Evening Star Newspaper, March 16, 1928, Page 4

e THE EVENING STAR, WASHINGTON, D. [0 FRIDAY, MARCH 16, 1928. ————————'———_T__— PR S TR have not realized also important because it indorses the | ceptions and qualifications to stipulate | itself in advance to use its armed Board who were wit N e aiTenoe wl?en nations are justified in going ic|forces against any other nation of the ‘l' 0' HEYWORTH Is DEAD the war. He ew:‘ ",,,‘h:,,‘f,",::,‘ g;"{;fi ‘ the vital difference between justiciable | principle of compulsory arbitration for KELLOGG BACKS ANTL.WAR PACT BUT BARS MILITARY ALLIANCE Multilateral Treaty Defended in ‘Dis- cussing Briand Stand—Calls U. §. Firm for Arbitration. Following is the text of the speech delivered last night by Seerctary of | State Kellogg before the Council on oign Relations on the subject “The ntion Policy of the United : It has been my priv- t few months to of the Government s negotiations hav- object the promotion of al of world peace. Popular terest in the reali- never been nt time. Ever which spelled llions of men, en and of nd more enting the ut members of have concluded like those of national policy, call a conference to draft ry arbi- American Desire for Peace. 1ent of the United States y effective | vancement ol he negotiations which en carrying on have Government's earnest mote that ideal. They have had a dual character, having been concerned in part with the ffaming of Dew arbitration treaties to Teplace the so-called Root treatles, several of which 5 part w ¥ iand last Summer. he opportunity which you ed me to express before this views on these questions al proposed P 00d that the treaty of arbitra- hich was signed last month with France has no relation whatsoever tc the proposal submitted by M. Briand for a treaty declaring agal war and Tenouncing it as an instrument of na- onal policy. It is true that the pre- le to the arbitration treaty recites that France and the United States are *eager by their example not only ic demonstrate their condemnation of war as an instrument of national policy in their mutual relations, but also ic HNasten the time when the perfection of intern: nal arrangements for the pacific ‘ment of international dis- putes shall have eliminated forever the possibility of war among any of the powers of the world” but & preamble is not a binding part of a treaty. If war is to be abolished it must be ugh the conclusion of a specifi treaty solemnly binding the parties not W resort to war with one another. It cannot be abolished by a more declara- tion in the preamble of a treaty, Even though without legal effect, however. & formal expression of the peaceful agpirations of the governments and their common desire to perfect ¢ Mechanism for the pacific settlement of justiciable disputes such as that und in the preamble of the arbitra- treaty is, I believe, very helpful, since it publicly defines the positions of the two governments in 8 matter the importance of which is hard to ex- aggerate. Treaty Called Advance. The arbitration treaty itself I regard #is a distinct advance over any of its Predecessors, and 1 hope it can serve # a model for use in negotiations with ather governments with which we have TI0 present erbitration treaty or where tbe exising Root treaties shortly ex- mre. 1 have already instituted nego- tihtions with the British and Japa- Tese Governments on the basis of the fi treaty which I have submitted to nce last December, and 1 have indi- @ted to all inquiring governments that T shall be pleased to conclude with them new treaties similar to that re- cently signed with France. If a com- prehensive series of such bilateral | treaties can be put into effect between | the United States and the other na- ons of the world, I feel that a very ism for the pacific set- iciable disputes will have been established. 1 attach such portance % the treat; with France that I shall discuss its 3movisions briefly before proceeding to discussion of rbitration treaty language of the first of the first article of the ireaty of 1914 providing for in- nd report by a permanent S or submitted 1o 7 of all disputes | Article 2 provides that— “All differences relating to interna- tional matters in which the high con- tracting parties are concerned by rtue of & claim of right made by one st the other under treaty or other- wise, which it has not been possible to adjust by diplomacy, which have not been adjusted as a result of reference to the above-mentioned Permanent In- ternational Commission, and which are justiciable in their nature by reason of being susceptible of decision by the application of the principles of law or equity, shall be submitted to the Per- manent Court of Arbitration established at The Hague by the convention of October 18, 1927, or to some other competent tribunal, as shall be decided in each case by special agreement, which special agreement shall provide for the organization of such tribunal if necessary, define its powers, state the question or questions at issue, and scttle the terms of reference.” It also contains a clause providing that the special agreement must in each case be ratified with the advice and consent of the Senate. This is the usual practice in the United States, and 1 do not know of a single case where the Senate has refused to con- sent to