Evening Star Newspaper, August 7, 1927, Page 31

WEALTH INCREASE SEEN ¢ IN IMMIGRATION POLICY Dr. Gabriel Expects Only Slight Rise in Population of U. S., With Plenty Opportunity for All BY WILLIS J. BALLINGER. VEN though such a noted intel- lectual figure as James Harvey Robinson predicts that the late war will be the last one in his- tory. other great world scien- tists are” busy sounding tocs alarm over the reappearance of a ven- crable foe of peace on earth—the silent hut ominous advance of population on the supporting powers of nature. Last year at the famous world con forence of great scientists held in Ox- ford an eminent food expert foresaw the swift approach of a world food famine. A great American biologist has broken into print with the discomfort ing prophecy that the overpopulation of the earth will be witnessed by the grandchildren of people now alive. An American sociologist recently de- clared that the world would be simply deluged with people by the year 200 But as far as a noted Am torian is concerned. the United States has already taken precautionary steps to avert our country becoming a grim battle ground for the survival of the fit in an era when the pressure of population might bring down millions 10 Chinese levels of closeness to the wolf of want. Immigration Restrictions Cited. “Thanks to our restriction of immi- gration, the United States can look forward to a century lying just ahead in which the relatively small number of people in America will enjoy in plenty the unparalieled wealth of this Nation. Because of this law our popu- lation will either be stationary or in- crease only slightly. There will be abundance to go round. This pros perity will make us conservative as a people, stabilize our social institutions, minimize friction between capital and labor, fulfill the aim of our founders to make us a nation of property hold- ers and keep us out of the dangers of imperialistic conquest.” I was sitting in the home of Dr. Ralph Gabriel of Yale University. Dr. Gabriel has heen a close student of American problems for a number of years, and on account of his wide knowledge of American development as a nation was chosen to be the editor-in-chicf of an epoch-making his- torical work now in the process of consummation. He is engaged in tell- ing in picture form the history of the American people—the development of the farmer, the business man, the la- borer, the scientist, the doctor, the lit- erary figure from colonial days down to the present, I was glancing inter- estedly at a picture in one of the vol- umes of this series showing what an American farm looked like just before the outbreak of the Revolution, when I happened to ask the following ques- tion: “Dr, Gabriel, Congress has put thou. #ands of laws on our statute books. ‘What do you consider one of the great- est pieces of legislation ever enacted in our Nation?" “The law restricting immigration,” replied Dr. Gabriel promptly. “Few people have the vision to foresee how that law will profoundly shape our destiny in the years to come and how much it means to the future havpiress of the American people.” Prosperity Is Problem. = “I have heard it commended be- cause it kept cheap labor out of the country, curtailed our supply of gun- men from southern Europe, brought into the country more people who were “temperamentally suited to the judicial nature of our Government. Have you any different argument to advance in its behalf?" I asked. “The problem of good government | is to encourage as much as possible a condition of widespread material pros- perity among the people of a country. Lack of such prosperity has caused the life of a nation to be disturbed and even to find an outlet in violent revo- lution. And the question of the eco- nomic prosperity of the American peo- ple in the future is a question of pop- ulation. The more people we have the more we will have to feed, clothe and shelter and the less there will be to go around for the people of the Nation as a whole. We may have rich re- ns of | we could have such a growth of pop- | ulation as to greatly lower our preser.t | high standards of living.” | “Suppose we had not restricted im- migration, how great would he our population by, say, the year 20007 1 asked. “The present birth rate is about 23 per 1,000 and the present death rate about 12 per 1,000 each year. There is thus a natur of 11 per thousand people each vear. If this rate were continued without let-up, our population would double itself in |about 60 years without any further | additions “from immigration. This | would mean a population of over 0,000,000 by 1980." | “And will " immigration restriction |simply cut down extra additions to our population from other parts of the world?" T asked. “It will do better than that. It will shut out from the United States the prolific breeding stocks that have been responsible for the great increase in our population in the last few genera- tions. The increase in our numbers as a people in the last half century has been due in large measure to immi- gration and the results of immigration. Since 1900 over 16,000,000 foreigners have entered our countr The great hulk of these arrived here during their reproductive vears, and they produced large numbers of offspring shortly after their arrival. Now, in the case of native Americans a decline in their birth rate began as early as 1810 and has continued ever since. The old co- lonfal famuly of 15 or 20 children has practically disappeared. The most marked decline has been in the last two or three decades, Small families are among the native American breed.” Smaller Families. ‘Moreover, the tendency to have smaller and smaller families has been transmitted to our immigration popu- lation. Two investigators have found in the present generation in the Mid- dle West, where there are plenty of immigrants, a shrinkage in the family size from 5.4 to 3.3 children in one generation of 30 years.” “How do you account for this de- cline in the birth rate of our foreign population?” 