The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1922-03-11

Washington, March 11.-Descrtb-
ing the four power Pacific treaty as
'the real treaty OF peace Of the arms
conference, Senator Underwood Of
Alabama, the Democratic senate
leader and member of the American
delegation to the conference, told the
senate today that he would vote for
the pact's ratification in the same
spirit which actuated him to support
the treaty of Versailles and League OF
Nations.
The real issue. the Democratic lead
er declared, was whether the United
States was ready to give its sanction
to an arrangement for peace by mu~
tuai understanding" or desired to cen
tinue ''the opportunity for war that
has threatened us in the past two
Is Not an Alliance.
Mr.. Underwood asserted that he did
not regard the treaty as an alliance,
but added that even If It were, and
were founded on arbitration rather
than force he would support it. To
argue. on the other hand. that be-
cause it was not based on force 1t was
valueless was declared by the Ala
bama senator to be reverting to the
philosophy of past ages.
Accounting how he had supported
the League of Nations, he said he had
approached the work of the arms
conference ready to welcome any new
effort to establish peace by intsrna-
tionaI understanding rather than by
the power of the sword.
THE four power treaty" he con-
tinued, represents political settle
ment which undoubtedly was neces-
sary before the treaty providing for
the limitations of armapents was
s.gred.
All Must Agree.
'''rhe terms OF the treaty clearly call
for a conference in which all the four
powers must agree, and none OF the
Levers Will be found in advance in
any way In other words the agree
merts that are reached must be i,y
the unanimous consent of all.
"fhe opponents of the ratifications
of this treaty in the main appear TO
base their objections on two grounds
expressing positions that are opposed
one to the other. It is asserted that
treaty in effect is an alliance between
the four great powers for offensive
and defensive purposes, or at least, IL
is contending we VIII be drawn into
that position in the end. and that we
may be forced into war without our
consent.
No War Could Come.
IT maintain that there is nothing
in the treaty that justifies such an
Interpretation; but the question is not
left mere. The foreign relations COM
mittee has moved a reservation to
the treaty, which beyond a doubt. viii
be accepted by the senate, which
reads as follows:
The United States understands
that under the statement in the pre-
amble or under the terms of this
treaty there is no commitment to
armed force. no alliance, no obliga-
tion to join in any defense
when the treaty is ratified with
this understanding on the part OF our
government, what ground Is left to
those who contend the treaty Is an Of
fense and defensive alliance to stand
upon? None that I can see.
Opposition Is Last Stand.
"On the other hand it Is asserted
that, as the treaty does not bind the
high contracting parties TO use force
in carrying out its terms and because
they cannot in the future be bound
to any action until their free consent
is first obtained. that it means moth
ing; that IL is worse than useless to
sign it and therefore IL should be
defeated.
ITO my mind, this argument is the
last stand of the men OF the old
school. the school Of thought that
has been dominant in the government
of the world, for the last four thou
sand years, the philosophy that be-
lieves that the world can and must
be governed only by force and that
agreement to be binding. must have
were true. II would destroy all the
faith Of the Christian nations OF the
world in their efforts to obtain peace
by mutual understanding.
ETro1ectl =. for World.
You may call the Versailles treaty
an alliaccs. voted for - because 1
.fcntlnne1 ou mage three