any special agreement of arbi- tration. Article 3 excludes from arbitration under the treaty disputes the subject- d | matter of which is within the domestic Jurisdiction of either of the parties, in- volves the interests of third parties, de- pends upon or involves the maintenance of the Monroe Doctrine, and depends upon or involves the observance of the obligations of France under the Cove- nant of the League of Nations. It is difficult for me to see by what claim of right any government could properly request arbitration of disputes covered by these exceptions, since few, if any, would present questions justiciable in their nature. As a practical matter, therefore, I do not feel that the general applicability of the new treaty is materially restrict- ed by the four clauses of exclusion. The Root treaty which it supersedes con- tained a clause excluding from its scope questions affecting “the vital interests, the independence or the honor” of the contracting states. This clause was borrowed from an Anglo-French arbi- tration treaty of 1903 and represented the reservations generally regarded as necessary 25 years ago. Arbitration has repeatedly proved its worth since then, and inasmuch as such vague and all-inclusive exceptions can be construed to cover almost any substantial international dispute and might well operate to defeat the very purpose of an arbitration treaty, I de- cided to eliminate them and to specify with particularity the questions ex- cluded from arbitration. In this re- spect the new treaty is a much more satisfactory and practical instrument for the adjustment of justiciabie inter- national controversies, and it is only justiciable questions that are suscep- tible to arbitration. Scope of Arbitration. I do not agree with the pronounce- ment of many organizations and pub- licists engaged in the discussion of in- ternational arbitration to the effect that every question between nations should be arbitrated. This is a very simple and all-incjusive formula, but it will not stand the test of careful examination, and never has and never can be uni- versally adopted. Let us consider for a moment what questions are suscej tible of arbitration and can be submit- ted by nations to the decision of an in- ternational court. ‘They are exactly the same kind of questions as can be arbitrated between citizens of the United States or sub- mitted to the decision of a local court under our form of government; that is to say, they are questions arising under contract or under the law of the land. Applying this analogy in international relations, we find that the questions which are susceptible of arbitration or impartial decision are those involving rights claimed under a treaty ar under international law. A political question cannot be arbi- trated because there are no principles of law by which it can be dec and unless there are relevant treaty pro- visions requiring construction, no nation can agree to grbitrate purely domestic questions like Rariff, taxation, immigra- tion, and, it may be said, all polil questions involving the exercise of sov- ereignty within the natfon’s territorial limits. There ars no itive rules of international law applicable to such questions to guide arbitrators in reach- ing a decision. I am confident that the enthusiastic supporters of the theory that all ques- tions between nations should be sub- My purp os in including e o Y Br treaty was cacy of the | r the Bryan | blished 4 1 unite by reference in arbitration the Bryan treaty | i 10 sense been m- | was it} W trealy, nor s eoncerned, Article cly and men- vy made only in e % yeference W rdure under that dt is not necessary [2 0 have had an Ac- count at this Bank to Borrow. MORRIS e P.Ah/ Easy to l';; I | Mourhty | | Deyemit | bor 14 i { i lrmn $120 $150 8240 If 20 Il 300 {| $540 $45.00 U 81,200 $100.00 | 32,000 $560.00 I'HE. MORRIS PLAN BANK Ustes Supervision U, &, Treasury 1408 M STRELT, N, W, Mo tha $10.00 $15.00 $20.00 $25.00 $90.00 related processes of | slender ness natural o a woman's and political questions. Take, for ex- ample, the question of immigration, which at times arouses bitter feelings between nations. On what principie could a government arbitrate this ques- tion, and what rules could be applied to guarantee justice to the disputants? [ with Conciliation Method Stated. It scems to me we must realize that so long as the world is composed of separate, sovereign nations, only those questions can_properly be submitted to arbitration which, being justiciable in their nature, are susceptible of determi- nation by the application of recognized rules of law or equity. Non-justiclable or political questions must, if they threaten to bring on hostilities, be ad- judged through other means, such as conciliation, where & disinterested effort is made to reconcile conflicting points of view without finding neces- sarily that either party was in the Wwrong. It is when arbitration cannot or will not be invoked by the parties that con- ciliation treaties have their greatest value for adjusting international irrita- tions tending to inflame public opinion and imperil the peace of the world. ~ One of the first of our treatfes establishing a procedure for conciliation was the so-called Knox treaty of 1911. That treaty, which was aiso o treaty of