Evening Star Newspaper, January 25, 1925, Page 37

EDITORIAL PAGE NATIONAL PROBLEMS SPECIAL ARTICLES - EDITORIAL SECTION Part 2—14 Pages he Sunty Staf WASHINGTON, D. C, SUNDAY MORNING, JANUARY 25, 1925 FAILURE TO QUIT COLOGNE . BARS MANY ADJUSTMENTS Long Drawn-Out Question of French Guaranties Involved in Allied Decision to Hold B BY FRANK H. HE confusion and bitterness which have been engendered Dby the allied decision to remain in Cologne beyond the time fix- ed by the treaty of Ver- sailles and because of the unques- tioned violations of the disarmament provisions of the treaty Temain one of the grave barriers to immediate adjustment many out standing European probiems. It has bedevilled the domestic political situ- ation of Germany, it has temporarily interrupted the negotiations of a commercial treaty between France and Germany—moreover it threatens not the peace of Europe, in the sense of rendering a new war possible at the moment, but by postponing some viable adjustment Now in examining the thus raised It is necessary to ap- preciate at once that the decision to Ktay in Cologne and the reasons Eigned, while technically and inci- dentally adequate, at most no more than temporary measures to disagreement between allies over the permanent steps to be taken or. more accurate, a failure of the allies and in particular the French and British to arrive at a definite agreement Cologne Bridgehead Strategle. Tt Is plain that since under the agreement by which the Dawes plan | was put through in London last Sum- mer, France, while promising to evacuate the Ruhr within the present year, can remain in the Ruhr until August, any evacuation of the Co-| logne bridgehead in advance of the completa withdrawal from the Ruhr would be out of the question. This is true because the rallways and roads by which the occupying forces in the Ruhr are maintained pass through the Cologne bridgehead area Therefore, if the British troops which actually garrison Cologne were with- drawn, French and Belgian troops would have to take their place, and not only would there be no real evacuation, but France would be put in complete control of the whole left bank of the Rhine from Holland to Alsace. What thé Brit- ish desire is evacuation, permanent evacuation of Cologne, and the mans, despite their protests, have no wish to see French troops replace British But beneath these surface conditions there lies an all-important fact in the present Issue. At Paris, when the treaty of peace was made, France asked for the right permanently to garrison the left bank of the Rhine as a measure of protection for herself against a new German aggression. This demand was mquarely opposed by Britain and the Unjted States. In the end a compromise vias reached by which Lloyd George and | Wilson, for their respective countries, gave France a treaty of guarantee, while Clemenceau. withdrew the French demand for occupation. Fallure of Treaty Plans. But the American Senate failed to ratify the treaty of guarantee, and it accordingly lapsed, since British ratifi- cation was conditional upon American. France, therefore, was put in the situa- tion of having resigned her claim in return for promises whicn were not now to be kept. And the real issue was hound to arise only when the mament came under the treaty for the evacua- tion of the first of three areas, which under the treaty were during 15 vears after 1319 to be returned to German control 1f France today agrees to the| evacuation of the Cologne bridge- head, while she still has no guarantee of her security by the British—she has long ago abandoned all hope of any American pledge—then she will | be in the position of having sur- rendered her last gage of security without having obtained any corre- aponding advantage. Thus, the whole dispute at the moment covers the larger question of French security What faces Is a situation in| which the French practically say to the Britich that they are not disposed 1o assent to the evacuation of the| Rhine barrier unless they have some SIMONDS, question cover a Ger- one of Versailles | | was foundation of | vas ridgehead. | security | oc | by any such method the upation permanently of German | territory, not the annexatidn, be it understood, but the garrisoning of | the Rhine bridgeheads, is intolerable. |1t is a condition which the German | people will not endure and so far | from bringing ety, It only insures ultimate danger, when the condi- tions once provide Germany with the opportunity. Whether pe | is ever to be mssured between France |and Germany, one thing is certain nd that is that any such m-rlnmll | would be no more than the insurance | |of a new war By contrast British opinion, des | differences between France and Eng-| land since the war, has pretty gen- erally recognized the justice of the | French insistence upon some form of guarantee—and it must be understood that France and Belgium stand in the same position here. On the abstract proposition that Britain should sup-| port France and Belgium again, if| Germany should once more make an| unprovoked attack, there is substan- tial British agreement. Further than this, there Is recognition that a Ger- many strong enough to get to the British Channel once more would constitute a menace for Britain which could not be mistaken Britain's Objections. What Britain objects to in the sit- uation is undertaking to guarantee French policy along with French se- curity and Fremch alllances along with France. At the moment France 1s bound by treaty to defend the fron-| ties of Poland and of Czechoslavakia | against German aggression, bound | not alone by the more or less vague provisions of the covenant of the league, but also by definite and specific treaties. Now the British have no wish or Intention to guar- antee Polish frontiers against Ger- many nor to be involved in a new war