Government in admitting the principle of equality with the United States.

Britain's

.

There are times when to yield Historic is to conquer. Judged by the Renunciation highest tests of statesmanship and diplomacy, Great Britain won enduring praise for herself, and made an almost measureless contribution to the future harmonizing of the world, when she abandoned the position she has held since the days of Queen Elizabeth, and cordially adopted the proposal that the American navy should be as strong as the British. The people of the British Islands, and those of the British Dominions, have made no mistake in accepting this profound change in their naval policy. Mr. Balfour, as head of the British delegation, in endorsing the Hughes program at the second open session of the Conference, painted an eloquent picture of the British Empire, with its dependence upon ocean transportation and its defensive needs. It is a high order of statesmanship that is able to look all the facts in the face and to make a decision that might seem to involve a sacrifice, whether of power or of prestige. As a matter of fact, this decision will bring to the British people and their associated countries a succession of substantial benefits.

would have been in many ways most unfortunate for us if we had felt ourselves compelled to assume that burden. However, for the American and British governments to accept the principle of naval equality is equivalent to declaring before the whole world that Great Britain and the United States, in further development of the principles of 1814, are not going to make war upon one another, either in the present century, nor in those to follow. Gradually this Anglo-American accord will be made the basis of an association for the regulation of maritime affairs, with a still further limitation of naval armaments. The United States abandoned a prospective position of naval leadership, and the British in turn abandoned an actual leadership, having behind it the tradition and the experience of centuries.

British Senti

ment Almost

Unanimous

The British Government, fully supporting its delegates at Washington, acted in accordance with the clear sentiment of the British people, as expressed in many ways, notably through the brilliant work of the Conference correspondents of British newspapers, and through the strong endorsement of British editors at home, regardless of political partisanship. At no other point had British national opinion been so sensitive as at this one point of naval policy. To accept whole-heartedly the doctrine that Uncle Sam's navy is to be as strong as John Bull's navy is for the British people to say that the fundamental dogma in their new creed is that of harmony and coöperation with the people of the United States. They believe that the American people will be just, generous and

gallant in all real emergencies. There is no intention whatever on the part of either of these two governments to try to get the better of the other in the development of new forms of naval equipment. It may be true that battleships are becoming obsolete, and that vessels equipped to carry bombing airplanes are to be regarded by the technical authorities as henceforth more important. But neither of the two governments has any notion of taking advantage of the other through the development of new kinds of machinery for wielding sea power. Their intentions are pacific and coöperative. They will unite to make naval holidays permanent.

challenge) to rule the Pacific by naval power and to dominate Siberia, Manchuria, and China by combined land and sea forces. Certain British imperialists on their part had been saying that they must renew the alliance, if Japan so desired, as a matter of politeness. This of course was a diplomatic way of saying that they believed that there were more advantages for Britain in a combination with Japan for world control than in an agreement with the United States for fair play and coöperation all around. Obviously, the United States could not explicitly demand that the Anglo-Japanese Alliance be terminated. Neither could the United States undertake to build a navy that should be greater than the combined fleets of Great Britain and Japan. The time had come for understandings all around; and fortunately the best sentiment of Australia and Canada took the American view, and discovered that public opinion in Great Britain was moving in that direction.

Japan Enters a Larger

In order that the British Gov

ernment should withdraw from Combination the Japanese Alliance without exasperating Japan, it was necessary to create good feeling in that country. This has been to a large extent accomplished at Washington. And so it came to pass that the Alliance was expressly terminated by one of the clauses in a new agreement, known as the Four-Power Treaty and signed at Washington December 13. The parties to this agreement are the United States, Great Britain, Japan and France. In his important article in the present number of this REVIEW, explaining the work of the Conference, Mr. Simonds deals thoroughly with this agreement for maintaining peace in the Pacific. If any question arises that is likely to disturb. harmony among these powers, in relation to their insular possessions or other interests of any kind in the Pacific, they agree to come together in fresh conference, to consider the controversy and to adjust it. In a similar way, if disputes arise through the aggression of any other power not a party to the treaty, the four governments agree to hold a conference and determine upon the best way to meet the exigencies of the particular situation. The agreement is to remain in force for ten years, and beyond that period it will continue unless a year's notice is given by any member that it wishes to withdraw. France was glad to be included in any compact that recognizes guarantees for security.

