THE ANTI-WAR TREATY.

Grey River Argus, 8 December 1928, Page 5

THE ANTI-WAR TREATY.

U.S. SENATORS. Against Ratification. (Australian & N.Z. Cable Assn). WASHINGTON, December 6. Unorganised but threatening oppo •sition to Kellogg’s anti-war treaty ha> suddenly found root in the Senate. Its strength remains to be seen, but now amounts to be a deteimined stand against the treaty by Senator Reed, with doubt in the minds of half-a-dozen other senators. Much Tnust be dissipated in order taat adherents may obtain the overwhelming ratification they expect. Some Democrats, supporters of Wilsonian foreign politices, are doubtful about the .treaty’s advisability. Senator Bruce said: “It seems to be a mere blast of wind. There is now a ;eal agency for world peace to which we could subscribe.” Senator Borah is still confident that the treaty will be ratified. He does not believe it will push the Umt?d States into the World Court. Some effort will be made to hold un consideration of the treaty until after the passage of the naval cruiser bill, land if it appears, the treaty is facing I dangerous opposition, and it may be delayed for the present. “STUDIED PROPAGANDA” ANTI BRITISH FEELING. (Received December 7 at 10.10 p.m j NEW YORK, December 7. The Herald and Tribune this morning prints rather a vitriolic messag*’ from Washington, alleging that there is considerable displeasure at White House, and in the State and Navy Departments, at what is regarded a“studied propaganda” on the part of high British officials who desire to “hamper the American naval programme. ’ ’ Field Marshal Robertson alleged that the comparison of the American attitude with that of Germany ig considered the last straw as far as official patience here is concerned. The despatch continues in lengthy terms, ostensibly representing official sources, in an attempt to justify the American naval position and recent announcements of American foreign policy.