Evening star., 1922-03-12

Describing the four-power Pacific
treaty as "the real treaty Of peace
Of the arms conference, Senator Un-
dsrwoed told the Senate yesterday he
would vote for the pacts ratihoatfon
in the same spirit which actuated MIN
to support tho treaty OF Versaiiies
and the league Of nations.
spealing from q prepared address.
Senator Underwood declared the rea
issue was whether the Untted states
was ready to give its sanction to an
arransement for ''peacs by mutual un-
dersta andin<'' or desired to continue "the
ooportunity for war that has threatened
us in the past two decades.
Not IN Alliance.
Mr., Underwood asserted that ne
did not regard the treaty as an al
lance, but added that even II 1t were
ana were founded on arbitration rath-
er than force. he would support Il.
To argue, on the other hand, that De
cause 1t was not based on force u
was valueless was declared by the
Alabama senator to be reverting TO the
philosophy Of past ages.
Recounting how he had suppcreeo
the league OF nations. he said NO h~o
approached the work Of the arms con-
fersnce ready to welcome any new ef-
fort to establish peace by interhA-
tional understanding raener tn1n -
the power of the sword
Political settlement.
"rhe four-power treaty" he con-
tinued, represents political settle
ment which undoubtedly was necss-
the limitation Of ornaments was
signed; that is. II the agreement 10
limit armaments was tntendeo "
mean more than a mere saving oh
money to the nations who had en-
gagged In tho wild race OF ouiiolhs
battleships.
No War without Consent.
'The opponents Of the ratification Of
this treaty in tho main appear to base
their objections on two grounds. ex-
pressing positions that are opposed
one to the other. 1t is asserted that
the treaty in effect Is an alliance be-
tween the four great powers for Of
fensive and defensive purposes. or, at
least, it is contended we will be
drawn into that position in the end
and that we may be forced into war
without our consent. l maintain that
there is nothing in the treaty itself
that justifes such an Interpretation
being placed upon 1t: that ans agree
ment by a man or q nation to re-
spect the rights OF his neighbors is
an obligation that relates to his own
conduct and does not bind him to
aggressive action because the other
party to the contract. whose rights
he has agreed to respect, becomes IN
VOWED In difficulties.
All Ground Removed.
"But the question Is not left here.
The foreign relations committee of
the Senate has moved a reservation
to the treaty, which. beyond a doubt,
will be accepted by the Senate, which
reads as follows:
1.-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-
ton 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 offensive and defensive alliance to
stand upon? None that 1 can see.
Last stand Of Old School.
ION 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, 1t means moth
Ing: that it is worse than useless to
sign it, and therefore it should be de-
feated. To 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 this world for the last 1000 years:
the philosophy that believes that the
world can and must be governed only
by force, and that agreements, to be
binding, must have the power OF
force behind them II this were true
it would destroy all the faith Of the
Christian nations of the world In
their efforts to obtain peace by mu-
tual understanding.
Would support 1t II Alliance.
'You may call the Versailles treaty
an alliance. I voted for it because
believed that it was a sincere effort tc
secure the peace Of the world by mu-
tual understanding. The present treaty
is not an alliance, but II 1t were an
alliance intended to keep the peace
through arbitration rather than through
force. l should support it. The dangers
Of past alliances have not been due tc
the fact that they were binding agree
ments between the powers that signed
them, but because they contemplated
the use Of force for the benefit Of the
signatory powers. An alliance based or
right and justice between nations, in.
tended to aid In securing the peace O,
the world. would not be offensive to me
The first step in any effort to keep the
peace among the nations must be basec
upon mutual agreement to respect the