The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1928-11-14
KEEPING UP
With
THE WIS
BY LUDWELL DENNY

WAsH1NGTON, Nov 14.-Euro-
w pean disagreement with the
United States newest Interpretation
of the Kellogg outlawry of war pact
is expected to precipitate a fight
over reservations when that treaty
comes before the senate for ratifi-
cation next month.
What are we asked to ratify
probably will be the first question
raised in the senate The official
American answer was given by Sec
rotary Kellogg in his Armistice day
address. He said is was the text of
the treaty renouncnig war as an
instrument of national policy, With
out any reservations.
But the European answer, as re-
hected in the European press criti-
cism of the Kellogg statement, is
that all the European nations signed
the treaty after making official
sweeping reservations.
The European reservations, as
contained lin the foreign notes to
Washington. were of three kinds.
They specified:
1. That the treaty should not APP
ply to the right of nation to wage
defensive war.
2. That the treaty should not in
terfere with the obligations of those
nations as members of the League
Of Nations or as signatories of the
Locarno security pacts.
3. In the case of Great Britain,
that acceptance of the treaty would
not apply to British defense of her
interests in various unspecified
areas of the world, which nominally
are not part of British territory
but upon which the safety of the
empire is said to depend.
The foreign notes in making these
reservations, referred to American
interpretations or reservations con-
tanned in Kellogg speeches. In those
speeches Kellogg had said the treaty
could not ALLEVIATE any nations in
herent right of self-defense.
In those speeches also he said
the United States did not interpret
the proposed treaty as in any way
inconsistent with the obligations of
European nations as members of
the league or as Locarno signato-
ries.
II ELLOGG has not, however,
N formally accepted the addi-
tional British reservation, which has
come to be known as the new
British Monroe doctrine"
International lawyers are in COM
plete disagreement, it seems, as to
the legal status of these official res
ervations. stated in formal notes by
the foreign governments as the con-
ditions upon which they were sign
ing the treaty.
Does the fact that the reserva-
lions were not included as part Of
the treaty text cancel the legal eff
feet of the reservations?
Yes, say the state department
lawyers. No, say neutral interna-
tional lawyers like Professor Borch-
ard of Yale.
No one questions. the skill with
which Kellogg,( by his method of
voicing reservations but refusing to
make those reservations a part of
the treaty text, has obtained the
support of the big navy and army
group on one side and of the ex-
IRENE pacifists on the other side.
Critics of the treaty, however, say
this temporary political victory by
the administration which probably
assures treaty ratification with both
militarist and pacifist support, will
create a dangerous international
misunderstanding.
They point out that the net eff
feet of the administrations insist
ence that there are no reservations
is that the American people will be-
lieve he treaty actually outlaws
war.
Then, when one of the Euro
pean nations does resort to war, as
it has a right to do under the res
ervationS, the American people will
charge that nation with bad faith.
u
THESE critics maintain that
i friendly and safe international
relations can only exist on an
honest basis, that the European
governments have been honest in
seating their sweeping treaty res
ervations and that in justice to all
concerned the American senate and
people should as honestly accept or
reject those reservations.
These critics applaud the frank
ness of the Coolidge Armistice day
address, in which the President in
Dictated that the Kellogg treaty
could not be relied upon to change
the international situation or re-
move the danger of war, or as he
put it, the questions of defense and
armament are left practically
where they were"
Many believe that the state de-
partment's alleged illogical position
regarding treaty reservations, which
| it does and does not accept, is eX-
planned by the United States I'M
willingness to recognize in any way
the new British Monroe doctrine"
Moreover, the United tates does
not want to raise at this time the
American Monroe doctrine issue,
which so far has prevented leading
Latin American governments from
joining in the Kellogg pact.