arbi- tration, was never proclaimed by the President because of certain reserva- tions attached by the Senate in advising and consenting thereto. These reserva- tions, however, did not affect the con- cillation provisions of the treaty and need not be discussed in this con- nection. Our next conclliation treaties werc the Bryan treaties to which I have al- ready referred. The first of these was signed in 1913 and_there are 18 of them now in force. In 1923 we became parties to two other conciliation treaties, namely, that signed at Washington on February 7, 1923, between the United States and the five Central American republics, and that signed at Santiago on May 3, 1923, between the United States and 15 Latin American coun- tries. Both of these treaties have been ratified by the United States. They are similar to the Bryan treaties, the principal points of difference being as to the manner of constituting the com- missions of inquiry. Provisions of Treaty. The Bryan treaties provide, you will recall, that any dispute shall, when ordinary diplomatic proceedings have failed and the parties do not have re- course to arbitration, be submitted for investigation and report to a Permanent International Commission, composed of five members, two of whom, a national and a non-national, being designated by each of the two governments, and a fifth member by agreement. The com- mission is bound to report within a year from the date on which it takes Jurisdiction of the case, and the parties agree not to resort to any act of force prior to the commission’s report, re- serving, however, full liberty of action with respect to the report itself. ‘The United States has been a party to conciliation treaties for 15 years, and while there has never yet been an occasion for invoking them, I know of no reason why this country should ob- Jject to an inquiry by a commission of conciliation if war is threatened. tI is claimed in some quarters that purely domestic questions might be inquired into by these commissions of concilia- tion. While I cannot conceive that any government would feel justified in de- manding an inquiry by the commission into a matter solely within the domestic jurisdiction of another government, 1 do not feel that the point is material. The ébject which is sought to be at- tained by conciliation treaties is the prevention of war, and in my opinion any government can well afford to sub- mit to inquiry any question which may threaten to involve it in the horrors of war, particularly when as in the Bryan and other treaties I have just mentioned, the findings of the com- have no binding force and to be effective must be volunmtarily ac- cepted. The world is more and more alive to the necessity of preventing war, and I think it is significant that the Sixth International Conference of American States which recently concluded its tabors at Havana adoj two anti-war resolutions, one of which contains the unqualified statement that “the Ameri- can Republics desire to express that they condemn war as an instrument of national policy in their mutual rela- tions,” which, it is interesting to note, is the language of M. Briand's original proposal to me. Question of Aggression. ‘The other resolution contains the statement that “war of aggression con- stitutes an international crime againat the human species” and the declaration tical | that “all aggression is considered illicit and as such is declared prohibited.” It is the former resolution that I regard as the greatest interest at this time because, of the 21 states represented at the Havana Conference, 17, while mem- bers of the League of Nations, were not prevented by such membership from joining in an unqualified deciaration against war. This general resolution i+ “Beanty beyond Style in Foot Saver Shoes. ankles fl‘m feet are exquisitely shod, in Foot Saver [J Shoes, But the style-loveliness of every Foot Saver Creation conceals & sousce of beauty beyond style. For there is hidden a patented construction that achieves the charm of slim, young ankles . . . Through perfect fit, through pressure relaxed, through the elim- ination of swelling, and the creation of balanced mus- cular grace, nature is liberated, to restore the slender- ankles . . . But the cause of this added charm is invisible, Only when a woman tries on the new Yoot Saver Creations we are now show- ing, will she understand how completely it functions, The “Co-Ld” A new smart model at 0 Other styles 811 to $14.50 F Street at Tenth FOOT THSUKANCE FOR THE FUTURE Justiciable disputes and provides for the calling of & conference in Washington within a year to draft appropriate treaties of arbitration and conciliation. I have discussed at some length the provisions of the new arbitration treaty PFrance. I have also outlined the scope and purpose of the many con- ciliation treaties which the United States has concluded with other gow- ernments. I know of but one other form of treaty which can be concluded for the purpose of preventing war and that is a treaty in which the parties specifically bind themselves not to re- sort to war. It is this kind of treaty which people have in mind when they discuss treaties for outlawing war, and it is a novel 'idea in modern inter- national relations. As you are all aware, in a communi- cation