1 asked. “The immigrant came to the land of plenty poor—very poor. He soon ob- tained a much better economic status than he had in the Old World. As his wealth grew and luxuries for him in- creased his birth rate fell off. That is a law of population. As prosperity advances among a people new inter- esis develop by the fact that people are raised above the brute struggle for existence and they live for other things than just to have children. “Take the case of the French inva- sion of Algiers. Before the French came the Arab population had one of the highest birth rates in the world. The native Arab seemed to live for rothing except sex indulgence. The French greatly increased the material welfare of the country, and at once the birth rate of the Arabs began to drep. Accordingly, the American im- migrant has only followed out this often observed tendency of cutting down his birth rate as his prosperity advances.” _“Then you see a stationary popula- tion or only a very slowly increasing one in the United States, and cer- tainly no menace of overpopulation because of our restriction of immigra- tion?" T asked. “I do,” replied Dr. Gabriel. “What would have happened in America if we had not checked our rapid growth of population?” I asked. Standards of Living. “Standards of living would have de- clined, opportunity to get ahead in life would have decreased, labor troubles would have grown, radical- ism and political unrest would have mounted, and sooner or later we might have been forced into an aggressive policy of imperialism and any number of wars. As we became dependent on foreign countries for food we would have begun to reach out and attempt to grab additional parts of the earth’s surface and to embark on a career of conquest that would have risked our life as a free nation.” sources, but it is very conceivable that (Cobyright. 1927.) The Beitish Press and Naval Arms (Continued from_First Page.) her frequent naval bases, together with equal strength in larger cruisers and in battleships, her naval suprem- acy remains intact. We may have an equal number of battleships and com- bat cruisers, and vet our position is still inferior. But should the British be condemned to an equality which gave them a great superiority in com- merce destroyers, but left us stronger in combat cruisers, their situation would be fatally compromised. The thing too little perceived in the United States is that the whole strug- gle for naval equality actually leads ineluctably to the destruction of ac- tual British sea supremacy. Control of the sea does not reside in the British battle fleet or the combat cruisers; it lies in the control of the vital sea lanes by the British minor but numerous small units based upon ubiquitous naval bases. If they can be equal in all combat units and supe- rior in small commerce destroyers, the British will still control the seas. Now, exactly this control was at- tacked when we said at Geneva that there must be equality in cruiser ton- nage. If there is to be equality within the limits of 300,000 tons, or even 400,000, the British cannot be equal in cruisers and superior in commerce de- stroyers: they have to let go of one or the other form of superiority. But either surrender does the job, 5o far as actual naval supremacy is con- cerned. Domination Limited. Of course, the British see all this They see that the United States’ pro- posals put a term to British sea dom- ination. They see that if they keep thelr commerce destroyer tonnage but resign themselves to seeing us outhuild them in large cruisers, then these large cruisers can serve to keep open for us any vital sea lane to neu- tral states during a war: that thelr | existence ends the possibility of the sort of thing which went on from 1914 to 1917. It is true that the British need a large fleet of small cruisers to guard | their vital lanes of communication. But it is equally true that this larg fleet has an offensive quite as much as a defensive mission. It not only suards British commerce; it can and does just as certainly regulate the use of the seas by neutral merchant | marine, not with regard for interna- tional law, but with regard to Eritish interests. The American proposals at Geneva would break the Dblockade which for a century and a half has constituted the basls of British power in the world. The very principle of equality, as the United States presents it, would, if applied, be almost as disastrous to Pritish sea supremacy as Trafalgar or Jutland might have been either ended with the destruction of the British battle fleet. Once there is actual equality, the United States and not Great Britain becomes the world arbiter, because in war the British attitude toward neutral com- had ; ade its opponents illegally but effec- tively; if we demurred, they would themselves be instantly deprived of their chief weapon. Lessons Are Recalled. At the bottom of all the Geneva controversy lies the lesson of the World War and of the Napoleonic struggle behind that. Sea power won both wars and saved Britain. But in 1810-15 we were so weak as to be at the mercy of sea power which used its strength remorselessly. In 1914-17, while the power was used with far more discretion, we were, in fact, made allies of the anti-German combi. nation of August 5, 1914, and remained #0 until we entered the war as a con- Sequence of a counter-invasion of our neutral rights. Instinctively but-inevitably we are now seeking to escape from this con. trol. We are striving to set up a con- dition in which we shall be able to maintain all our neutral rights. But the conditions under which we can obtain this, the cquality we demand, automatically ends, not alone British soa control, but British safety itself, because if we could have supplied Ger- many as we did her enemies in the ‘World War Germany would have won. And just as instinctively the British sce the menace and are seeking to meet it. They are dimly conscious— that is, the mass of Englishmen are conscious—that the equality we de- mand carries a deadly threat to their existence, not because of any danger of an attack by the American fleet, but because the sccular strength of Britain falls to the ground the mo- ment that in war a neutral state can put an unchallengeable limit upon their control of the sea. All these perils would be avoided if the United States would consent to any form of alliance with Britain. Then our fleet would reinforce theirs and we should share the control. But we have refused, and doubtless we shall continue to refuse, this. As a (result our whole policy leaves the British Government and its naval branch appalled and the British people apprehensive. (Copyright. 