becagse France joins Poland in a struggle provoked by a German attack upon the Poles. Here British opinion is about what| it was In 1914 when Sir Edward Grey rather brutally indicated that Brit- aln was not inclined to lift a finger to assist Serbia, so long as the Ser- bian lssue did not invelve Russia or France, that s, so Jong as it wa localized in the Balkans. The Brit- ish as the event showed were read to fight to protect Belgium because Germany in Antwerp and Ostend was a menace to’ England, but Austria in Belgrade and Nish left the British public quite cold. In the same way | | German aggiession against Poland does not seem to the British mind basis for a new war for England All the British effect has been to find some sort of way in which any British guarantes of French security should not involve Britain in a guar- antee of French policy. French policy is not merely concerned with the se- curity of France, or rather not merely concerned with the question of se- curity in the west of Europe. France has sought to find some guarantee of her safety through alliances with the new and smaller states of the middle and southeast of Europe and thus entered into & series of contracts with various states, notably Poland and Czechoslovakia. more British Oppose Alliances. Again, aside from the narrow ques- tion of French policy, the British in large number are opposed to the ea of separate alliances, both from tradition and because many Eng-| lishmen believe that the World War made inevitable and Britain forced to engage by reason of the | series of agreements more or less| binding, which were made with| France and with Russia. They be- lieve that the fact of these under- standings had much to do with the character of French and Russian policy and gave it a confidence which | it would not otherwise have had This fraction of British public opin- ion believes that there can be no Suropean peace on the of separate alliances and feels guarantee of French se- exlsting circumstances that any curity in would be British pl of aid in time of Aanger arising from Germany. For the upparent violation of the treaty of Versailles involved the French | have a ready and a considerable justi- fication growing out of the fact that| Germany has been guilty of viola- tions of the disarmament sections of | the treaty of Versailles, violations | which the allies of concede | unanimously. | Blocking Chances of Peac | Yet it is plain that although Ger- | many has violated these provisions, Germany nevertheless. nearly | disarmed as it is conceivable that &he ever will be and that further pro- Ionged occupation, anything like a| permanent occupation, would consti-| tute an intolerable menace to world peace and a permanent barrier to any adjustment between France and Germany. It is axlomatic that if a state of peace cannot be reached be- tween these two nations the Euro- pean situation will not only remain bad but tend to become steadily worse. Thus it 1s unmistakable that in the period of delay, which has now been supplied by the undoubted German violations of the treaty and the unanimous action of the allies thereon, | France and Great Britain must find | ®ome common hasis of agreement on the main question of French security | and that following upon that and coinciding with the completion of the French evacuation of the Ruhr the Cologne area must also be turned Pack to the German But how is this b After years of debate the the French did arrive at a formula | of agreement which was considered by Briand and Lloyd George at Cannes | three years ago. But in the midst of the discussions Briand was sud- denly forced to resign, Polncare came | to power and while he retained con- | trol the British refused to come to| &ny definite arrangement. | Meantime two separate efforts were made to find a basis of agreement through the League of Nations, thats s to find a way for guaranteeing French security through the league Itself, for the British were increasing- 1y hostlle to any separate arrange- ment which might have the color if not the character of an alliance agafnst Germany Yet these two separate experiments, the Cecil pact wnd the protocol, have not proven the answer, for the British have already rejected the former and show no in- | clination to accept the latter. The new British cabinet, when it took | office the other day gave formal notice, hawever. that it meant to con- ider seriously the question of French | security Of asurss, in the last analysis, the France sis to be found? British and | | to in reality an alliance with France against Germany, which would lead to counter alliances, as Germany grew strong and would in the end contribute to making war not to prevent it. MacDonald and his Labor iates, who held to this view as do many Liberals, to find in the League of Nations some method of | avoiding the separate alliance, that is, they sought to make the league itself the guarantor of peace and the member nations bound only to act in case of a menace to world peace which was certified to by the league. In a word, the Labor lot endeavored to establish under the league a meth- od by which they would be saved from engaging in any war in which France, for example, was not the at- | tacked but the aggressor. as- Binding for Arbitration, Thus, the protocol first bound all the signatories to accept arbitration, and secondly an American intitiative defiged the aggressor nation as the country which declined to employ ar- bitration and resorted to force. Under | any such system Britain would only be bound to support France or Bel- gium provided Germany, declining to | resort to arbitration, 60k up arms. And it is not difficult to see that in this respect the protocol satisfied | British opinion | But the difficulty lay and lies in| the fact that it constituted a similar commitment with respect of countries