Great Falls tribune., 1922-03-11
THE FOUR POWER PACT.

CENATOR LODGE is great,
- handicapped in his championship
of the Four Power Pacific entent,
treaty by his record in the League
Of Nations and the Versatile!
treaty. Article ten Of the covenant
of the League Of Nations, provides
that moral pressure, including {
commercial boycott against dis
turbed Of international peace anc
violator of the covenant OF peace
having proved unavailing to prevent
a breach Of international peace
then the member nations shall meet
and consider what additional means
are necessary to compel the offend
er to submit to arbitration and
cease making war against another
member nation. Woodrow Wilson
said that Article 10 was the heart
of the League of Nations covenant,
and objected to any change in it.
Senator Lodge said it involved a
moral obligation on the part OF the
signers to make war as last re-
sort on any recalcitrant member OF
the League and was a damnable
perversion of the American policies
of non-interference in European
affairs, and sure to produce war
instead of peace.
Now Article Q of the Lodge
treaty provides for similar consul
tation among the members OF the
Four Power Entente treaty and
Senator Lodge is seeking to prove
that there is no moral obligation
to do anything but Consult" under
its terms, in event of any nation
violating the territory OF the
powers signing the treaty. OF course
it will be seen that Senator Lodge
and President Harding seek to
prove too much when they declare
that we assume no obligations
either moral or legal to do anything
but Consult" under this treaty. IT
that be true then no other member
of the Entente under this treaty
assumes any obligation to do any
thing but talk in case Of violation
of the treaty either by a member
or outside nation. An agreement to
40 nothing but spout little hot air
into the atmosphere in case of
hostile invasion Of the rights of
the contracting parties to the
agreement is no agreement at all.
1t is worth nothing, not even the
paper the treaty is written on.
We are not opposed to the rati-
fication of this Four Power En-
tente treaty just as it stands with
out reservation, though we know
that it carries moral obligation on
our part to use force if necessary
to carry out its objects. No agree
ment of that sort is worth brass
farthing unless there is force or
the threat of force in the back
ground against violation of the
contract. OF course there is no
legal obligation to use force. Only
congress has the power to declare
war, and no treaty can bind con-
gress to declare war unless 1t
wishes to do so. Blu, there is moral
obligation on our part after enter
ing into a consultation with the
other members Of the alliance con-
tenplated in the treaty to stand by
the result of such conference, with
force if necessary, to repel an in
vader of the territory covered by
the agreement. The same obliga-
tion existed in Article 10 of the
League covenant. 1t is silly to talk
about any agreement to jointly
consult as to means to defend the
territory of the four powers in the
Pacific against invasion and then
say there is no alliance, or obli-
cation of any sort, moral or legal,
existing on the part of the signers
TO do anything at all to carry out
the terms of the agreement. If
that were true we might as we'll
tear up the treaty and throw it
In the waste basket at once.
The simple truth is that we can
not enter into an international
agreement with other nations to
preserve the peace of the Pacific
without accepting serious respon-
,ibilities, and it is childish to argue
that a joint agreement Of four ma
tions to do this is not an alliance"
Of course it is. To deny it is only
make foolish play in words. The
real question is whether this al
lance and the responsibility attach