dated June 20, 1927, M. Briand proposed to the United States the con- clusion of a bilateral treaty under the terms of which France and the United States would agree to renounce war as an instrument of their national policy toward each other. This treaty pro- vided, first, that— 2 ‘The high contracting powers solemn- 1y declare, in the mame of the French people and the people of the United States of America, that they condemu recourse to war and renounce it re- spectively @s an instrument of their national pelicy toward each other; And, secondly, that— The settlement or the solution of all disputes or conflicis, of whatever nature or of whatever origin they may be, which may arise between France and the United States of America, shall never be sought by either side except by pacific means. Called Inspiring Proposal. This important and inspiring proposal was carefully and sympathetically studled by the Government of the United States. While we might well have hesitated to take the initiative in proposing such a_treaty to Europe, the invitation from France afforded us an opportunity to examine anew the whole question of world peace and to de- termine in what practical manner we could best co-operate. We made that examination, and, in my note of De- cember 28, 1927, after expressing the sincere appreciation of the United States for the offer which France had so impressibly submitted, I warmly seconded M. Briand's proposition that war be formally renounced as an instru- ment of national policy, but suggested that instead of giving effect thereto in a bilateral treaty between France and the United States, an equivalent multi- lateral treaty be concluded among the principal powers of the world, open to adherence by any and all nations, thus extending _throughout the world the benefits of a covenant originally sug- gested as between France and the United States alone. The powers which 1 suggested be invited in the first in- stance to join with France and the United States in such a treaty were Great Britain, Germany, Italy and Japan. France, I am happy to say, promptly agreed in principle to the idea of n multi-lateral treaty. France suggested, however, that the treaty provide only for the renunciation of wars of ag- gression, explaining that while France could conclude a bilateral treaty with the United States providing for the unqualified renunciation of war, the conclusion of a similar muiti-lateral treaty presented certain difficulties In view of the obligations of France under the Covenant of the League of Nations, treaties such as those signed at Lo- carno In October, 1925, and other inter- national conventions relating to guar- antles of neutrality. Aggression Becomes Issue. ‘The French government also pointed out that in September, 1927, the mem- bers of the League of Nations adopted & resolution condemning aggressive war as an international- crime. In these circumstances France expressed the opinion that the common object of the two governments could best be attained by framing the proposed anti-war treaty 50 as to cover wars of aggression only. I have not been able to agree to that reservation. My object to limiting the scope of an anti-war treaty to mere wars of aggression is based partly upon a very real disinclination to see the ideal of world peace qualified in any way, and partly upon the absence of any satis- factory definition of the word “aggres sor” or the phrase “wars of aggression.” It is difficult for me to see how a definition could be agreed upon which would not be open to abuse. The danger inherent in any definition Is recognized by the British government which in a memorandum recently submitted to the subcommittee on security of the pre- paratory committee on disarmament of the League of Natlons discussed at- tempted definitions of this character, and quoted from a speech by the Brit- ish forelgn secretary in which Sir Austen said: “I therefore remain opposed to this attempt to define the aggressor because I believe that it will be a trap for the innocent and a signpost for the guilty.” I agree with Sir Austen on this point. It seems to me that any attempt tc define the word “aggressor” and by ex- Two-Trousers Spring Suits For Men and Young Men Budget Payments— the most ral will be arranged to suit your convenience ~pay out of income! Special! Men’s & Yo Men’s Suits Serges, Worsteds, Cas- weres and Cheviots in neat stripes, hairline and fancy weaves. Navy blue, brown, gray and any slre els to fit Your (llm;'m- Account Solicited Budget Payments Avvanged tlon R Pennsylvania Ave, at $th N war with one another, would greatly weaken the effect of any treaty suth as that under consideration and virtu- ally destroy its positive value as a guaranty of peace. And in my last note to the French government I stated expressly that I could not avold the feeling that if governments should pub- licly acknowledge that they could only deal with this ideal of world peace in a technical spirit and must insist upon the adoption of reservations impairing if not utterly destroying the true sig- nificance of their common endeavors, they would be in effect only recording their impotence to the keen disappoint- ment of mankind in general. Believes France Can Sign. In my note of February 27, 1928, I also discussed at some length the