whose frontiers the British twere | unwilling to guarantee under any circumstances. ~ Thus, even it the Germans should make an unprovoked | attack upon Poland, the British are | not willing to agree, as they would if they accepted the protocol, to go the aid of Poland. They believe that Polish frontiers as now ex ing are a permanent invitation German attack and that peace Is im- possible unless Poland is willing to| surrender the Polish corridor and Upper Silesia, which, of course, the Poles will not do. France and most of the continental states acepted the protocol because they have no degire to modify the existing situation, and are satisfied with the frontiers as laid down at Parls and since. All they desire Is that what exists, the status quo, shall be maintained. They were will- ing to agree not to attack any one, because they had no ambitions to be satlsfied. For them peace and the continuation of the existing situation were identical. to Amount to Alliances. But quite a different situation exists in the case of Germany, Hun- gary and Bulgaria, all of which have lost large areas which they mean to get back. Russia, t0o, may be re- BY HORACE W. PEASLEE. Chairman of the American Institute Architects’ Committee on Plan ©of Waskington and Environs. fight on over the This time its about Lafayette Park. The combatants or- ganize in armed camps. One group holds for traflic at the price of parks, the other for parks inviolate. Each mar- shals itsgfrguments. Each Is a Government agency. The bystander is bewildered. 1s the traffic demand outrageous or are the parks obstacles to progress? ~How Is one to know? There's always some fight on over Wash- ington, always some interested group to com- bat or some uninterested group to prod and frequently there is opposition of Governmen- tal agencies. Today it happens to be this proposal to tear up this foreground to the White House. Yesterday It was to use other parks for motor parking. At one moment, thera's hue and cry about the Botanic garden and the Arboretum, the next about the lo- cation of the memorial bridge. Always there's discussion about public buildings and their location. One day's paper tells the world about the shortcomings of the transporta- tlon system: the next of housing shortages and rent wars: the third of this or that fight launched by this or that citizens’ assoclation about schools or zoning ordinances. Good Citizens Active. The man In the street knows that some- thing is wrong and if he is a good citizen— even though he has no vote—he forms his own opinions, allies himself with one side or the other and s his influence toward the end which he thinks Is the correct solution of the problem. He joins assoclations and commit- tees and delegations and tries to impress their composite views upon the powers that be These efforts would make for a satisfactory solution of difficulties were it not for the fact that one side in an argument is always wrong and. with lay lawyers and lay judges on technical questions, it sometimes happens that the best presentation of the case rather than its technical merit is the deciding factor. Any one can see that mistakes have hap- pened again and again. One does not need a Fine Arts Commission to tell him that the Navy and Munitions Buildings should not have been erected on the south side of B street right across the Mall roads as long as that area was to be developed as a setting for the great Lincoln Memorial. One does not need to bhave an art jury point out that, if the frontage of Lafavette Square is scheduled for executive offices similar to the Treasury An- nex, it was a great mistaks for the Govern- ment to have sponsored a building of the type of the Veterans’ Bureau. The man about town can see with his own eyes that some- body blundered in allowing the Rock Creek Valley to be crossed by both bridges and via- ducts. He knows that just as many mistakes can be made today as were made yesterday and because he's a good citizen, he doy bit. HERE'S another Washington plan. his Develops Bit by Bit. He does more than his bit. “In the aggre- gate he consumes an enormous amount of time and energy and money in this voluntary serv- And therein lies the great trouble with the National Capital situation—It is developed bit by bit There's a prevailing impression that every- thing has been done for Washington that can be done In the way of professional planning. The impression is that the Washington of today was developed from the L/Enfant plan, and polished up with the plan of 1901, and now is guided by the Fine Arts Commission. That is wholly a misconception. To be sure, it started with the L'Enfant plan, but that covered only a sixth of the present District. The present highway plan is being extended without the advice of city planner, architect ice. already inadequate for the city's needs. The Fine Arts Commission is not intended to be a planning agency. It is an advisory body, and its opinions in matters of design are given only on sculpture, park projects and public structures in the District. It has no jurl diction whatever over the streets or private building development which make up the bulk of the city. Far from being develop- ed under a great plan, there are few citles which are so torn apart by conflicting fn- terests and, what is more to the point, by conflicting powers. Washington represents the acme of decentralization. Division of Authority. To begin with, there Is the leglslative body holding detalled jurisdiction over every ex- penditure of funds and requiring plans to meet its approval. In the executlve group, the parks and the park trees are under one plan- ning jurisdiction: the streets and the street trees under another. There is no concerted planning of highways for parkways, no adap- tation of parkways for traic needs. The transportation system is_not prescheduled