
sions. 1t ia possible, however to understand
why the conflict OF opinion between the presi-
dent and his official spokesmen on the Amer-
delegation. TO whether the article does
apply to the mainland or merely the lnsuar
possessions. should have aroused fear concern
ing the entire pact For II there has been a
10 f1a partp. q IA
article In respect to that point. then how
anyone be certain that there was not also a
parole agreement as to how far the signatory
nations would be expected to 20 IN defending
the territorial integrity OF each other when
and II attacked from the outside?
The very uncertainty OF the jurisdiction OF
the article does to an extent Justify the appre-
hension felt and expressed regarding the
tent OF our commitment under It. and candor
compels the admission that this uncertainty
calls for a clearly expressed reservation, to the
effect that the United States is not obligated
In any way to go to the defense OF Japan in
case that nation should be attacked. We say
the uncertainty already expressed In high cir
cles concerning this point calls for specific
reservation, because public opinion in this coun-
try very properly will not tolerate alliance
Of offense and defense with Japan, and in the
present condition of the public mind probably
not with any other nation
But aside from this uncertainty concerning
the jurisdiction OF the treaty there Is absolute
ly nothing in the document itself to Justify the
opposition expressed against 1t. Because it
clearly cals for nothing more than would
actually occur In any event when 1t obligates
each OF the sgnatory nations to commit with
one another fully and frankly in order to ar
rive at an understanding as TO the cXigoncies
of the particular situation" In the possess
sions OF either i'm the Pacific were attacked
by non -sisnatory nation during the life of the
| agreement.
when one keeps in mind the purpose OF the
treaty--to make the Hughes program for ma
val disarmament possible and abolish the
Anglo-Japanose pact at the same time quiet
ing the relation between the United states and
Jnpan--one is forced to the conclusion that
Al, IL 4, ,,tt.,