1927.) !Finance Minister Bud Raps Budapest Policy The city officials buy automobiles with city funds and use the cars for joyriding, while the aldermen show good taste in buying cars in this way also and are not satisfied to ride around in cheap machines, Finance | Minister Bud of Hungary points out {in attacking the fiscal methods of Budapest’s city government. M. Bud says that the mayor of Budapest has many sources of income, receiving { more than Count Bethlen does as pre- mier, and that the city likes to build bathing beaches and dance halls in- merce, assuming American neutralit would be subject to American deci- wion. 1If we acquiesced, the British eould continue, as in 191417, to block- stead of instituting useful construc- tion. e insists that it is wrong fiscal policy for the city to increase the tax burden because of the undue extrav- agance of the city a@iministration. THE SUNDAY STAR, WASHINGTON, D. C, AUGUST 7. 1927—PART 2. Geneva’s Lesson : First Outlaw War! BY BEN McKELWA HE spectacle of the two leading nations— each sprung from a common sourc ecach speaking the same language, each cherishing the same traditions of pride in race—deadlocked at Geneva over the details of a principle upon which both have reached accord, stands in sharp contrast before a world which recently applauded “the spirit of Locarno.” In America the question is asked: “If Great Britain sought a standard for cruisers most suited to herself and least suited to us, holding tenaciously to that standard on the ground that relinquishing it would endanger her na- tional security, who, in her opinion, will threaten this security? It must be America.” In England the question is asked: *“Wh did America seek great numbers of large cruis- ers, hest suited for aggressive warfare, unless she plans to use them. And against whom? It must be England.” % K % And Europe, still basking in the light of Locarno, asks whether any limitation of arma- ment is feasible or is longer practicable unless there has heen a previous agreement that there will be no war. The necessity for great arma- ments is the possibility of war. Remove by treaty the probability, and what strength Is left in the argument of necessity? The break-up in Geneva can be ascribed, in America, to many things far removed from the probability of war between the United States and Great Britain. It can be laid at the door of a Tory government in England, perhaps the most reactionary government there in the last 50 years, which cannot escape the thought, in dealing with the United States, that she is dealing with a recalcitrant stepchild. It can be blamed on Britain's strategy in attain- ing and seeking to maintain her traditional supremacy of the seas. It can be called due to a carefully molded public opinion which re- gards America as a sort of imperialistic Sh lock, and whose motives are easily discredited. Again, it may be considered in the light of a technical disagreement, in which both parties are sincere and justified by the exigencies of their international situations. * ok % But stripped to its fundamentals, the Geneva conference has failed. It has failed, and with- out the complications to be expected from dif- ference in language, difference in racial tem- perament, difference in social development. It has failed in an attempt further to extend the provisions of a treaty limiting armament as an economic expedient. If the opportunities for ever using this armament in warfare were re- duced to the minimum by mutual agreement never to engage in war, would this conference have succeeded, or would future conferences of the same nature succeed? It is a question that is open to almost end- less speculation and debate. But it s being asked in Europe, where the picturesque ex- pression, typically of American origin, “to out- law war” has progressed beyond the stage of a pipedream; where the renunciation of war has assumed the dignity of an instrument of national policy. It is being discussed more frequently, and more seriously, in America. The most natural result to be expected from the failure at Geneva will be an increased pub- lic interest in the theory that is involved. Last April the French minister of foreign affairs, Aristide Briand, made what has since become known as the “Briand proposal,” although it cannot be considered strictly as a proposal. On the tenth anniversary of America's entrance into the World War Monsieur Briand gave the Associated Press an interview in which he made the statement that “France would be willing to subscribe publicly with the United States to any mutual agreement to outlaw war * * * as between these two countries.” * %k % % His statement never received any formal acknowledgement or comment from the Ameri- can Government, and it is to be doubted if he intended that it should, for it was not made through diplomatic channels, but was simply thrown out into the air as an expression of good will on the part of France, with a hint of the extent to which France would go, under conditions, to demonstrate it. But it was im- mediately seized upon as a live topic for dis- cussion, and it was thoroughly dissected here and abroad. Some organizations which have dedicated themselves to the task of insuring international peace went to the extreme of preparing the draft of treaties, to demonstrate that M. Briand's proposals could be put down on paper and still hold water. These drafts, however, have gone the way of the Bok plan,’ although the Senate did not consider it neces- sary to investigate what lay behind them. But now the question is revived again. Could “the spirit of Locarno” be extended to the United States? Could this country enter into an agreement with anybody to “outlaw war'? Can the United States, which has on more than one occasion affirmed its belief in the theory of arbitration of international dis- putes, and which may be said to have revived the practice of arbitration in modern times, stand aside while others extend this practice to its ultimate goal—outlawry of war and com- pulsory arbitration of all disputes between nations? TR there are a number of themselves imme- To obstacles diately. The only violation of such a treaty would be war. The only recourse, upon such viola- tion, would be war. Treaties are moral obliga- tions only, easily removed, and a public opinion can usually be found to countenance their removal on tho grounds of morality and righteousness. Bismarck once said, “When the power of Prussia is involved, I know no law,” and a few years later, when German troops were crossing the border into Belgium, the inviolability of whose neutrality was secured by three treaties, Von Bethmann Holweg, a suc- cessor, said, “We are in a state of necessity, and necessity knows no law.” History is full