to meet the needs of zoned districts. There is no definite location of public building projects, no advance study or estimate of the housing complement for their future occupants, no correlated study of the arterial feeders and conveyances between the two. Notwithstand- ing all the object lessons we are laboring under today and all the shining examples, good and bad, of other American cities, we are blundering along and doing our best, bit by bit, instead of getting down to business and putting to work our best talent, our special- ized talent, In working out all these diverse problems in their relation to each other, in a comprehensive co-ordinated scheme. This is a cold business proposition and it should make its strongest appeal to business men. No business man would think of hav- ing a department store without a head, In which each department was working without regard for the interest of every other depart- ment and without co-ordination. No business man would sanction a policy of half-adopting a scheme of business extension and then com- pleting It after allowing speculators to buy up the options on the property. That is what happens here. We half-heartedly launch a schenie for Government buildings such as leg- islative square around the Capitol or Execu- tive Square around the Whitp House and then we shift back and forth for a couple of de- cades until the land has gone out of sight in value or is preoccupled with improvements which block the Government scheme. Finally, we bulld a Treasury annex or a third of it, and let private office buildings go up around the square. An Age of Specialization. The time has passed when it was the proper thing for every man to be a jack-of-all-trades. We have found that by puttering around in amateur fashion we have wasted money and time and lives. We have wasted millions of doilars in Washington by doing things that we need not have done and in leaving undone things that we ought to have done and in dis- carding or doing over the things that could Just as well have been right in the first place. Until all the diverse problems of Washington are sorted out and studied from a single, co- ordinating point of view, by speclalists in modern city planning, there will continue just the sort of difficulties we have met in the past, only much intensified as the years go on. Philadelphia, Chicago, New York are readjust- ing themselves at tremendous costs of physical alteration. How much simpler it is to make the adjustments on paper before the errors arc translated Into streets and buildings for future generations to remove. From immemorial times the nations of the world have lavished their arts upon their capital cities and to all other nations these capitals represent their countries. One can- not Pressing Need Is for a Competent Body - To Plan Future Development of Capital ing has been done in our Capital City to give us more of the thrill of pride, the knowledge of our abllity and power. It is an affront to our intelligence as a people and a betrayal of posterity to lower such standards of accom- plishment in any phasé of the Capital's de- velopment, to dicker and dabble in petty, ill- considered planning and to justify such dab- bling by idle talk of “highbrow stuft” and “common sense.” We have produced a great bullding by intrusting it to a man at the head of his profession and indorsed by his profession for his training and his experience. A great bullding is but part of a great city and the complications of modern city plan- ning demand similar specialized training. An American wins the international competition for the capital of Australia and yet we allow our own Nhatlonal Capital to grow without the help of any of our great city planners. Belongs to All the People. We are becoming a traveled peopls and from our contacts abroad we are coming to appreclate our shortcomings as well as to understand our advantages. As a Deople, we are beginning to realize that the Capital City belongs to us all. This feeling crystal- lizedilast year in the development all over tha country of Federal city committees sponsored by the American Civic Association, and in the co-operative action of the City Planning In- stitufe. It recelved impetus from the action of the American Institute of Architects in proposing a city-planning commission to cor- rect the fundamental dificulty—the lack of co-ordinated planning. A committee of 55 architects has been organized, a member in each chapter of the institute, to work with other groups for Washington. The American Society of Landscape Architects has offered its assistance and other professional and business groups are getting back of the movement It is not proposed to throw any monkey wrenches into the machinery nor to do over again work that has been thoroughly done. Rather it is Intended to offer the services of men of the highest caliber in the allied pro- fessions having to do with city planning, each having the backing and indorsement of his profession as the man best fitted for his part of the work—men of breadth and vision to grasp their problems and to offer to a long- Jaboring Congress solutions of a permanent natura Leaxon in Committee Hearingw. That the District of Columbia is in need of some such stabilizing influence was shown at the current hearings of the public buildings biils. Testimony developed the fact that part of the appropriation intended for Federal buildings in the District might be shifted to other polnts; that there was no disposition to accept any limitation of site intended to furtherance of the Mall plan, and that au- thority was asked to close streets if necessary —all factors serlously affecting general de- velopment plans. It was not to be wondered at that a member of the committee who was conducting the examination looked longingly at the picture of the public buildings