The Morning Tulsa daily world. [volume] (Tulsa, Okla.) 1919-1927, 1922-02-05
Presence of Japanese Military
on Chinese and Siberian Soil
an EUer Present Threat of War
Balkan states would find for them

selves.
when that day came. we had two
Balkan wars and those two Balkan
wars led straight to the world war.
But i am not attempting to prove
here that the far eastern conditions
will lead to another wor war.
think we are done with world
wars for this generation at least.
What is TO be seen is that the condi-
tions existing In the far east. as in
the Balkans decade ago. are in
tolerable and that, solution by con-
ference, by peaceful negotiation,
through the aid OF outside nations
having failed we must expect in the
end that tho people most concerned
will undertake TO save themselves as
the Serbs. the Greeks. and the Bull
gars did Just ten years ago.
Jap Policy Bobs Up.
In my judgment then. and for the
reasons l have set forth, we have
hereafter to accept the fact that
Japanese policy in the far east
makes war presently unavoidable.
Japan is an aggressor. she has de-
Tended here in Washington her right
to hold large portions of Chinese
territory and she Will keep her SOL
diers there, as she has kept them in
the past. She came to Washington
determined to stay in China, to
evade any attempt to turn her out
and she has pursued her policy TO
the end
But II one accepts the assumption
that war in the far east now be-
comes certain. what then shall one
say OF the other circumstances OF
the Washington confer-~ce. Of the
several treaties and agreements
What shall one say of the limitations
of naval armaments and OF the
treaty OF association which we have
made with Japan, in company with
France and Britain? Does the fact
that the conditions in the far east
remain unstable have a bearing upon
American opinion In the matter OF
the several treaties?
Question of Policy.
Insofar as the agreement limiting
naval strength the question is fairly
debat table, Il Is a question of nation
al policy pure and simple. We have
to answer a single question: Do we
desire to use our fleet to aid China
or Russia or both in war against
Japan? II we do, then IL is the
height of folly to consent TO the
terms of the flve-power treaty,
which so reduces our fleet and so
abolishes our naval bases that we
cannot make any naval effort on
behalf of these two countries. In
effect, this treaty represents re-
treat from the Western Pacific. we
deprive ourselves OF the power to
protect China or threaten Japan.
But our representatives In the
peace conference, probably with per-
feet accuracy, have interpreted
American sentiment as absolutely
opposed to any war in, the Paciflc
on behalf OF any nation or against
any nation, precisely as long as nc
nation directly assails us In our OWL
home lands or insular possessions
And japan IL undertaking, in return
for our disarmament and / think
in perfect good faith. to guarantee
not to attack us, not to attack us
in our insular possessions, where
alone she could attack us. We are
resigning the power TO attack her,
she IL renouncing all intention oil
attacking us, and, since the British
remain Pacific naval power, no
| one can believe she Will venture 10
attack uF.
Your army and navy. after all al
| though II IN terribly hard TO make
| nil elementary truth understood
80, no nronnriioned TO your policy
'' Ie 80. 49,, 10 nrotect china against
Japan. then we must not limit our
navy or leave Guam and the Philip
pines unfort fled, rather we must re-
double our pace in construction ana
Iorulg p1ti u't- - ,bo sor, we
want 70 uo a,'S ~ 49, dc shtns to de.
want Simply 70 ,naN,s,s coas, and ws
lehu our owl ,,, ,,,,o,, Or ar.
are prepared 70 '.y pp.t,tst, ont
rangemehts WIN ll'e anl'rs,.. m ,'
| the japanese quite reas!',,'S.' q,