Evening star., 1928-03-16

ceptions and qualifications to stipulate
when nations are justified in going tC
war with one another, would greatly
weaken the effect of any treaty such
as that under consideration ana virtu-
ally destroy its positive value as
guaranty OF peace. And in my last
note to the French government stated
expressly that I could not avoid the
feeling that IL governments should pub
licly acknowledge that they could only
deal with this ideal Of world peace In a
technical spirit and must insist upon
the adoption Of reservations impairing
II not utterly destroying the true sig
nificance Of their common endeavors
they would be in effect only recording
their impotence to the keen disappoint-
ment of mankind in general.
Believes France Can Sign.
In my note of February 81, 1923. I
also discussed at some length the ques-
ton raised by the government Of
France whether. as member of the
League of Nations and as a party to
the treaties of Locarno and other
treaties guaranteeing neutrality, France
could agree with the United States and
the other principal world powers not tC
resort to war In their mutual relations
without ipso facto violating their
present obligations under those treaties.
pointed out that If those obligations
could be interpreted so as to permit
France to conclude with the United
States alone treaty such as that pro-
posed by M. BRAND. 1t was not ,in-
reasonable to suppose that they could
be interpreted with equal justice so as
to permit France to join with the
United States in offering to conclude an
equivalent multi-lateral treaty with the
other principal powers of the world.
I stated that 1t seemed to me that the
difference between the bilateral and
multi-lateral form of treaty having for
It's object the unqualified remuneration
of war. was one of degree and not of
substance, and that government able
to conclude such a blateral treaty
should be no less able to become party
to an identical multi-bteral treaty,
since 1t could hardly be presumed that
| members of the League of Nations were
in position to do separately some
thing that they could not do together
In these circumstances I expressed
the earnest hope that France, which
admittedly perccives no bar to the con-
clusion of an unqualified anti-war
treaty with the United States alone,
would be able to satisfy itself that an
equivalent treaty among the principal
world powers would be equally con-
sistent with membership In the League
of Nations, adding that II members OF
the League OF Nations could not. with
out violating the terms OF the covenant,
agree among themselves and with the
United States to renounce war as an
instrument Of their national policy. it
seemed idle to discuss either bilateral or
multi-lateral treaties unreservedly re-
Tn hot I
called attention to the fact that the 81
American States represented at the
Havana Conference adopted resolu-
ton unqualifiedly condemning war as
an instrument of national policy in their
mutual relations, and to the fact that
II of the 81 states represented at the
conference are members of the League
Of Nations.
Wants War Abolished.
concluded my note with the un-
equivocal statement that the Govern
ment OF the United States desires to
see the institution of war abolished and
stands ready TO conclude with the
French. British, italian. German and
Japanese governments single multi
lateral treaty open to subsequent ad-
herence by any and all other govern
ments binding the parties thereto not
| to resort to war with one another. This
| Is the position of the Government OF
the United States. and this Is the object
which We are seeking to attain.
I cannot believe that such treaty
would violate the terms of the League
| covenant or conflict necessarily with
| the obligations of the members Of the
| League. Even article 10 of the covenant
| has been construed to mean that
| League members are not inescapably
| bound thereby TO employ their military
| forces According to a recent state
ment by the British government, many
members of the League accept as the
proper Interpretation OF article 10 res
olution submitted to the Fourth
Assembly. but not formally adopted
| owing TO one adverse vote. That res
olution stated explicitly:
1T Is for the constitutional authorities
Of each member to decide, In reference
to the obligation of preserving the inde
| pendence and the integrity OF the terri
tory Of members, in what degree the
member Is bound to assure the exccu
| ton OF this obligation by employment
| OF its military forces"
I earnestly hope. therefore. that the
| present negotiations looking to the con
| clusion OF an unqualified multi-lateral
| anti-war treaty may ultimately achieve
success. and I have no doubt that /
the principal powers Of the world arc
united In a sincere desire to consum
mate such treaty. formula can be
devised which viii be acceptable tp
| them all. Since. however. the purpose
| OF the United States Is so far as pos
| sible to eliminate war as a factor IN
international relations. cannot state
too emphatically that 1t will not become
| party to any agreement which di-
| rectly or indirectly. expressly or by i'm
plication, is a military alliance.
| Tha limited Gfnfeu cannnf nialira "a