scheme hanging in the committee room and ejacu- lated, “You don’t know. Of course you don't. Nobody knows. I've looked at that pleture for 25 years. I wish that you would carry out the scheme of take the damn thing down. The technical men of the country who have most to do with the elements of city plan- ning feel just the same way about it. Know- ing Washington's great possibilities, yet feel- ing its limitations, they want everything done that's going to be done before destruction of existing conditions or misdirected develop- ment makes their efforts too late. All cities come to a crisis sooner or later, just as in- evitably as individuals eventually vield to the dentist, the oculist or the surgeon. It treatment begins in time, the results are less serious and less expensive. Washington must have eventually, and might just as well have or landscape architect—and this, in the Capi- tal of a nation which has made the greatest progress in modern city planning. s a plan of the park system only and s0 inadequately has is been supported that but the 53 park areas recommended have been acquired; and now, 25 years later, it is of 1901 6 of her claims to provinces which were taken by Poland, by Rumania and in the making of the various Baltlc states. Therefore the protocol to pre- serve peace was in reality no more than an alliance of the victors to guarantee the conditions created as a result of the victory and a specific alliance against Germany and Russia. Britain has had no prime minister since the war, MacDonald included, who has not officially recognized the French claim for protection, for se- curity, but the enduring difficulty has been to find any method by which this claim could be satisfied without in- yolving all sorts of other problems. And the fundamental difficulty has not been lessened by the fact that French and British policy has been widely at variance on many occasions and is still very far from complete accord despite superficial improvements. But the French are on the Rhine, they are able to stay, they have a legitimate reason for staying since all of the allles have agreed In the statement that Germany has violated the disarmament provisions of the treaty of Versailles. Moreover, it is reasonably sure that with or with- out justification France will stay on the Rhine until the matter of security disposed of, and if the British de- cide to evacuate the Cologne bridge- head themselves, French troops will take It ‘over as French troops took over the Coblenz sector when Gen Allen and his American troops were recalled France's Guarantees. Moreover, aside from the German actions which supply a legal warrant under the treaty for a prolongation of the occupation, France has the moral claim resting upon the direct pledge of the American and British repre- sentatives to the Paris peace confer- ence to insure French security if France did surrender her purpose to stay permanently on the Rhine. She is in the position of saying to the Ger- man: “You have failed to carry out the treaty provisions, and, as the treaty provides, I shall remain. is able to say to the Eriton: promised me a guarantee if I retired, but you have never kept your prom- ise and I do not purpose to retire un- tl_you do.” But it is manifest that if France stays on the Rhine Germany will shortly pass to the control of the reactionaries, and the need from the point of view of French and Belgian security of a constant watch on the Rhine will grow, not decline. We shall pass into & state of war, which may not be at once marked by fight- ing, but can never be regarded as anything but war and as constituting anything but a growing menace to the whole continental situation. If you say that France must retire idea of tha Fuarantesing of French gnrded s certain one day to revive . (Continued on 1hird Page) _ \ without London, The plan cidental. The Whistle BY IDA M. TARBELL. UR town is rich in mills, iron and steel—-great roaring, belching creatures. Person- ally, I love them—their pow- er, their terror, their tre- mendous human struggle. The voice of our greatest mill is a whistle such as no man ever heard elsewhere. It fills the valley and crosses the hill. We have a certain pride in its penetration, and when in the city they tell us, “This morning we heard your whistle,” we go back and tell the neighbors. But the whistle is hated. It wakes us out of our sleep—we late sleepers. And again and again we do not re- turn, but fall to thinking of the thou- sands it drags pitilessly from bed. No luxurious moments of half sleep—no leisurely dressing and breakfasting; Wwe sense a jump, a rush and a hurry that condemns us. Why they and not we? To the Whistle's Credit. Somehow we never remember the compensating relief the whistle brings at noon to those it has dragged from slumber—the call to stop—eat—rest. We have never learned to think of that and credit the whistle. Then the whistle out of hours is an alarm. It means fire—explosion— danger—death. We are afraid when it shrieks in mid-afternoon or at night. So, when suddenly at midnight of the last day of a recent month it broke the silence with its unearthly cries, we jumped, pulled on boots and coat and ran, prepared for actlon. ‘What disaster? What horror now? Our town remembers only too well ‘what that shriek has told many a time before—awful burnings—crushings. What was it? Up the street came a procession— hundreds—with banners and lanterns —women and children dancing, sing- ing, laughing, crying. “We did it,” one banner read. ‘A month without a scratch,” an- other. “No doctor need apply,” other. What did it mean? They told us. still an- “We've been working for a safe month—one when nobody was hurt— and we've had if think of Italy without recalling Rome; nor of France without Paris; nor or“England This pre-eminence is not ac- It is the result of genius. called