Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1929-03-03

mathematical parity. because the two
governments do not build the same kind
| OF shlpS; but the nations could never
tneless, agree to accept as parity some
rule OF thumb that would be salts
factory In the circumstances to all ex-
! cept those few specialists who base
their calculations upon the unthinkable
event OF fratricidal war-unthinkable
except as these experts prepare the
nina to think In it's terms. Against
such planning the common sense OF
both countries. once alert, would react
as definitely and as clearly as was
already evident in the critical DAYS of
the venezuela incident. The way to
avoid this exigency is simply to stop
Wnere we are now; a naval agreement
is possible If We want it.
! But the question of ornaments is a
much larger one than that of cruiser
pudding. We have In our great
privately owned concerns in this country
the great arsenals for the potential
wars OF the future, whether our own or
thoSe OF other countries. The munition
trade and the relation of the iron and
steel industry to 1t Is matter too diff
ticult to analyze in a few words. There
was nothing illegitimate about such
industries so long as war was an admit
ted prerogative of civilized nations. but
the Kellogg BRAND treaty, which limits
legitimate war to either self defense or
cooperative defense under the League
OF Nations and denies its free right
otherwise. makes 1t necessary for the
United States to enter into further
agreements with other countries SO that
/ export OF American munitions should
not be used SO as to make us the moral
or rather, the immoral, accomplice of
any nation going to war in future for
the assertion of its national policy.
Pcace-Time Investments Insured.
Some such policy as that proposed in
the Capper resolution is the proper solu-
ton OF the whole question of disarma-
ment Our factories should not be the
arsenals Of the treaty-breaking state.
1t is claimed that action of this kind
would injure ore of our greatest indus
tries by denying US the right to make
our share OF profit In the markets OF
war. This fact must be faced. There
Is no denying it. We should be losing
war profits in the next war il the Can.
per resolution were adopted. But COM
pare the speculative profits to be made
from the few months OF the wartime
sales with the amount Of interest drawn
from the countries that would be at
war, interest on investments through
long years of peace, and the economic
argument at once becomes overwhelm-
ing in favor Of the restriction Of ship
ment. For the restriction OF ship
ment Of supplies to treaty-breaking
state which would help to guarantee the
continuance OF legitimate business
abroad.
Viewed In this light, the restriction
on the shipment OF arms is nothing
more or less than an insurance policy
on our peace-time investments. Those
investments, increasing every year, are
even now many times greater than the
entire investment in the potential mu-
milton works at home. From the stand
point of pure business, therefore, we
should take steps to limit the shipment
OF supplies Of war to any nation violat-
ing Its pledge to renounce war as an
instrument of its policy.
The argument so far has been en-
tirely on the basis of material gain. but
the Nations honor is at stake as we'll.
Fortunately. 1t looks forward with con-
fldence that its keeping Is In safe hands.
The next four years may therefore see
the question Of ornaments and disarn1-
lament on the road to fnal settlement