Evening star., 1925-02-05
JOHNSON ATTACKS
HUGHES OMISSION
Directs Speech Against Lack
OF Reference to Reserva-
: ton Failure at Paris.
BY DAVID LAWRENCE.

Senator Hiram Johnson of Califor-
MIA had TO make a speech justifying
his original resolution of inquiry
adopted by the Senate with respect to
the Paris agreement on reparations.
SO he developed his viewpoint at
length, but it cannot be said that he
has succeeded either in altering the
foreign policy of the Government or
IN bringing out any new facts which
would tend to keep the controversy
alive.
Mr.. johnson got hold. indeed. of one
weakness in the answer made by Sec
rotary of State Hughes to the Sen
ate's inquiry and dwelt upon that. 1t
was the omission by Mr. Hughes of
the details of the discussion in which
Ambassador Kellogg proposed at
Paris reservation which would state
uneQuivocally that America was
under no obligation to become en-
tangled In European affairs And Mr..
johnson made the most of that omis-
sion and probably will insist on fur
fher Information.
The Secretary of State is not bound
70 furnish any data incompatible with
the public interest and if he chooses
$" to regard the Kellogg incident in
the Paris conference he can decline
10 answer the Senate's questions.
The actual facts as gathered from
ofnclal sources would seem to indi-
cate that Mr.. Kellogg was not so
much concerned over whether the
agreement involved any new obliga-
tfonS on the part of the United States
as fear that some element like the
irreconcilables' In the Senate might
decide SO to construe the agreement,
and he anticipated the opposition by
proposing such a reservation.
The other conferees, however,
thought that such a statement was
superfiuous, since the agreement was
stated plainly enough and nothing
would be gained by denying an obli-
cation that was not written into the
pact. From their viewpoint it is said
that an unequivocal signature with
out reservation by the United States
in the pact embodying the Dawes
annuities was desired because of
moral rather than legal effect. They
wanted to give the impression of
solidarity before Germany. They
wanted to bolster up their own
morale. In other words, they hoped
for political impression rather than
a technical admission of obligation.
This led to the enthusiastic state
ments made by the spokesmen or
foreign governments who hailed the
American signature as a departure
of policy. Much Of the effect of those
very statements now has been taken
away by the debate in the Senate as
we'll as the explicit declaration by
the Secretary of State. Mr.. Hughes, to
the effect that America was neither
legally nor morally bound by the
Paris agreement to. collect debts or
do anything but accept the share of
the reparationS indicated.
L. s. Is Not Committed.
Even if Mr.. Kellogg did think such
a reservation was necessary and
abandoned it in order to bring about
harmony, the United States Govern
ment is not committed by what Mr..
Kellogg proposed, but only by what
was actually agreed to, and as for
Interpretation the announcement by
Mr.. Hughes places the viewpoint Of
the United States officially on record
and stands as effectively as a reser-
walton as If the Ambassador had sue
ceeded in inserting It,
Before international tribunals a.
reservation ard an Interpretation are
considered valid whether made in the
agreement or in public statements,
SO long as there is no dissent from
such an Interpretation expressed at
the time it is made. No foreign gov
ernment has taken issues with Mr..
Hughes Interpretation of the Paris
agreement.
Senator Johnson expressed the fear
that some future Secretary of State
might differ from Mr.. Hughes. So
also might another Senate. The for
eign policy of the United States has
undergone many changes precisely
because of the changing character of
the American Government, yet no
method has ever been devised to
commit any future Congress or any
future executive to acts which are
within their respective prerogratives
under the Constitution. And there are
plenty of broad powers vested in the
Executive and the Department of
State which permit of the making of
agreements with foreign govern
ments by diplomatic notes which
need not be sent to the Senate for
ratification.
The agreement just signed at Paris
is one of the type classified as claims
agreements. Mr.. Johnson thinks 1t Is
An agreement relative to debts and
that Congress alone has the power to
liquidate debts. Mr.. Hughes takes the
position that he merely settled out
standing claims and that this has al
ways been done by the executive
branch of the government without re-
course to the Senate
Copyright. 1929