to his aid the greatest artists of Greece and to this day “the glory that was Greece™ sets the standard by which we judge our own accomplishment—the Lincoln Memorial created for prehensive Pericles zoning, hou schools and serves. Not a man will go limping through life from this month’s work—not a woman weep a husband or a child a father. Victory, indeed! No wonder the whistle shrieked for joy. As they passed they told us how they did it. Everybody had girded himself for the effort—management and men. They came in the morning with a will to safety—prepared to give the attention, the caution, the active co-operation that alone pre- vents accldent They watched machine operations keen as hawks—they besleged the safety committee with suggestions. No flaw escaped them—no poesibility for accident went unchallenged. Their zeal went home with them and at night women and children gathered around their man to listen to the day's story. “I told the boss that bar was weak —that door off its hingo—that ladder worn,” he boasted, “anll he couldn't be quick enough to fix ‘em. And he said, ‘Good boy! That's the way to do it—prevent accidents.’ " All day women and children talked over what they'd heard with thelr neighbors—boasted and listened to boastings. All day the priest and the teacher went up and down exhorting, praising, inciting. No Lomger Hate Tt ‘had been a wonderful month in the mill. That was what we heard standing at the gate while the long procession sang its way by and the Whistle went on splitting the air until the city 10 miles. away took notice and reporters came rushing out to find—not the disaster they expected, but victor: The whistle will never again be hated in our town. We have learned that it can shriek for joy as well as pain—and, this is the best of it, will— will have' occasion to do it. ,Again and again in thése coming mofiths it will break the night with the glad news that the mill has “done it again” —another month without a scratch. We shall never complain at being awakened. to rejoice—we who know 50 well what its screams of pain tell. It may mean that a time will come when the unexpected cry of the whis- tle In the night will always call us to rejolcing, for this month’s work, 50 industrial development, now, a competent and properly qualified body the purpose of developing a com- plan for the entire District of Columbia and its environs, with co-ordinated sing, traffic and transportation, playgrounds, parks and highway forest and farm re- the mill people tell ux, is a prophecy of future victory—of a time when the will to safety will be universal, when hablits of care and caution will be the rule, not the exception—when an accident will be a crime and the guilty suffer. All this we said to one another as we watched the procession dance down the dim street, and listened to the refrain some one had started as he went and all had picked up: We've done it once, We can do It again. (Copyright, 1925.) Legion of Honor For French Workers In accordance with a suggestion made a year or so ago, the French government has begun to recognize faithful service on the part of mem- bers of the working classes by pon- ferring on typically deserving cases the ribbon of the Legion of Honor. It is announced that this distinction is to be awarded to M. Emile Rou- quette, a compositor now aged 72, who was apprenticed to a printer at Rodez 56 years ago and who has re- mained in the same employment ever since, with the exception of five years when he was engaged in compulsory military service. brought up a family of two boys and three girls of his own, but he also undertook the care of the two chil- dren of his dead sister. Two French dockyard hands, one employed at Toulon and the other in the marine artillery shops at Brest, have been created chevaliers of the Legion of Honor. Floating Hotels In Midatlantic Hotels on floating islands in Mid- atlantic will be a feature of the new alrway to be opened next Spring, which will make It possible to reach Buenos Alres by way of Paris in les: than a week from London. The scheme has been prepared by Pierre Latescers, the French airway mag- nate, and only the formal sanction of the French government is now re- quired. The floating Islands in the Atlantic will be constructed to afford accom- modation for passengers and sea. planes alike. They will be estab- lished on the Toute between Dakar (Senegal) and Fernando de Noronha Island, off the Brazilian coast. TS e More than 100 national and inter- national unions are affiliated with the American Federation of Labon, | which may prove resultless, to dimin- He has not only| FOREIGN AFFAIRS CONTROL RENEWS OLD-TIME FRACAS Senate, Ever Jealous of Executive Au- thority, Believed to See Vulnerable Target in Ex-Senator as Secretary BY BEN McKELWAY. HE Senate has asked for de- talls concerning the agree- ment reached in Paris be- tween the American and allied ministers on certain phases of the Dawes reparations plan. The Senate has approved an amendment to the naval bill requesting the Pres- ident to call another limitation of armaments conference. Secretary of State Hughes' fortcoming retirement has been linked by conjecture with the fact that his views on foreign relations and those of Chairman Borah of the Senate forgign relations committee are far apart. Senators are already pictured as licking their chops over the prospect of having as Secretary of State a man who has been a Senator, whose vulnerable parts are known to them and who presents an attractive target for senatorial criticism and general bully-ragging. Altogether, vague rumblings which eminate these days from the Senate chamber portend another storm over forelgn affairs, with the country, as usual, sitting back and wondering who, after all, is responsible for their conduct—the Senate or the President and his Secretary of State. One