ques- tion raised by the government of France whether, as a member of the League of Nations and as a party to the treatles of Locarno and other treaties guaranteeing neutrality, France could agree with the United States and the other principal world powers not tc resort to war in their mutual relations without ipso facto violating their present obligations under those treaties. I pointed out that if those obligations could be interpreted so as to permit France to conclude with the United States alone a treaty such as that pro- posed by M. Briand, it was not un- reasonable to suppose that they could be interpreted with equal justice so as to permit France to join with the United States in offering to conclude an equivalent multi-lateral treaty with the other principal powers of the world. I stated that it seemed to me that the difference between the bilateral and multi-lateral form of treaty having for its object the unqualified renunciation of war, was one of degree and not of substance, and that a government able to conclude such a bilateral treaty should be no less able to become a party to an identical multi-jgteral treaty, since it could hardly be presumed that membeys of the League of Nations were in a position to do separately some- thing that they could not do together In these circumstances I expressed the earnest hope that France, which admittedly perceives no bar to the con- clusion of an unqualified anti-war treaty with the United States alone, would be able to satisfy itself that an equivalent treaty among the principal world powers would be equally con- sistent with membership in the League of Nations, adding that if members of the League of Nations could not, with- out violating the terms of the covenant, agree among themselves and with the United States to renounce war as an instrument of their national policy, it seemed idle to discuss either bilateral or multi-lateral treaties unreservedly re- nouncing war, In that connection I called attention to the fact that the 21 American States represented at the Havana Conference adopted a resolu- tion unqualifiedly condemning war as an instrument of national policy in their mutual relations, and to the fact that 17 of the 21 states represented at the conference are members of the League of Nations. ‘Wants War Abolished. I concluded my note with the un- equivocal statement that the Govern- ment of the United States desires to see the institution of war abolished and stands ready to_ conclude with the French, British, Itallan, German and Japanese governments a single multi- lateral treaty open to subsequent ad- herence by any and all other govern- ments binding the parties® thereto not to resort to war with one another. This is the position of the Government of the United States, and this is the object which we are seeking to attain. I cannot believe that such a treaty would violate the terms of the League covenant or conflict necessarily with the obligations of the members of the League. Even article 10 of the covenant has been construed to mean that League members are not inescapably bound thereby to employ their military forces. According to a recent state- ment by the British government, many members of the League accept as the proper interpretation of article 10 a res- || | olution submitted to the Fourth Assembly, but not formally adopted owing to one adverse vote. That res- olution stated explicitly: “It is for the constitutional authorities of each member to decide, in reference to the obligation of preserving the inde- pendence and the integrity of the terri- || tory of members, in what degree the member is bound to assure the execu- | tion of this obligation by employment ot its military forces.” Y | I earnestly hope, therefore, that the present negotiations looking to the con. | clusion of an unqualified multi-lateral || anti-war treaty may ultimately achieve | succesk, and I have no doubt that i the principal powers of the world arc | united in a sincere desire to consum mate such a treaty, a formula can be devised which will be acceptable to them all. Since, however, the purposc of the United States Is so far as pos- sible to chiminate war as a factor in international relations, I cannot state too emphatically that it will not become 8 party to any agreement which di- rectly or indirectly, expressly or by im- plication, is a military alliance. ‘The United States cannot obligate Step into Ney's new man's shop and get the sur- prise of your life—sce what vou can buy snap- py, high-grade * clothing. This offer will save you from §5 to $10! s simeres, chevioty, mix- tures a n d tweeds in browns, grays, blues, et e, Smart noe w single-breasted models, with two pairs of trowsers. Rege uwlars, stouts, slims, ete, oy world. It does not belleve that the peace of the world or of Europe depends upon or can be assured by treaties of military alllance, the futility of which as guarantors of peace is repeatedly demonstrated in the pages of history. Mr. Chairman, I must not claim that treaties of arbitration and conciliation, or even treaties explicitly renouncing war as an instrument of national policy, afford a certain guaranty against those conflicts between natlons which have perfodically broken out since the dawn of world history, In addition to treaties there must be an