The New York herald., 1922-02-25
Continued from First Page.

fusing alignment of the members of the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
who will vote for or against the new
reservation for a variety of reasons.
Senator Johnson announced at once
that the new reservation was not satis-
factory to him and that since Senator
Brandegee was abandoning his original
reservation he, Johnson, would reintro-
duce it in substitution for the one in
troduced to-day The new Brandegee
reservation reads:
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 obli-
cation TO join in defense.
The original Brandegee resolution
contained provisions which the Presi-
dent regarded inadmissible. One Of
these provided that consent of Congress
was essential to conversations among
the powers.
Following his announcement that he
would adopt the original Brandegec res
ervation as his own. Senator Johnson
issued this statement:
The original Brandegee reserva-
tion contained two distinct PROPOSE
tions. It was deemed essential to
safeguard the country with respect
to both. The first provided that the
United States was under neither le-
gal nor moral obligations to main
tain the rights of the other parties
to their insular possessions or in
sular dominions, and it provided sec
ondy that the consent of Congress
should be necessary to any adjust
ment or understanding under Arti-
cles l. and H., and that the United
States was under neither legal nor
moral obligation to give such con-
sent.
The new reservation presented to-
day does neither of these things. IL
our country should have been safe
guarded as indicated in the original
reservation then the new reservation
does not provide this safeguard at
all.
Senator Wflliams's Position.
While this switch in the sponsorship
for the original Brandegee reservation
was taking place, Senator John Sharp
Williams. (Dem., Miss.) who has an
nounced his opposition to all reserva-
tions on the ground that he regards
them as fundamentally wrong, expressed
opposition in the committee to the new
Brandegee reservation in these words
johnson and l hold opposite views
about this treaty, but we agree about
this reservation. This new reservation
is simply a lie when it says the treaty
does not bind us to so to the defense OF
other nations. If it does not do that. II
does nothing. If it is that kind of a
treaty, / shall vote against 1t because
1t amounts to nothing.
AS the situation stood tonight the
Foreign Relations Committee appeared
to be about equally divided. with seven
for the new Brandegee reservation and
seven against, with Senator Borah in
doubt and apparently holding the de-
Gliding vote.
The positions Of the members of the
committee will be complicated further
because the agreement made to vote to-
morrow will cal! not only for vote
on the new Brandegee reservation. but
those which have already been offered.
Senator Kellogg (Minn.) is in doubt
owing to his opposition to his own res
ervations. 1t is believed, however, that
he will decide to vote for the new
Brandegee reservation in the committee.
making his fight on the floor of the
Senate against reservations of any char
acter.
Expected Lineup I'm Committee.
In that event the Senator'S are ex-
pected to line up in committee to-mor-
row as follows:
For the new Brandegee reservation
Lodge. McCumber. Brandegee, New,
kellogg, Mccormick, Wadsworth--7.
Against the new Brandegee reserva-
tion-Johnson, Moses, Williams. Swan
son, Pomerene. Pttman, Shields.
In doubt-Borah.
There are possibilities of change in
this alignment over night. Senators
Pomerene and Shields. who announced
their opposition to the new reservation