editor, at least, has viewed with considerable alarm the resigna- tion of Secretary Hughes. Unwilling to take the Secretary’s own word for It, he attributes it outright to the differences between the Secretary and Mr. Borah on foreign relations. From this he draws a moral to adorn his tale, the same being that the senior- ity rule of committee appointments in the Senate should be abandoned | when It results in the cholce of a chairman of the foreign relations committee who views do not coin- cide with those of the administra- tion. It is difficult enough, wails this editor, to conduct foreign affairs with two Secretaries of State, and when their policies conflict it is time to sit down and write a letter to your Representative about it. Something, he maintains, should be done. Fought With Washington. All of which is Interesting mainly because it centers attention on a cu- rious phase of republican government which has resulted in a fight between the Senate and the President ever since George Washington asked the Senate’s advice about a treaty he had | in mind with some Southern Indians. He read the Constitution, ordered his coach hitched up and rode over to the Senate to ask them what they thought of the treaty. Instead of treating him with the courteous dig- y due such condecension on his part, the Senate immediately got into a row over the treaty and adjourned. And the father of our country is cred- ited by historians with the remark that he would “be d—d if he ever went there again.” He never did, nor did any other President until Wood- row Wilson. European statesmen, thinking of the diplomatic coup, which must be executed with boldness and swiftness as well as secrecy, may wonder how the United States gets along under its dual or divided system of conduct- ing foreign affairs. In fact, history records more than one case where the Secretary of State was forced to ex- plain in detail the American system, for fear that a misunderstanding abroad would cause resentment and i1l will. It was not easy for foreign countries, in the early days—though they probably understand it well enough now—to see how a treaty could be negotiated by duly accredit- ed representatives of the United States and then fail to meet the ap- proval of a body of men who had nothing to do with its building. And skilled students of the question have more than once discussed the advan- tages of the American system versus the European, where, In the case of Great Britain, for instance, foreign relations are left entirely to the King's ministers. Lord Bryce ex- plained very simply, in his American Commonwealth, the reason for the success of the system in America, al- though there has been a world war and resulting complications since he wrote it. g American Problems Different. “The answer is,” he said, “that America is not Europe. The problems with which the foreign office of the United States has to deal are far few- er and usually far simpler than those of the old world. The Republic keeps constantly to her own side of the At- lantic; nor is it the least of the merits of the system of senatorial control that it has tended. by dis- couraging the executive from schemes ish_the taste for forelgn enterprises, and to save the country from being entangled with alliances, protec- torates, responsibilities of all sorts beyond its own frontiers.” The Continental Congress of 1 composed of delegates from the col onies, met to consider measures for the common defense, and as it had to contract with foreign powers it had to make treaties. These treaties were made in the name of each of the 13 States and the Continental Congress ared its powers of negotiation and ritification with no one. The Confederation, which lasted until the new Government under the Constitution, placed the treaty-mak- ing power in the “United States in Congress assembled,” upon condition that two-thirds of the States should ratify. When a “Secretary of the United States for the Department of Foreign Affairs” was appointed, a resolution required that all letters to foreign powers in relation to trea- ties, the treaties themselves and the instructions to ministers in forelgn countries should first be submitted to Congress for approbation. Feared New Autocracy. When the constitutional convention met In 1787 the delegates had in mind a vivid recollection of the govern- ment under King George III and any- thing savoring of autocracy gave them nightmares and made them see things in the dark. So they were very wary of giving the new President powers which might lead him to think he was a second King George. The first draft of the Constitution vested the power of making am- bassadors, negotiating and ratifying treaties in the Senate alone, with such action depending upon a two-thirds vote. But the proposal was debated. The fact that such a system would be lacking in the secrecy, dispatch and decision necessary in diplopatic negotiation was brought up. One side pointed out that it would giye to a minority the power to continue a war which the majority wanted to see ended through treaty. The other side, still seeing things at night, de- clared that if the President were ler in on the proposition at all it would that he would biock treaties to keep it. Finally the Constitution as ap- proved gave the President the power to negotiate treaties, put the approval with the Senate, and gave the Presi- dent the final say-so on ratification John Marshall, interpreting the Constitution, sald “the President is the sole organ of the nation in its external relations and its sole repre- sentative with foreign nations.” Th, President may begin negotiation through the Secretary of State or anyhow he pleases, when and where he pleases. If he w to, he ca take the Senate Into his confidence and tell them what is golng oy George Washington, as related above, tried it once by