The Washington herald. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1906-1939, 1921-12-11
WILL FOR PEACE
IS TREATY BASIS,
SAYS SIMONDS
Shows How Treaty OF
Washington Differs
From Paris Pact.
By FRANK II. SIMONDS.

There are obviously many angles
to the treaty OF Washington, as
proposed yesterday. which divide
interest. but there is one surpass-
ing all others We have been fire.
quently told in recent days by
President Harding and by others
Of the possibility that one result
of the present conference would be
the establishing OF the conference
idea and another the creation of an
association OF nations What, then.
is the bearing of the present pro-
posal upon these earlier expecta-
tiOns?
In seeking to meet this question
one may dismiss as obvious the ne,
cessity for some agreement which
would replace the Anglo-Japanes
treaty and prepare the way for
later agreement upon a Limitation
Of naval armament So far the
adequacy of the proposed treaty H.
unmistakabIe. but obviously some
thing more was sought for and in
the minds Of the makers of the
present document has been at
tanned.
One Clear Distinction.
In this connection it is natural
and inevita BILE that Article II Of
the proposed treaty should be COM
pared with Article y Of the cove
nant OF the league OF nations and,
indeed. that there should be a wide
comparison of both documents
At the outset. however. one clear
distinction must be recognized.
Each document carries With il
sanction Of the status quo but
whereas in the Paris treaty Ar
tiCie y Of the covenant binds the
members Of the league to preserve
as against external aggression the
territorial integrity and the exist
ing political independence of all
members of the league, and in case
Of aggression or threat of aggres-
sion imposes upon the council OF
the league of nations the duty ~
determining the means by which
this obligation should be fulfilled.
Article II of the Washington docu-
ment imposes no other obligation
than that the powers shall COM
municate with one another fully
and frankly in order to arrive at
an understanding as to the most
efficient measures to be taken
Jointly or separately to meet the
exigencies Of the particular situa-
ton.
Difference Is Patent.
The differences between the two
undertakings is then fairly patent.
In theory the United States was
bound. when Russia invaded Fo-
land two years ago. to abide by
the decision of the council of the
league of nations as to what its
duty was in the premises, assuming
that il had ratified the treaty. In
the present case, IL the Kingdom of
Abyssinia should attack French
New Caledonia the extent of the oh
legation of the United states would
be to enter into a communication
with France. Great Britain and ia
pan as to what should be done
about the matter.
The difference there is real. IL
somewhat technical What sig
nifes. however, is the fact that the
covenant of the league of nations
was made at Paris not as an
agreement between all nations con-
cerned. but as a guarantee of the
possessions acquired by certain ma
tions as the result of war against
other countries which were not
membets of the league and were
not likely to be.
In other words. the league of
nations guaranteed a status quo
created by war and guaranteed it
against subsequent effort on the
part of the nations not members of
the league to regain territory taken
from them by the treaty.
self-DenyinE Ordinance.
By contrast. the treaty of Wash
ington made in full peace between
all the great powers concerned is
not in any sense an alliance against
any one. is not a guarantee of a
possession challenged by any great
power. In reality 1t is no more
than a self-denying ordinance which
Continued on Paoe Tpo.