of broken agreements. A treaty with another nation to outlaw war might be construed in the light of an alliance, to which this country is traditionally opposed. A treaty to outlaw war might be considered an infringement upon the constitutional powers of Congress to declare and to end war. A treaty is the supreme law of the land, but it cannot transcend the Constitutio A treaty cannot deprive Congress of legislative power expressly granted it by the Constitution. A treaty may supersede an act of Congress, but a treaty may be abrogated-by a later act of Congress A treaty to outlaw war might run counter to the Monroe doctrine. But there are ways to surmount all of these obstacles. They exist either in theory only, or their existence might be made the subject of special stipulation. * %k ok % Probably the most direct way of getting at the question is to review this country’s history and its policy in the matter of arbitration. For it is out of arbitration that the renunciation of war as a new national policy has grown. Out- lawry of war is only a natural development of arbitration. How far has the United States been willing to go in the matter of arbitration? Has it now reached the point beyond which it cannot go? Cleveland, McKinley, Roosevelt, Taft, Wilson, Harding and Coolidge, all of the Executives in the last 30 years, have sought to enlarge the scope of the principle of arbi- tration. There has been some progress. But the story is one of succeeding attempts by the executive branch of the Government toward the attainment of more altruistic ideals in the settlement of misunderstandings without resort to force, and of succeeding rebuffs on the part of the legislative branch, jealous of its power and fearful lest it slip. The principle of arbitration in modern times began with its application to specific questions in dispute between nations. Then it was broad- ened to include future questions, of a certain class, which might later arise. Later still it has come to embrace all questions, culminating at Locarno and in a number of bi-partite treaties between European and Latin American countries, in which the agreement to arbitrate all disputes is prefaced by mutual renunciation of war. the diplomat which suggest * ok ok % The United States has made good use of the principle of arbitration, and since 1794, when the Jay treaty with Great Britain led the way for a revival of arbitration, has sub- mitted successfully some 90 disputes to arbi- tration with about 25 countries. But these have been specific questions, referred to arbi- tration through special treatles. Attempts to broaden the principle of arbitration in the United States, so that it might apply to all questions of whatever nature, have run up against the opposition of the United States Senate. Attempts were made in 1897 to make treaties with Great Britain and France for the arbitration of legal disputes, and they were defeated by the Senate. Roosevelt, with the example before him of a treaty between England and France, tried to make treaties providing compulsory arbitration of disputes between the United States and all powers signatory to The Hague convention, but he met a stumbling block in the Senate, which aroused his wrath, Taft vevived Roosevelt's idea and tried to embody it in another set of general arbitration treaties, but the first treaty to reach the Senate was so amended that he gave up in disgust and refused to press them further. Then Wilson follo some success attending the Bryan conciliation treaties, but meeting his downfall over the League of Nations. Then Harding and Coolidge, with the World Court and its resulting amendment by the Senate, give further evidence of the Senate's solicitous guardianship of the part that the Constitution has given it to play in the conduct of foreign relations. * ok koK Wherein lies this Senate stumbling block? When John Jay went to England in 1794 to negotiate treaties concerning disputes be- tween this country and Great Britain relations were strained almost to the breaking point over three main questions—the boundary line between Maine and New Brunswick; seizure of American ships by Great Britain in the war with France, and the failure of American citizens to pay debts to British merchants. He negotiated a treaty which provided for the settlement of the three disputes by three arbitral commissions. Later, in 1871, when a dispute arose between the United States and Great Britain over ships built and outfitted in England for the Confederate States, the United States enunciated a policy in the state- ment “There is no fair, equitable form of arbitration to which the United States will not be willing to submit,” and after some demurring on the part of Great Britain the famous “Ala- bama claims” dispute was successfully arbi- trated. Many other disputes have been arbi- trated, but in nearly every case they have been specific questions covered in special treaties. They have been confined largely to minor disputes, although they have embraced ques- tions of sovereignty over territory; freedom of the seas, or the right of neutrals to carry on commerce; maritime jurisdiction and financial claims. Disputes involving national honor or prestige have not been regarded as suitable for arbitration. Disputes with Latin American countries in many cases have not been arbi- trated. There have been approximately 30 cases of intervention by military forces in Latin America in the last 30 years. Fifty-four years after the Jay treaty with Great Britain, a clause for arbitration was inserted in the treaty of Guadaloupe-Hidalgo, between the United States and Mexico. The clause called upon each country to consider “whether it would not be better” to settle disputes by arbitration. The treaty did not limit the disputes to be arbitrated, but left each nation to decide whether the question at issue was suitable for arbitration. The United States has since arbitrated a number of disputes with Mexico, but none has been based on this article. * ok ok % Between 1850 and 1870 several resolutions were reported in Congress favoring in general terms the stipulation in all treaties, whenever practicable, a proviso that misunderstandings and controversies should be settled by arbitra- tion. Nothing came of the resolutions. In 1883 the Swiss government proposed a general arbitration treaty with the United States con- taining the general proposal that “all diffi- culties * * * whatever may be the cause™ should be fit subjects for arbitration. The United States gave the Swiss proposal little attention and Switzerland concluded such treaties with a number of other countries. (Continued on Sixteenth Page.) The Story the Week Has Told BY HENRY W. BUNN. HE following is a brief sum- is doing it with simplicity, and persuasiveness. cogency Young Prince Pacific coast and the Orient is that of the system owned by the Commercial the governments, to find a basis for reconciling divergent views and will mary of the most important news of the world for the seven days ended August 6: The British Empire.