Evening star., 1928-12-29
REED SEES DANGER
IN KELLOGG TREATY
Assai|ing Pact, He Declares
Senate Should Insert
Defining Clause.
snec,a, D;snatch to The Star.

Special Dispatch to The Star.
CEDAR RAPIDS, Iowa, December
Ex-senator James A. Reed of Mis-
souri,, who has fought entangling
alliances with European nations ever
cince Woodrow Wilson'S days, aSsailed
the Kellogg peace pact here yesterday.
His statement Of about 5000 words
sizzled with reasons why this country
should not enter into any kind of treaty
that was likely to embroil 1t with a
foreign nation. Senator Reed admitted
he saw lurking danger in the Kellogg
pact unless the Senate inserts defin-
ing clause.
Reed didn't think the treaty meant
the millennium and the end of all wars.
On the contrary, he explained that the
fact that the treaty eXceptS wars OF
self-defense and permits individual ma
tions to make their own definitions OF
self-defense leaves great loop hole for
war
Sees Weakness in Reservations.
In addition, he said there are other
reservations pertaining to the Covenant
of the League Of Nations and the
Locarno treaty which further weaken
the Kellogg pact.
declared the treaty contained danger
Gus implication in that there Is an
obligation on the part Of the Signatory
powers to come to the defense OF any
nation against which a breach has been
made by member of the treaty. This
he feels, might involve the United
States in entangling alliances.
! Senator Reed expressed the belief
that the treaty would be ratified be-
cause of the powerful influences behind
| it. After pointing out his objections
to the treaty Mr.. Reed summed up az
follows:
This treaty is not between two indi-
| vidual nations. 1t Is a mutual under
standing between all the Signatories
| thereto What Is its object If 1t be not
to keep and preserve the peace OF the
world? If, then, a nation shall break
| that peace, 1t violates at one and the
same time the same obligation toward
all the other nations.
Cites Moral Obligation.
"Since the object of the treaty is to
preserve the peace of the world, why
does it not logically follow that when
| the common bond of peace is broken
there springs therefrom the common
moral obligation of all nations offended
against to unite in the punishment. OF
the nation guilty of the breach against
them all? If single country Is at
tackled ruthleSsly and wrongfully can
other nations joined with the victim
nation in a common compact refuse to
come to its aid? Can they say to it.:
Although we made q common agree
ment for the peace OF the world, al
though you have kept the faith, al
nIA ~ hof
is against us all, we, nevertheless, will
supinely fold our hands and allow you,
the victim nation, to maintain con-
fiict which is for the benefit OF all be-
cause we were all parties to the COM
pact which has been preached?
"Is there not a moral obligation? I
admit that 1t Is not legal in the
ordinary sense of the term, but neither
is any word of the treaty enforceable IN
any court of law. The treaty is con-
ceded to be only moral obligation;
therefore, a moral obligation to stand
by is, in my judgment, just as binding
as the moral obligation not to breach.
If my conclusion be correct, then the
signing of this treaty introduces Amer
lea into every conflict that may arise IN
any part OF the world
Urges Policies for Peace.
In continuing his interview, Mr.. Reed
said he thought the State Department
should give its attention to policies
which may at least "circumscribe the
field of war and remove some of the
causes. which extend local conflict un-
til it envedops the world in its consum-
ing fire." He suggested that the first
business of a fire department was to
confine the flames as closely as possible
and he thought that same principle
should be applied in wars between ma
tionS.
Reed ridiculed the idea of the excep-
ton of the treaty of self-defel.se war,
and pointed out that In all wars in the
last 100 years some of the nations en-
gagged in the conflict asserted self-de-
tense, and he called attention to the
German claim in the Warld War.
He predicted that the Kellogg treaty
was dangerous to the peace and pros
perity of this country, and said that If
1t passed the Senate the country might
regret that 1t had become law. He
also predicted that the Navy cruiser
bill would be talked to death before 1t
came to q vote.