Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1928-09-16
BY WILLIAM HARD.

The most important object in Wash
ington at this week end is the fiat green
box in which there lies thin green
book the leaves of which display the
words of the Kellogg treaty for the re-
nunciation-or "outlawry"-of war
Mr.. Kellogg brought this box back from
Paris and with 1t an immense and fun
damental controversy as to the ulti-
mate meaning of its contents.
On the one hand, 1t has been main
tanned by numerous European editors
and by a considerable number of emf
nent American commentators that this
treaty intnerses the United States into
a vague and limitless sea of RESPONSE
bility and of obligations" regarding the
outbreak Of any war anywhere in the
world. The treaty is universal treaty.
we'll on its way toward gaining the sig
natures Of all the worlds governments.
It is contended that If any of these
governments violates the treaty and
starts a war; then the United States
will be under an ~obligation-of some
Sort-to visit upon the offending nation
chastisement of some sort, diplomatic,
economic or military.
That Interpretation of the treaty Is
being expressed in whirlWind of words
all over the European continent. The
France, called LIE Matin says:
"Henceforth, whichever political party
Is in power in Washington, the peace of
Europe is placed under the moral guar
antee of the United States"
Even more Importantly the distih-
guiShed American publicist Prof. James
T. Shotwell of Columbia University
lends the authority of his name to that
same general view. Prof ShotWell had
a conversation with Foreign Minister
BRAND of France just before BRAND
last year extended to the United States
the invitation of which the Kellogg
treaty is the diplomatic outcome. In
consequence Of that fact, Prof. Shot
we'll has been supposed to have spe-
cial knowledge of the treaty'S inward
intentions.
He is contending that if any foreign
government signs the treaty and then
proceeds nevertheless to make use of
war as an instrument Of national pol
icy, the United States will be under an
obligation to refuse neutrality" to that
government.
In other words, the relations between
the United States and that government
will cease to be relations of peace.
They will become RELATIONSHIP some
degree-of sundered friendship, OF hos
fifty, of discrimination. of interrupted
trade, of broken diplomatic intercourse,
or even (conceivably) of armed rebuke.
II Prof. Shotwell is right and if an
obligation of this nature does indeed
reside in the treaty, then its chances
of easy sailing through the Senate are
nil. Inquiry among Senator's shows
that nothing is more certain than that
a treaty containing implicitly any such
obligation will encounter at any rate
long series OF severe senatorial storms
before 1t arrives In the harbOr OF ratl-
fication.
In these circumstances the opinion OF
the State Department regarding the
meaning of the treaty becomes OF prime
Importance. The State Department. as
the nagOtiator of the treaty should
know its meaning better than any COM
mentator can know 1t.
The assertion can be fatty mace
that In the view of the State Depart
ment the treaty contains not one sem
tilla of any obligation of the sort here
discussed. The State Department con-
fidently believes that not one word OF
the treaty can in any way JUSTIFY tne
conclusions reached by such analysis
as Prof. ShotWell and the editor OF LIE
Matin. According to the State Depart
ment, II any foreign government Vlo-
warfare as an instrument of national
policy, the United States simply regains
its freedom of action toward that gov
eminent, Just as 1t has that freedom
now, and no obligation" OF any KIND
Is created for the United States 10
carry.
In other words, to be specific, let us
ask the question:
"If italy, signatory of the treaty
starts a war of conquest against Jugo-
slavia, a signatory Of the treaty. what
will the United States (under the
treaty. be obligated to do?"
The Shotwell school OF thought
throughout the world answers:
Take sides in some way against
Italy"
The State Department answers:
Nothing. Absolutely nothing"
A violation of the treaty by Italy. In
the State Departments opinion. would
simply restore in full the relations
which now exist between Italy and the
United States-relations which enable
us to go to war with Italy or to remain
at peace with Italy, as we please, with
no obligation upon us one way or the
other.
1t can be further stated that BRAND
OF France and Cushendun of Britain.
who signed the treaty on behalf of
their respective countries, absolutely
understand that this is Mr.. Kellogg's
attitude toward the treaty's implica-
tions-or lack of implications. 1t can
also be further stated that not one
responsible European stateman during
Mr.. Kellogg's trip TO Europe ever said
! c.e word to him in support Of the
notion that q violation OF the treaty