~John Dillon, the distinguished Irish Na- tionalist leader, is dead at 76.. He was a son of John Blake Dillon, who sat in the Westminster Parliament for Tipperary, and who was one of the leaders of “Young Ireland.” He him- self sat in the Westminster Parlia- ment almost continuouusly from 1880 to 1918 as representative first of Tip- perary and afterward of East Mayo. He was perhaps as prominent as any Irishman in the fights against land- lordism in.Ireland and for Irish home rule. His share in the preparation of the home rule bill of 1912 was as great as that of the British ministers themselves. His advocacy of boycot- ting, cattle driving, etc., procured him some taste of imprisonment. One-time ardent supporter of the ill-starred Par- nell, he ceased to be so. From 1900 to 1918 he was the chief lieutenant of Redmond, head of the Irish Natlonal- ist Party, though the association was not without friction. On the death of Redmond he succeeded to the leader- ship of that party, but the party was then done for. He went down to de- feat in the general elections of 1918. He joined with Redmond in urging the Irish people to hearty participation in the war (on the allied side) and he took an active part in voluntary re- cruiting, but he flercely denouunced conscription in Ireland and the meas- ures of repression which followed the aster rebellion of 1915. Indeed, he went so far as to declare himself proud of the Dublin rebels. This attitude, however, conciliate Sinn Fein, his eclipse in 1918. after played a though he failed enthusiasm for the negotiations which resulted in the treaty of London which created the Free State, no doubt the maintenance of his at- titude of disapproval of Sinn Fein methods exercised an appreciable influence toward the settlement achleved. The Dail Eireann has passed two important bills, one authorizing drastic executive and judicial manner of dealing with activities aimed at subverting the state; the other requir- ing as a condition of candidacy for | Parliament a pledge to take the oath | of allegiance in case of election. The | bills are now before the Senate. The “public safety” bill has stirred the depths in Ireland, and no wonder. What is the true reading of Irish history in that connection? Many arguments both pro and con are »lausibly deducible. The decision is a most delicate and important one. It is charming to note how on their tour of Canada the Prince of Wales would have Premier Baldwin take the pas, and of course vice versa. “This isn't my show,” says the Prince. “It is Mr. Baldwin's. I'm failed to which caused Though he there- retired part and to show much just a Canadian rancher, and he is the real visitor.” Having, of course, to speak, the Prince does so with brevity, albeit with extraordinary tact and grace. The brunt of the speechmaking falls to Mr. Baldwin. H preaching (call it “selling,” if ‘you Blease) the imperial idea, and he George, the third of the distinguished visitors, is learning. All three are making a great hit. One hears that a ranch in British Columbia is to be presented to Prince George; and so there will be two “ranchers” in the family. There is to be a meeting with American bigwigs at the dedica- tion of the Fort Erie bridge. The Prince of Wales’ ranch is in the Province of Alberta. That prevince is assured of a magnificent future. Its area is 255,000 square miles. its population only 600,000. It is estimated that it contains 14 per cent of the world's coal deposits, 87 per cent of those of the British empire. There are 72,000,000 acres of cultivable soll, whereof not more than one-sixth is now under cultivation; 60,000 square miles of merchantable timber, etc., ete. Alberta is just by way of being opened; there are indications to justify the expectation that the, as yet, un- discovered sub-soil wealth will prove stupendous. The combined area of England, Scotland and Wales is about 89,000 square miles. * K ok ok China.—Reports differ as to the probability of an armed clash between the Nanking and Hankow groups, and @ opposite possibility of coalescence of those two groups. he very Chris- tian warrior, Feng Yu Hsiang, is watchfully waiting; and the same may be sald of Yen Hsi Shan, ‘“‘model” governor of Shansi. An interesting report reaches us to the effect that Wu Pel Fu is active again; that he has procured the adhesion of the provinces of Szechuan, Kuichau and Yunnan. There are then at this mo- ment in China six important groups or concentrations of power, as follows: The Northern alliance, headed by Chang Tso Lin, with Peking as capi- tal; the Nanking Nationalist group; the Hankow Nationalist group; Yen Hsi Shan, Tuchun of Shansi, with his well appointed army of 100,000; Feng Yu Hslang, with his headquarters at Chenchau in Honan, and the new group headed by Wu Pei Fu. Another serious defeat of Chang hek by Northern troops is re- further retreat of that hero toward Nanking; further defections from him to the Northern alliance of troops which previously had defected to him from the Northern alllance. A vague report reaches us of an carthquake in Kansu Province, de- scribed as one of the most frightful natural disasters in the world's his- tory; causing a loss of life conserva- tively estimated at 100,000 and involv- ing complete destruction of several cities. One hears also of 10,000 per- | sons drowned and 100,000 rendered homeless by a flood in Fukien Province. * ok Kk % United States of America.