Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1930-07-21
PACT RESERVATION
VOTED BY SENATE
Norris Measure Makes Sc
cret Agreements Invalid
in Naval Treaty.


ton proposes that the treaty shall De
ratified with the full understanding OF
the Senate that all the naval vessels 10
which the United States Is enutleo
under the treaty shall be constructed,
with the exception OF 6-incp gun
cruisers.
The desire of President Hoover to
get action on his nomination TO the
United States Power Commission, II
was suggested, might force the final ad-
journment Of the Senate over until to-
morrow The nominations are to come
before the Senate Interstate Commerce
Committee at q meeting this afternoon.
II any serious opposition develops
however to the nominations, members
of the committee said, 1t meant they
would not be acted upon at the pres
ent session of the Senate. The Sena-
tors are determined to adjourn as soon
as they have ratified the treaty. The
nomination of Gen. Hines to be d.
rector of the Veterans Bureau under
the new law was reported favoraoly ana
promptly confirmed at todayS session.
Speeches were made in support of the
treaty ratification by Senators Wag-
ner of New York. Thomas of Oklahoma
and Robson of Kentucky.
Senator Thomas, while declaring ms
intention to vote for ratification, criti-
cized severely President Hoover because
he had refused to send to the Senate
all of the confidential correspondence
relating to the negotiation of the treaty.
Wagner Leads Debate.
Senator Wagner of New York, Demo-
crat. led off the debate on the treaty
today. announcing his intention of
voting for the treaty. The New. York
Senator said that he regretted the Lon
don conference had not been able to
| 60 further in the matter of naval re-
duction, but that it would be calamity
to have the treaty rejected by the
| Senate.
"One of the by-products," said Sena-
| tor Wagner, ''of the present controversy
over ratification or rejection is the
| emergence of an issue which transcendS
the treaty itself In its Importance to
our welfare. 1t raises question which
calls for an answer not only in connec-
| ton with the present treaty but in con-
nection with our every act and attitude
| toward foreign nations and national
defense. That issue is;
Shall our foreign policy and our
| program of national defense proceed
| from the assumption that war is an
ever-present probability?
Many of the opponents of ratifica-
| ton have Squarely accepted the az
! flrmative of that issue. The keel Of
| their debate is the hypothesis of war
From the premise of war, probable and
imminent, the inference was quite logi-
| cally drawn that we needed a navy
sufficiently powerful to search out the
| enemy and defeat him. navy merely
| competent to defend us from agrees
sion was, of course, on such hypothesis
entirely inadequate. The ambiguous
phrase, the needs of national Defense
was thus made to fit naval supremacy
and the power of aggression.
| II do hope that the Senate will not,
| by rejecting this treaty, arouse the fear
/ both at home and abroad that it sub
scribes to such philosophy.
| Gives Alternative "War" Course.
"If that is to be the basis of our
policy, 1t is not this treaty alone that
| we should reject. II we act on the
| superstition of war, then we ought to
censor every thought of limitation, re-
| gard as reasonable every hope for re-
! duction, dismiss every effort for agree
ment; for, no matter how clever our
representatives, they will never succeed
| in perSuading any nation voluntarily to
! subscribe to an instrument which would
so curtail its own power OF defense and
so expand our power of aggression that
we would with certainty be able to de-
| feat it in its own territory.
IF our policy Is to be dictated by
such an ambition, then we should throw
| restraint to the winds, pile on tax upon
| tax, and use every last coin we can
wiring from our people for the con-
! struction OF navy SO powerful that
| 1t will be ready and certain to defeat
every opposing force.
If we pursue such a policy, there
will be temporary vindication for
those who counseled it, for the premise
of war will surely be realized.
THE distinguished chairman of the
Naval Affairs Committee cautions us
that we have no right to gamble that
there will be no future wars.
And the learned Senator from In
diana reminds us that we have engaged
in six wars in the past l54 years and
that history repeats ITSELF
IT wonder, Mr.. President, If the dis
tinguished Senator when he uttered
this doleful prophecy stopped to con-
| slider the organs of destruction we have
been developing sufficient to obliterate
| our entire civilization. Six wars! After
| all, how many wars like the last one, so
| recent that 1t haunts our memories, can
! this civilization survive? Does the dis
| tinguished Senator really believe that
our present civilization Is immortal?
Nations have In the past always
gambled on war and they have had it..
| l believe the people of these United
| States, in common with every free peo-
| pie on earth, are ready to gamble on
| peace, and having a stake in peace they
will do more than they have in the past
! to see to it that peace rather than war
shall win the race.
Security Ii Held Assured.
What should be our final conclu-
| sion? / believe that we should rattfy
this treaty. The question of security
has been raised, but I cannot under
stand how we can possibly be less
secure with the larger treaty fleet when
the fleets of the other nations are
limited than we are at present with
a smaller fleet and other nations I'M
limited in their construction.
This treaty leaves the world with
a burden of too many guns and too
many ships rather than too few. The
tremendous $4,000, 000,0 armadus
which the treaty sets up somehow DO
not click with the professed detectives
of the disarmament conference. 1t is
feeble treaty, q weak and insufficient
instrument, but 1t Is better than COM
petitive building. II 1t does not carry
us forward far toward the goal of dis
armament. at least it applies the brakes
against the rapid backsliding which had
already begun,
IF I could chose the world would
live in. / would rather have world
Of small navies than world Of big
navies. If the big navies had to be,
would rather that relative sizes were
the subject OF agreement rather than
established by competition. II limita-
ton, too. were to be abandoned, would
rather that each nation gave to the
others notice of its prospective con-
StructiOn rather than that it built its
ships secretly and surreptitiously. The
treaty does at least that. and it also