Evening star., 1928-12-14
Senator Moses Proposes
Separate Interpretative Res
olution to Safeguard U. S.
OPPONENTS SEEKING
COMMITTEE DECISION
Borah Believes Move Is Not Neces.
sary-Reed Sees Merit
in Suggestion.

resolution. denying all commitments. 20
far as the United States is concerned.
not contained in the language of the
Kellogg treaty renouncing war. Is now
demanded by Senators opposing rati-
fication of the treaty without some
definite expression by this Government.
Proposal of such resolution was
made before the committee by Senator
Moses of New Hampshire at a meeting
OF the foreign relations committee to-
day. No action was taken on his pro-
posal or on the treaty. The committee
meets again Tuesday.
Senator Moses SAID after the commits
tee meeting he might introduce his
interpretative resolution later today 40
that 1t could be printed and referred to
the SeEate's foreign relations committee.
Senator Moses added that he believed
the committee may be prevailed upon
to report out such resolution favorably.
He also indicated that If no such resolu-
ton was reported out and no agreement
made for its adoption, the path of the
Kellogg treaty In the Senate would be-
come extremely difficult.
Senator Reed of Missouri, Democrat,
said that he was inclined to believe that
an lnterpretative resolution such as that
proposed by Senator Moses would meet
the situation.
Borah Opposes Resolution.
Chairman Borah of the foreign rela-
tions committee is opposed to sep
arate interpretative resolution, believ-
ing that 1t Is not necessary.
IL became clear today that oppo-
nents OF the ratificatio of the kellogg
treaty without reservation or further
Interpretation, were seeking q show.
down In the committee itself.
The most active members of the COM
mittee In opposition so far have been
Senator'S Reed. Moses and Shipstead.
Inc opinion was expressed. however,
gnat senators Mclean of Connecticut.
johnson of California. Bavard nj
Delaware and Pittnian OF Nev6da
would join in support of separate in
terpretative resolution. There are is
members OF the foreign relations com
nattee and still more adherents to such
q resolution must be found before II
can be reported favorably.
II. AAuSatVhS Views OkHAe0.
A draft of an interpretative resolu-
tion prepared by Prof. Borchard of Yale
mas been submitted to Senator Moses.
senator Moses also submitted to the COM
mittee today letter from Prof PhilIiu
NJ. Brown of Princeton.
In this letter Prof. Brown said:
II read In today's Times with con-
siderable amazement that both Secre-
tary Kellogg and Senator Borah have
taken the position respecting the anti
war pact that the notes of Great Brit
ain and other powers expressing their
attitude upon THE treaty have no bind
ing force
IF they said this, 1t is so contrary
10 the consensus of purposes on inter-
national law and inconsistent with the
practice Of courts and arbitration tri-
bunals as to startle one. cannot be-
lieve, for one moment that England
and France hold this point of view
even II they should keep silent now for
diplomatic reasons. They are bound
whenever q discussion may arise over
this pact to refer to their understanding
OF 1t as expressed in the preliminary
correspondence. They will also hold us
strictly to our side of the correspond
ence. The World Court or any other ar
oitral tribunal would uphold them in
this
aggressive War" Involved.
ct am greatly concerned about the
whole business. The wording of the pact
conveys very little of practical legal
significance. 1t Is only piouS declara-
ton OF good intentions. The strange
aspects of the situation lie in the i'm
plications Of the pact as clearly indicst-
ed in the correspondence referred to.
and in the comments of European and
American observers. It Is generally be-
lieved that the United States will not
regard as an aggressive war any action
taken by the League of Nations and that
we are committed in advance to acqui-
esce in any measures OF coercion 1t may
adopt against q nation held to be
guilty of wrong.
This Is exactly what England has
long wanted to accomplish with respect
to what she may do as an agent of the
League against neutral commerce"
Prof. Brown added that he would urge
the United States Government TO make
iE clear that it Is not committed in ad-
vance to policy of acquiescence in
what the League may do. He said:
There should be no ambiguity or
illusions on this point either in Europe
or here. This is no indirect entrance
AtAtO tAlC AACdSuC. II ACSCLNdlAOllS OIl ltllo
point or any other are not desired, our
Government can still avail itself of the
same right as Great Britain and France
by putting into an official note our full
understanding OF the pact"
No Commitments Seen.
Secretary Kellogg and Chairman
Borah have both taken the position
that the treaty needs no explanation
of this character, that the position of
the United States has been amply set
forth In the correspondence and In ad-
dresses delivered by Secretary kellogg.
They see no commitments whatever on
the part of the United States to ac-
quiesce In anything the League Of Ma
tions may do.
The discussion In the committee today
gave evidence to the fact that there will
be considerable debate over the treaty
when 1t reaches the Senate itself.
MELLON NAIL 6 RiIM0RS.