—On Tues- day President Coolidge startled the world by distributing to newspaper correspondents assembled at Rapid City, S. Dak., slips of paper. on which the following was typewritten: “I do not choose to run for President in 1928." The Western Union Telegraph Co. projects laying a cablé (or cable-sys- tem) across the Pacific. The only ex- isting cable ection between our Pacific Cable Co. and Japanese and Dutch interests. The main cable of this system runs from San Francisco to the Hawaiian Islands and thence via Midway Island to Guam. At (Guam it branches: One branch (Japanese owned) going via the Bonin Island to Japan; another (Japanese owned) to Shanghai; another to the Philippines; another (Dutch owned) to the Dutch East Indies. The ca- pacity of these cables is only a hun- dred letters a minutes, whereas the capacity of the new cable or cables would be 2,500 letters a minute, The routing has not been decided on. Possibly the existing system will be paralleled. Perhaps the routing will be from Seattle to Sitka: thence via the Aleutians, etc., to Japan, and on to Shanghai and Mani This s shorter than the old routing, but, I understand, presents greater technical difficulties. * ok ok ok The Tri-power Naval Conference.— The tri-power naval conference end- ed on Thursday with failure to con- clude any formal agreement whatso- ever. On Monday the Japanese sub- mitted compromise proposals, but they did not commend themselves to either the Americans or the British. At the concluding plenary session the heads of the three delegations summed up the several positions. It will be recalled that at the sec- ond plenary session Mr. Gibson sug- gested that the Eritish and Japanese try to reach agreement and, should they succeed, present the result to the Americans. 1t would seem that they succeede that the Japanese were ready to sign, with little or no change, the second set of British pro- posals. But, as Admiral Saito ob- served, “there remained differences, apparently insoluble, between the Americans and the British.' After the speeches by the delega- tion chiefs a joint declaration, prev ously prepared, was read to the con- ferees and adopted by them, with which proceeding the confererce ex- pired. = “On many important ques- tions,” declares this document, “‘pro- visional agreements have been reached, certain of which are embodied in the annexed report of the technical com- mittee of the conference. These points of agreement relate particu- larly to the limitations respecting de- stroyers and submarines. No doubt, they are largely embodied in the sec- ond set of British proposals, spread out in my summary of last week, and it was only when the conference took up the question of limitations re- specting the cruiser class that diffi- culties were encountered.” The declaration, in language by no means remarkable, for lucidity, pro- ceeds to detail these differences (suffi- ciently set forth by me in provious summaries) and concludes as follows: “The delegates desire to place on record a statement of their conviction that the obstacles that have been en- countered should not be accepted as terminating the effort. to bring about a further limitation of naval arma- ment. On the contrary they trust that the measure of agreement which has been reached as well as the work which has been done in clarifying their respective positions, will make it possible, after consultation between lead to the early conclusion of an agreement for the limitation of auxil- iary naval vessels which will permit of substantial economy, and while safeguarding national security, pro- mote the feeling of mutual confidence and good understanding.” Prior to the funerary ceremonies, Viscount Cecil presented to Mr. Gibson a memorandum proposing a treaty to cover the points on which provisional agreement had heen reached, but it had a glacial reception. Of course, competitive building may follow the Geneva failure, but it seems unlikely. The conference for consideration of what is to follow the termination (in 1936) of the Wash- ington treaty will be held in 1931, which conference, it Is important to note, will include representatives of France and Ttaly. There has been a curious silence about the very im- portant effects on the Geneva con- ference of the absence therefrom of French and Italian delegates. It is to be expected that the United States, Britain and Japan will proceed mod- erately and discreetly with naval construction up to 1931. Not incon- ceivably a partial or_complete agree- ment concerning auxiliary combatant naval craft, to tide over the interval at least, will be effected by direct exchanges between the governments; and possibly, though most improbably, there will be another conference be- fore 1931. There are few dissentients from the view that the late lamented conference sadly lacked of diplomatic preparation. Most certainly the cruiser problem is soluble on a reasonable basis, what- ever the disparity between British and American needs in respect of types. * ok %k Kk Notes.—The Landsthing, or upper house of the Danish Parliament (Rigsdad), has rejected the bill passed in March, 1926, by the Folkething, or lower house, providing for practical abolition of the Danish army and navy and for demolition of fortifications:; the army to -consist only of a small guard corps and the navy only of ves- sels for inspection of the fisheries, revenue service and the like. French naval plans contemplate a tonnage of cruisers and destroyers combined totaling 390,000 by 1931. A total combined tonnage of 195,000 for cruisers, destrovers and submarines would correspond to the total capital ship tonnage allowed France by the Washington conference. Italy does not propose that her navy shall be greaty distanced by France. The opposition in the Rumanian Parliament are speaking out. They claim, and no doubt quite rightly, that the recent general elections were a fake; outrageously engineered by the government in the interest of the Lib- eral (so-called, but really reactionary and plutocratic) party. They demand new elections. The National peasan are Carolists. It is moreover of curi- ous interest that the army, which Carol deserted at a critical juncture of the war for an amour, is for Carol. Motor trucks are to replace camels on Persia’s caravan routes. Those on the storied Tabriz Trebizond route ‘will ' be of the caterpillar type. Each can haul 33 tons to a camel's 400 pou; and crawl 50 miles a day to & cal 20 over the mountain ranges. IN INTERNATI BY WILL P, Kl EDY. 0 participate with parliamentary representatives of other great nations of the world in a con- ference at Paris on “methods for the codification of interna- tional law,” which is considered by many leading statesmen and interna- tionalists as an essential condition precedent to the establishment of a Court of International Justice, leading members of Congress are already in Europe, having sailed during the past week, or will sail this week. This is one of the most