New Britain herald., 1922-03-11
FOUR POWER PACT
 IS N07 SECRET
,Continued From First Page).

,Continued From First Page). limit armaments was intended to mean more than a mere saving of money to the nations who had en- gagged in the wild race of building battleships,
 Must Be Unanimous.
 "The terms of the treaty clearly call for a conference to consider difficulties that may arise, just as the conference on the limitation Of ar maments was called in Washington some months ago. It is conference in which all of the four powers must agree and none of the powers will be bound in advance in any way. In other words, the agreements that are reached must be by the unanimous consent of all.
 What Opponents Contend.
 'The opponents of the ratification 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 the treaty in effect is an alliance De- tween the four great powers for offensive 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 consent. l maintain that there is nothing in the treaty itself that justifies such an interpretation being placed upon it; that an agree ment by man or nation to re- spect the rights of his nelghbors Is an obligation that relates to his own conduct and does not bind him to az gressive action because the other party to the contract whose rights he has agreed to respect, becomes in volved in difficulties.
 Reservation Moved.
 "But the question is not left here. The foreign relations committee ol the senate has moved reservation to the treaty, which beyond doubt will 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 IOrCt, no diildiloS' 'io o''io" 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 l can see.
 Would Destroy Faith of Nations.
 "On the other hand, it is asserted that, as the treaty does not bind the high contracting parties to use force in carrying out it's terms, and be- cause they cannot in the future be bound to any action until their free consent is first obtained, that it means nothing, that it is worse than useless to sign it, and therefore it should be defeated. To my mind, this argu' ment is the last stand of the men Of the old school, the school of thought that has been dominant in the gov ernment of this world for the last four thousand years; the philosophy that believes that the world can and must be governed only by forcef and that agreements, to be binding, must have the power of force behind them If this were true, it would destroy all the faith of the Christian nations of the world in their efforts to ob- tain peace by mutual understanding
 Effort Was Sincere.
 You may call the Versailles treaty an alliance, l voted for it because l believed that it was a sincere effort to secure the peace of the world by mutual understanding. The present treaty is not an alliance but if 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 to the fact that they were binding agreements between the powers that signed them, but because they contemplated the use of force for the benefit of the signatory pow CTS. An alliance based on right and justice between nations intended to aid in securing the peace of the world would. not be offensive to me. The first Step in any effort to keep the peace among nations must be based mon a mutual agreement to respect the rights of others. The four power pact does that,
 Sees End Of War.
 "If the senate of the United States ratifies this pending treaty, l am fully satisfied that there will disappear not