A Treaty of Great Promise

This treaty might appear to the

superficial reader or the casual student of international affairs to be rather vague and indefinite. It is, however, pronounced by the Japanese Premier, Baron Takahashi, as the "grandest contribution to the cause of peace ever recorded in history." It rests upon a basis of confidence and good will, and its implications are altogether those of mutual respect, of good faith all around, and of friendly coöperation. It is obvious that the powers most immediately concerned are three rather than four. Yet there was much felicity in adding France to the list; and the treaty from every standpoint is stronger for this inclusion. France represents the general interest of Europe in the Pacific; moreover, in case of a difference to be adjusted by conference, the presence of France would be especially helpful. This treaty moves in the right direction, by safe and practical methods.

and the Japanese mandate over former German islands north of the Equator resulted last month in a definite treaty between the United States and Japan, which was made public in association with the Four-Power agreement. Japan accords to the United States all that our Government has claimed as regards the use of Yap for cable and radio purposes, while the United States in turn recognizes the mandate of Japan over the former German islands north of the Equator. The treaty confirms to American missionaries and educators the rights they had long exercised in many of these islands. The agreement ends what had been a rather serious controversy, in a way that secures American rights and interests, while fully recognizing everything that the Versailles Treaty and the League of Nations have accorded to Japan as exercising sovereignty over the islands in question. It was understood that, either with or without a definite agreement in treaty form, the United States would be accorded full equality with other nations in those islands south of the Equator that were assigned at Paris to the British Empire.

China's Claims at

As these pages were written, the

work of the Conference in its Washington more fundamental objects was completed and was successful. It is within bounds to express the view that no article has been written which more clearly sets forth those principal objects and successful results than the contribution which Mr. Simonds makes to our pages this month. There had not been completed, in time for final statement or discussion here, certain settlements affecting China. Nevertheless it was known that the Shantung question, which meant more to the Chinese than anything else, was about to be adjusted by mutual agreement with something like a complete withdrawal on the part of Japan. Secretary Hughes and Mr. Balfour were lending their good offices to the Japanese and Chinese delegates in order that the Washington Conference might not end with Shantung questions still in controversy. Japanese were not to withdraw wholly from Manchuria, yet China's sovereignty was acknowledged and limits placed upon the activities of foreign governments. Numerous claims involving national dignity, as asserted by the Chinese delegates, were admitted as just in principle by the entire Conference. These included the withdrawal of foreign

The

MISS WASHINGTON OPENS THE DOOR AND LETS AIR IN FOR THE INVALID

From the Evening Times (Glasgow, Scotland)

post offices from Chinese territory, the ultimate freedom of China to control and administer her customs duties, the withdrawal from China of foreign troops and police forces, and the abolition of foreign courts of justice. These changes cannot be made in a moment, for the simple reason that China is in a state of governmental chaos and unable to give proper guarantees. China has been brilliantly represented at the Conference, and everything that was practically possible has been done to secure proper consideration for Chinese demands and claims. China's one paramount task is that of building up a modern government, capable of exercising internal authority and of meeting external responsibilities.

Bachrach

HON. HENRY CABOT LODGE, OF MASSACHUSETTS

(Mr. Lodge is chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee of the Senate and leader of the Republican majority. As one of the four American delegates in the Armament Conference, the task was assigned to Mr. Lodge of presenting the Four-Power Treaty. His speech on that occasion was one of notable excellence)

with which Western Europe was following the Conference discussions. Popular feeling in Japan about the great superdreadnought Mutsu had to be reckoned with at Washington in finally adjusting the details of the 5-5-3 program. The announcement of the treaty between the Sinn Fein delegates and Mr. Lloyd George over the status of Ireland visibly strengthened the hands of those who were guiding the Conference at Washington toward a successful conclusion.

"Mirrors"

of the Conference

We are fortunate in being able to follow Mr. Simonds' clear and logical analysis of the Conference and its work, with a similarly noteworthy picture of the Conference, though more intimate and personal. The anonymous journalist whose recent volume entitled "The Mirrors of Washington" has stimulated so much curiosity and has been so widely read gives us an account of the Conference on its human side. This article characterizes some of the leading figures at Washington with a touch of wit and a flash of humor. It is wholly candid and highly readable; but it is a thoroughly sound and responsible study of the new forces of inter

national public opinion as they have begun to find ways to accomplish results. The manner in which the beneficent power of the press may be marshalled for helping to secure world harmony-as against that malignant tendency in nationalistic newspaperdom to play upon prejudice and to make false appeals to patriotism-is admirably shown in this article by one of the keenest of American political observers and one of the most brilliant of contemporary journalists.

Will the Senate

Undoubtedly the forces of enlightened opinion in every counRatify? try which has been represented at Washington are lending support to the work that has been done. Ratification of the agreements of the Conference ought to be prompt and virtually unanimous. An attempt on the part of Democratic Senators to obtrude partisanship into the debate on ratification of the Four-Power Treaty would be reprehensible in a high degree. Every Senator is entitled to his own opinions, and is solely responsible for his vote. And every Senator must take the course that seems to him best. But these efforts to avert war and to secure international accord do not come properly within the range of American party politics. Fortunately, the work of the Conference has been so open, and has been so fully presented to the country, that it would be impossible for any man in the