important items on the program of the Ameri- can group of delegates to the twenty- fourth conference of the Interparlia- mentary Union, to be held in the Sen- ate chamber of the Palais du Luxem- bours. Paris, from August 25 to Au- gust 30. At the international law code con- ference the discussion will be led by Signor di Stefano-Napolitani _of the Italian Senate and Prof. Walther Schuecking, member of the Reichstag and president of the German group of the unfon. American Principles. The first principle of American phi- losophy in relation to international relations fs that the United States should not enter into any permanent foreign alliance, military or political in_character, directly or indirectly. The second principle of American philosophy in relation to international relations is that international contr versies should be settled by judicial decision and not by war. Judicfal decision must be based upon law, and international judicial decision must be based upon international law. Without a code of international law, American statesmen insist, a Court of International Justice would be one of political expediency and diplomatic compromise only. Some fundamental principles of right and justice must be agreed upon by the nations which can be the basis of judicial action. There is no factor in the movement for world peace, in the minds of many who have given this subject the closest study, more important than this project of codification of inter- national law. Under the Pan-American Union a code of international law for the Western Hemisphere is being worked out and the part devoted to public international law is now ready for submission to the American countrie: The League of Nations has a commis- sion for the codification of interna- tional law and has chosen George W. Wickersham a member of the com- mission, although the United States is not a member of the League. The last international conference at The Hague strongly emphasized the need for the clear statement and ex- tension of principles of justice into international law. That there should be a third Hague conference for the codification of _international law as soon as the minds of the people of the varfous countries can return to a nor- mal condition from the emotions of the late war. has twice been recom- mended to the House by the commit- tee on forelgn affairs. It carries the active support of such authorities as: David Jayne Hill, delegate pleni- potentiary of the United States to the Second Hague Conference, former As. sistant Secretary of State and former American Minister to Switzerland and the Netherlands and former American Ambassador to Germany. Dr. James Brown Scott, president of the Institute of International Law and president of the American Insti- tute of International Law, technical delegate of the United States to the Second Hague Conference and former solicitor of the Department of State, Charles Henry Butler, Washington lawyer, technical delegate of the United States to the Second Hague l(;'uenl’esrence nn% former reporter of upreme ourt e of the United Chandler P. Anderson, American commissioner Mixed Claims Commis. sion, United States and Germany:; for- mer counselor of the Department of State, American arbitrator, British. American Claims Arbitration Commis- sion, and American arbitrator, Norwe- sian nrbnsation. . ear Admiral William L. Rodger: U. S. N., retired; former naval adyjscy to the American delegation to the In. ternational Commission on Rules of Warfare meeting at The Hague in 1922, and member of the advisory committee to the American delegation at the Washington Conference on the Limitation of Armaments, 192122, Maj. W. Penn Cresson, professor of diplomatic = history and ~diplomacy, School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University; former chief of the Amer- ican military mission at the Belgian headquarters, and diplomatic secretary of the Washington Conference on the Limitation of Armaments. Libbeus R. Wilfley, former attorney general of the Philippines, 4nd judge of the United States Court of China, Arthur Deering Call, secretary to the American Peace Society, which Wwill soon celebrate its centennary, and since 1919 secretary of the American %rrl;\’r‘;gh of the Interparliamentary Interparliamentary Union The Interparliamentary Union was started in Paris in 189 ‘on the i tive of Sir William Randall Cramer, a member of the House of Commons. It is made up entirely of members of parliaments. ~ This year the twenty- fourth conference of the union is to meet in the French Senate chamber on invitation of the French group, of which M. Fernand Merlin, Senator, is president. M. Aristide Briand, minister of foreign affairs and Ifader of the French delegation to the League of Nations, will not only receive the members of the conference, but will also take part in the debates. The union met twice in the United States; first, in 1904 at St. Louis in connection with the World’s Fair, and again in 1925 in Washington, in the House chamber, on invitation of Presi- dent Coolidge, with 41 governments represented, the largest showing at any conference of the union. Last Summer there was no regular meet- ing, but the union has six study com- missions and each commission is made up of two members from each of the parliaments. The meeting in Geneva last Sum- mer was attended by Senators Swan- son and Caraway; Representatives Porter and Burton and other leading members of the American Congress. This Summer the conference in Paris is to be attended by Representative Roy G. Fitzgerald, Ohio, chairman of the committee on codification of the laws; Representative Theodore Burton, Ohio, president of the American delegation; Chairman Porter of the House com- mittee on foreign affairs; Senators Tyson, Tennessee; Tidings, Maryland; Barkley, Kentucky; Thomas, Okla- “Representatives Britten, 1lli- ; Celler, New York; Montague, Vir- ginia; Andrew, Massachusetts; John- son and Howard, Oklahoma; Purnell, Indiana; Sumners, Texas; Corcoran, Missouri, and former Representatives Richard Bartholdt, who was long presi- dent of the American group and a life member, and William D. B. Ainey, also a life member. The object of ihe Interparlia- mentary Union is to get members of parliaments together to talk over their mutual problems, to get mutual un- dorstanding and good feeling among tions of the world. Besides the discussion of “Methods for the Codificatis of liternational Law,” the other fnportant matters o~ o U.S. LAWMAKERS