The Washington herald., 1922-03-13
EntangEng 0ratory.

I(lT ANGUAGE is to conceal thought the
III French have it. Very admirable, when
speaker is svowedy employing 6nesse; for
time at least dsregardng principle for the sake
| Of expert practice But the limit to this sort of
thing described by writer of the same na-
tonairy who averred that too often language leads
Ito the complete obfuscation and destruction of
Thought.
That is the regrettablc tendency in our two
legislative bodies and the final result is liable to
| be confusion in the public mind. And that is what
would happen in the Of the four-power treaty
II some legislators had their way.
Tive document to which the Emitted States, Brit
sh French and Japanese delegates signatory, is
Il simple formula.
There is hint OF duress in case military alli-
anee is refused There is no stipulation as to
pulsiou of one high contracting power join in any
course Of action through votes cast by representa-
tves of the others
Apparently, one should fail to understand
|the principles and limits OF this treaty, could
any explain it with trepdation lest he being
ricked into trouble by wiser heads. Yet there
persons, conjuring up illusory images who profess
Ito descry horrihc forms of entanglemcnt behind
thin curtain of parchment. In their true thought
these critics must regard the four-power pact
about the best international agreement be evolved
at this time. But their words, meant to conceal
the treaty have perforce been drawn down into the
arena OF complicating and useless speech.
To appease the gentlemen who each time they
look beyond the bounds OF our own land commence,
really professionally, "seein' things" the admin
stration responsible for the treaty stands ready to
sanction amendment which is designed to clarity
to triply distl chemically pure spring water it
were. This amendment declares in effect:
There is obligation armed force in
support Of the terms, because there is no mention
OF such obligation We now reiterate that there is
no obligation to armed force" Say it 100
times and you have said more than lies inn
manently in the instrument.
But there is doubt that the treaty critics will
accept this concession to ovcr-caution. The
original amendment proposed would make manda-
tory the consent OF Congress to "any adjustments
or understandings under Articles I and ?, by which
the United States is to be bound in any way" and
would specify that obligation exists, either legal
or moral" to give such consent. The administra-
rion rightly fears that passage OF such amend
ment would deprive the President OF a prerogstive
nhering in his office since the adoption OF the Con-
stitution that OF dspatchng delegates to any gath
|cring of whatever nature, delegates, OF course,
without the power of final commitment.
The forces opposed to the straight treaty may
succeed in defeating ratification But it is not
likely. And it is impossible that they should put
Through the original amendment The best they
Scan hope for is tabling that will do to
create foreign dstrust OF the United States than
any action in her history. At this writing, it ap
hears that their hopes will be dashed, despite the
|Aow OF words with which they seek to obfuscate
Thought.