going to the Capitol. The present system is to invite influ- ential Senators to the White House for breakfast, feed them well on buckwheat cakes, sausage and maple sirup, with coffee, tea or cacoa, shred- ed wheat, corn flakes or grapenuts, and tell them or ask them what's what. ants Leginlators Fall as Envoy As early as 1825 a Secretary of State, Henry Clay, was explaining the American system to a foreign govern- ment. “According to the practice of this Government,” he said, “the Sen- ate is not ordinarily consulted in the initiatory stages ‘of negotiation, but its consent and advise are invoked after a treaty is concluded, under the direction of the President, and sub- mitted to its considera Each of the two branches of the y-mak- ing power is independent of the other, while both are responsible to the States and to the people, the com- mon sources of their power.” Presidents in the past have tried the experiment of appointing mem- bers of Congress to take part in the negotiations for a treaty, but the practice has not been a howling suc- cess by any means. Sometimes it scems impossible to please a Senator. In 1812 President Madison appointed a and the Speaker of the House as commissioners to take part in negotiating the treaty of Ghent, which ended the War of 1812. Bui the two found themselves, on the one hand, faced with the necessity of ac quainting their colleagues in Con- gress of their progress, and, on the other hand, bound by the secrecy de- manded In diplomatic proceedings. they resigned from Congress Again, at_the close of the Spanish- American War, President McKinley appointed three Senators as commis- sioners to negotiate the treaty with Spain, but his action caused a tre- mendous uproar In the Senate. A resolution was introduced and refer- red to the judiciary committee re- buking the President for his action The committee never reported out tha resolution, but sent its chairman to call on the President and advise him of the grave error he had committed. The President was afterward repre. sented as saying that he would never do it again. When the treaty came up for ratification in the Senate there was such a fight that John H, Secretary of State, wrote to a friend —"I have told you many times that 1 did not believe another important treaty would ever pass the Senate . . The man who makes the treaty of peace with Spain will be lucky if he escapes lynchin Senate Often Errs. Mr. Hay later described the entry of a treaty to the Senate as follows “A treaty entering the Senate is like a bull going into the arena; no one can ever say just how or when the blow will fall—but one thing is cer- tain, it will never leave the arena number of things can happen to a treaty once it gets into the Senate. It may be approved un- conditionally; it may be approved with amendments; it may be approved upon condition that certain changes are made; it may be approved with an accompanying resolution of reser- vation or interpretation; it may never be brought out of the committee, and it may be disapproved or rejected The Senate has often made mistakes in its judgment of treaties and its treatment of the negotiations leading up to them. In 1865, for instance, it refused to approve a treaty with Den- mark to purchase the Virgin Islands for $7,500,000. Fifty yvears later it approved a treaty which bought them for three times that price. But the Constitution has left tha final say-so with the President. After the Senate has approved a treaty, or done one of the numerous things it can do to treaties, the President can leave it or take it and no one can say him nay. President Roosevelt begame 80 exasperated at the way the Senate treated his treaties, carefully negotiated through Mr. Hay. for ar- bitration and reference to The Hague Court of legal disputes between na- tions, that he dropped them and re- fused to go ahead. The difficulties were to be referred to The Hague through protocols or agreements, presumably by direction of the President. The Senate, ever jealous of the power of the Execu- tive, amended the treaties to take this power out of the President's hands and place it with the Senate, and Roosevelt check-mated this move by dropping the whole thing. So the fact that the administration must deal with a chairman of the Senate’s foreign relations committee who is not in accord with all the ad- ministration’s policies on foreign re- lations, is not startling. It is to be doubted if Secretary Hughes has lost many hours, of sleep worrying about how to counteract the moves of Mr. Borah, and it is to be doubted if he felt that the only thing left to do was to get out of the State Department and go back to the practice of law There have been more difficult situ tions with reference to foreign rela- tlons than the present one. Presi- dent Wilson, back from Paris with a treaty he played a large part in ne- gotiating, was faced with putting it through a Senate whose chairman ot foreign relations was not only op- posed to his views, but who was of a different political belief. Yet the country still lives. Davis Enters Critics. Critics of this country's system of conducting its forelgn affairs are an- swered convincingly by John W. Davis, who, as Ambassador to Great Britain, delivered a speech on the subject at Oxford. Much of the hls- torical information contained in this article is taken from that speech, and his answer to critics of the system ig quoted in full: “An unfriendly eritic might de. ‘nounce it as complicated and cumber- some, ill adapted to the complex de« mands of international intercourse, slow in action and uncertain in oute come. The requirement of a two- thirds rather than a majority vots in the Senate he might criticize not alive” Any give him opportunity to retain' the power given- him through war, and unjustly as a dubious excess of caw~ (Continued on Third Page) 2