Evening star., 1934-02-25
Continued From Third Page.)

tCOHClnueQ rIoH 1uuo Ed6o.L
different agencies which have hereto
fore proved insufficient to keep peace
in the Western Hemisphere. 1t is a
plan for the future, based on the ex'
perience-the unfortunate experience
of the past.
Grand Opportunity Lost
1t is, of course, impossible to de-
scribe at length the manifold proV-
sions embodied in the Mexican peace
code within the space limitations OF
this column But brief enumeration
of some of it's articles is necessary to
fully understand what a grand op-
portunity for practical achievement
was lost at Montevideo
The first section Of the Mexican
plan is devoted to a declaration Of
principles, which have previously been
asserted, at one time or another, by
most of the American governments,
but never adopted collectively and in
a single document. Article l, in the
spirit of the Kellogg pact, outlaws
wars of aggression among the parties,
and prescribes that conflicts or differ
enceS of whatever nature arising oe-
tween them must be settled by the
pacific means provided by the law of
nations. 1t is interesting to note iE
this connection that the Sixth Pan
American Conference at Havana
adopted a similar declaration in Fep-
ruary Of 1928-at the suggestion Of
the Mexican delegate, Senor Con-
zales Roa, now Ambassador to Wash
ington-thus antedating the Kellogg
pact by several months.
But the great flaw in both the
Havana declaration and the Kellogg
pact is that no means are provided
to define an aggressor state. Article
of the Mexican peace code corrects
the omission by specifying that it will
be considered an aggressor any state
which Is responsible for one Of the
following actions: (a) To declare
war to another state; (b) to invade
the territory of another state, even
without declaration of war, or to at
tack its naval or aerial forces; (c) to
blockade the coast or the ports of an
other country. and Cd to render aid
to foreign elements who, having or
ganized themselves within its borders,
set out from its territory to attack
their original country. In the text Of
this article may be recognized the
spirit of several aggression pacts
lately concluded by Soviet Russia in
Europe, the spirit of President Roose-
velts proposition to the chief ex-
ecutives of the world last year and
that of the Venezuelan draft at
Montevideo. The Mexican code. en-
bodying. all these. rounds them up
with a statement that mo considera-
tion Of a political, military or eco
nomic nature may justify the kind of
aggression referred to in this article" !"
CaIvo and Drago Doctrine.
Article 3 is an enactment of the
famous Calvo and Drago doctrine of
non-forcible collection of interna-
tional debts, which in 1910 resulted
in a convention signed at the Fourth
Pan American Conference at Buenos
Aires, calling for arbitration of such
matters. In the Mexican peace code
the parties agree mot to take re-
course to arms for the collection of
contractual debts"
Article 4, although it reiterates a
principle which is not at all new to
the American republics, having been
( advanced from the very beginning of
their independent life. is important
because such principle has been con-
Stantly diSregarded and never in
cluded in a formal treaty. The prin-
ciple is that boundary question must
not be solved by sheer violence and
that no territorial settlement will be
recognized which is not brought about
by peaceful means. The first part
Of 1t was stated as early as 1926 at
the Panama Congress called by Boil
var. The second part made its ap-
pearance more than 40 years ago,
at the First Pan American Conference,
although 1t Is only recently that 1t
has been revived and made popular
by the Hoover-Stimson policy with
regard to the Manchurian crisis. In
August. 1892, a declaration to this
effect was signed at Washington by
the representatives of 19 American
| governments, but in the Mexican
peace code the non-recognition of
territorial acquisitions by force is, for