WILL JOIN ONAL PARLEY Members of Congress Will Participate in Paris Conference for Codification of Principles to Preserve Peace. scheduled for discussion on the agends of the conference are: “The Fight Against Drugs of Addi tion,” led by Dr. Jaroslay Brabec, 8 Czechoslovakian Senator, who is pros- ident of the Czechoslovakian grou stem of Customs Agreemenis Between Countries of Europe,” led b Dr. M. W. F. Treub, former minister of finance for Holland, and the “Tech- nical Plan of the Reduction of Arma- ments,” led by Herr Munch, former minister of defense, Denmark: M. Maxence Bibie, French deputy; Here Sollmann, member of the German Reichstag, former minister of the iti- terior, and Dr. L. N. Deckers, member of the second chamber of the States- general, Netherlands. The resclution regarding the codi- fication of international law, which are to be presented for discu jon in the name of the permanent committee for judicial questions, calls for this Twe ty-fourth Interparliamentary Confers ence to “warmly support the rec mendation, and records the wish that a first conference on public interna- tional law be summoned possible, and that all states, whethee members or not of the Leas invited to participate in it, view to giving practical and tangible effect to the highly important work of the committee of exnerts for the progressive codification of interna- tional law.” It declares that such a codification is important and urgent, and that through it “the flagrant injustices numerous uncertainties which cha terize international law in its present state would be eliminated and that a stable and generally accepted basis would then be created for the solution of international disputes in the sy preme interests of peace.” It is proposed that the committee of experts of the League of Nation® shall be made permanent and urged to pursue studies with a view to pre- paring fresh preliminary draft con- ventions on other chapters of puble and international law. It suggests the work of the committee be co-ordi- nated with the work of other compe- tent institutions, especially with that of the Pan-American Union. Law Resolution. e It 1s proposed that the conference recall the international law resolution voted by the twenty-third conference in Washington and Ottawa in 1925 and recommends the “drafting of & seneral synthetic plan of codification of public and international law" to be presented at the twenty-fifth cog- ference of the Interparliamentary Union. In this new draft, contrary to the traditional division of interna tional law into the law of peace amd the law of war, it is recommended that war shall be regarded solely a3 a crime against international Ines (with the exception, however, of the right of legitimate defense, and mus; consequently include, in addition to positive law, rules intended to secure the law of peace—such as friendly - rangements, mediation, conciliation, arbitration and resort to international jurisdiction—as well as rules relatink to the ultimate execution of decisions reached. s It must be understood that all of this is_preliminary to the proposed third Hague peace conference, h which the United States is eager to participate. Its importance is empha- sized in a report by the House com- mittee on foreign affairs, which says that “no greater contribution to wotld order can be made by the United States than the concept of an assp- ciation of all free nations, equal and sovereign, dealing directly with one another in free and independent ean- ference at The Hague for the judicial settlement of international contro- versies by persuasion and the appli- cation of justice without the exercise of force.” 7 Americans Flocking to European Shores (Continued from First f'ake.\._a_ duction that might accrue to the tout- ist by reason of any agresment nego- tiated between the two governments, The United States is without discre- tion in the charging of the $10 fee to immigrants. The law makes it com- pulsory. The difference between the immigrant and the tourist is apparent to the man in the street when it is comprehended that a poser is created for Uncle Sam by the newcomer-‘tn these shores who secks to make & home for himself and in the mass this influx has necessitated the setting Up of special facilities to care for it. New Method Used. Recently the United States his struck out on a new tack and insti« tuted the plan of examining immi- grants in their homeland in several countries. Such procedure, of course, is not needed for the casual arrival, who usually is liberal with his purse; The lead taken by such countries as Germany in requiring no fee at all, or Spain, which has substantially re- duced it, is reflected in increased travel to those lands with an inter- course that will be indexed in added trade. 3 Militia Must Carry s Fascist Decalogue Once again the Fa has cropped up. It is worth repeat- ing: 1. Remember that the r ilitiaman must not bolieve petual peace. 2. Days in pri always well deserved. 3. The Fasefit can serve his country even by guagd: ing a gasoline can.” 4. A comrade must be considered a brother because h lives with you and also because he thinks like you 5. Your gun apd cartridge belt are confided to you net to spoil by being idle, but to keep ready for war. 6. Never say, “The government pays,” because it is yon who pays the government. 7. Disci- pline is the sun of armies. 8. Musso- lini s always right. 9. Voluntary disobedience is inexcusable. 10. 030 thing above all others must be dear to you, the life of il Duce. b These injunctions, neatly printed an a small card, must be carried hence- forth by every Fascist militiaman, of whom there are upward of 300,000 In Ttaly. cist decalogtte Air Freight Service 4 In Paris and London By a recent announcement of the Imperial Airways, Ltd., freight pack- ages are called for and deliveréd throughout London and Paris, as well as being received and delivered at the airdromes of several other cities. Bills of lading with full instructions are provided by the company, and charges are collected either in advance or up- on delivery. b Maximum sizes of parcels are spe¢i- fle! to be 3 feet 6 inches by 2 feet’§ inches by 2 feet 3 inches, but if the package is to be transshipped to an- other air line it must be somewhat smaller. The usual maximum weight those who make the laws for the na-|is 150 pounds, although by special ar- rangement packages weighing as m as 336 pounds will be carried. stock and motor cycles will also_be carried, ‘h Live