Evening star., 1932-08-09
ST|MSON SPEECH
WARNING TO TOXIC
Hints U. S. Would Join Other
Nations Against Aggressive
Policy in Manchuria.

dress on the Kellogg BRAND pact, de-
last night and broadcast over a coast
forecast network OF the National Broad
casting Co., follows:
Four years ago the United States
ioined with France in the initiation
of the so-called BRAND kellogg Pact
for the Remuneration of War. A year
later, in 1929. the pact became formally
effective, and it has now been adhered
to by So nations. Scarcely had its
ratification been announced, on July
"a, 1929, when it became subjected to
the first of series of difficult chal-
lenges which are still going en-. In the
defense of the pact in these tests the
American Government has been a
leader. I believe it would be ap-
propriate, in the light of this three
years history, to take stock now OF
what the pact is, the direction in
which it is developing and the part
which we may hope that it eventually
will play in the affairs of the world.
Events have been moving so rapidly
since the Great War, and we have been
so close to them, that it is difficult to
obtain an adequate perspective. l
think, therefore, that it is we'll to sum-
MARIE briefly the background out OF
which this great treaty came and
against which it must be judged.
Visions of Warless World.
Prior to the Great War many men
had visions of warless world and had
made efforts to accomplish the abol-
ton of war, but these efforts had
never resulted in any very general or
effective combinations of nations di-
rected toward that end. During the
centuries which had elapsed since the
beginnings of International law, large
part of that law had been develop
Inent of principles based upon the ex-
istence of war.
The existence and legality Of war
were to a large extent the central facts
out of which these legal principles
grew and on which they rested. Thus
the development of the doctrine Of
neutrality was predicated upon the
duty of a neutral to maintain i'm
partiality between two belhgerents.
This implies that each belligerent has
equal rights and is owed equal duties
by the neutral. 1t implies that the
war between them is a legal situation
out Of which these rights and duties
grow.
Neutral Bound by Law.
Therefore it is contrary to this as
meet of international law for the neu-
tral to take sides between belligerentS
or to pass a moral judgment upon the
rightfulness or wrongfulneSs Of the
cause of either-at least to the ex-
tent of translating such Judgment into
action So long rs a neutral exercised
this strict impartiality, international
law afforded to him. his commerce, and
his property, certain rights OF protec-
ton. And during the generations which
preceded the Great War much OF the
growth of international humanitarian
ism was associated with attempts, not
to abolish war, but to narrow and con-
fine its destructive effects by the de-
velopment of these doctrines OF neu-
trahty.
Their chief purpose was to produce
GASES of safety for life and property in
a world which still recognized and
legalized the destruction of human
life and property as one Of the
regular methods for the settlement
of international controversies and the
maintenance of international policy.
The mechanical inventions Of the
century preceding the Great War and
the revolutionary changes in indus
trial and social organization by which
they were accompanied have produced
inevitable effects upon the concept of
war, which l have described. Com
munities and nations became less self
contained and more interdependent;
the populations of industrialized states
became much larger and more depend
ent for their food supplies upon far
distant sources; the civilized world
thus became very much more vulner-
able to war.
Armies More Destructive.
On the other hand. with these
mechanical advances modern armies
became more easily transportable and
therefore larger and were armed with
more destructive weapons. BY these
changes the inconsistency of war with
normal life became sharper and more
acute: the destructiveneSS of war to
civilization became more emphatic; the
abnormality of war became more ap-
parent The laws of neutrality became
increasingly ineffective to prevent even
strangers to the original quarrel from
being drawn into the general conflict.
Finally there came the Great War,
dragging into its maelstrom almost the
entire civilized world; tangible proof
was given of the impossibility of con-
flning modern war within any narrow
limits, and it became evident to the
most casual observer that If this eVo-
luton were permitted to continue war,
perhaps the next war, would drag
down and utterly destroy our civili-
cation.
Before this war was over 1t began
to be called "a war to end war" and
at the peace conference at Versailles
the victorious nations entered into a
covenant which sought TO reduce the
possibility Of war TO its lowest terms.
Merely Limited Wars.
The League of Nations covenant
did not undertake entirely to prescribe
wars between nations. 1t left unre-
stricted a zone in which such wars
might occur without reprobation. Fur
thermore, 1t provided under certain
circumstances for the use Of force by
the community of nations against a
Wrongdoer as a sanction. 1t created
a community group of nations pledged
to restrict war and equipped with
machinery for that purpose.
Some of this machinery notably
article H. which provides on a threat
MANY WV