aroused public consclence against the utter horror and frightfulness of war. The peoples of the world must enjoy a peaceful mind, as 1t has been said, and treaties such as those I have discussed this evening, and the efforts of statesmen to advance the cause of world peace, can only be regarded as a portion of the problem. I am not so blind as to believe that the millennium has arrived, but I do belleve that the world is making great strides toward the pacific adjustment of international disputes and that the common people are of one mind in their desire to see the abolition of war as an institution. Certainly the United States should not be backward in pro- moting this new movement for world peace, and both personally and officially as Secretary of State, I shall always support and advocate the conclusion of appropriate treaties for arbitration, for conciliation-and for the renuncia- tion of war. COL. HAWKINS RETIRED. Officer Served With Infantry Dur- ing World War. On account of disability incident to the military service, Col. Clyde E. Hawkins, Quartermaster Corps, now on leave of absence at Beaver, Pa. has been transferred to the retired list of the Army. He is from Pennsylvania and served as a colonel of Infantry in the National Army during the World War. He was graduated from the Mili- tary Academy in Juhe, 1895, served in the Cavalry until December, 1912, when he was transferred to the Quarter- master Corps, and reached the grade of colonel in July, 1920. BURIED IN ARLINGTON. Capt. Eugene Lazar Enlisted in In- fantry in 1805. Funeral services were held at Arling- ton National Cemetery this afternoon for Capt. Eugene Lazar, Army Air Corps, who died at his station, Scott Field, Belleville, Ill, last Tuesday. Capt. Lazar was appointed to the Regular Air Corps in July, 1920, following service as a captain in the Aviation Service, National Army, during the World Wa: He was a native of Germany and en- listed as a private in the 15th Infantry in June, 1895. WED IN FREDERICK. Charles F. Pflucker and Margaret Barker Are Married. Special Dispatch to The Star. FREDERICK, Md, March 16.— Charles F. Pflucker and Miss Margaret R. Barker, both of Washington, were married here Wednesday by Rev. U. S. G. Rupp, pastor of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. They were accom- panied by Mr. and Mrs. Arthur Rans- ford of Washington. '(Z‘t | 7 f;.‘l ‘. ro ‘!'l) 4 L AT HOME IN CHICAGO Wealthy Wartime Member of Ship- ping Board Was Well Known Here. By the Associated Press. CHICAGO, March 16.—James O. Heyworth, wealthy contractor and a member of the United States Shipping Board for 15 months from November, 1917, died at his home yesterday, two hours after returning from Arizona, where he had sought to regain his health. He was 61 years old. During his service on the Shipping Board Mr. Heyworth was in charge of the wood ship division. Among the large contracts he handled as a private contractor were the Government jetties ;} Port Arthur, Tex., and Fernandino, a. Funeral services will be held tomor- row. Mr. Heyworth is well remembered by those present officlals of the Shipping 820 7th St. KIDDIES’ DEPT. mFAIR wooden ship construction program at the time when German submarines were sinking steel vessels in large nus bers, and under his supervision con- tracts were let for the construction of hundreds of wooden ships, few of which were placed in actual use. He re- ;m"d from the board in February, Texas Once Had Navy. Before Texas became a part of the United States it was a nation of and had a “navy” consisting of four ves- sels—the Brutus, the Invincible, the Liberty and the Independence. But tt navy lasted only a year, two vessls being wrecked, one being sold and one captured. A second navy *'as bouzis in 1839 and In 1840 was loaned to Yuc tan, then at war with Mexico. Pre dent Mirabeau Lamar and Presid Sam Houston were successively of the navy, and when Te United States four vesseis wes ferred to the United States Na: ; 820 DEPT. 7 STORE St. SECOND FLOOR Girls’ Coats For Spring Special for Saturday TWEEDS BROADCLOTHS TWILLS Newest Spring Shades Some With Fur Trimming All The Smart, New Styles 95 Sizes 7-16 OTHER STYLES $5.95—$15.95 For the Little Miss Usually Priced at $7.95 Exquisite Flat Crepes Peach Orchid Flesh Green Yellow Hand Finished and Trimmed With Silk Ribbons in Contrasting Shades 2 Sizes 7 to 14 Toppy Top Coats Tailored for us.at Fashion Park Fashion Park styles are dis- tinctive—very smart; cut with an air of refinement and a touch of individuality that make them different and su- perb. A wide variety of weaves; with Raglan and Regular shoulders. $40 to $90 Fashion Park Specials Raglan in Tweeds, Paca Lamb ...... Weatherly Cloth . . .. 850 ..$60 .. 865 Richard Austin o A $45 (London) Topcoats Imported by us direct and shown exclusively by us—the latest models of this noted English draper. and $50 A Mode Special 2 22 Smart 22 L7777 72 2 s 2 Topcoat tweeds favored weaves—ex- ceptionally tailored, at and other $20.50 Hats of the Famous Each of these makers has won distinction as an originator of style and a developer of quality. All the blocks and many of the makes are exclusive with us. Henry. Heath . Borsalino ..... Stetson =7 Finchley et Mode Special The Mo;.ie «s—F at Eleventh .$10.00 .$10.00 . $8.00 . $7.00 . $5.00