MR BORAH’S COMMENTS

Hokitika Guardian, 16 December 1929, Page 5

MR BORAH’S COMMENTS

[United Press Association—By Electric Telegraph.—Copyright.] (Received this day at 10 a.m.) WASHINGTON, Dec. 15. Mr Borah, long champion of the eoclnication of the Sea Laws and Freedom of the Seas, vigorously contended that the acceptance of Mr MacDonald’s argument that under the Kellogg Pact no issue of neutral rights in time of war can arise, would interpret the Pact as “a war pact,” for if “the Kellogg Pact means that henceforth there shall be no neutrals, it necessarily follows that we and all other signatories become belligerents.” Air Borah’s reference to the White Paper was received with more than ordinary interest. Air Borah stated:, ‘‘l did agree with Air MacDonald's construction with reference to neutrals as T stated when he was in the United States. I’m at a loss to understand why we are maintaining and continuing huge navies if the Pact settled all matters with reference to the use of the sea.. I think the best evidence of the belief that the Pact removed all question of rights of neutrals, would be a drastic reduction of armaments.” WASHINGTON, Dec. 14.

Air Borah continued. “If the Pact eliminated all question of neutral rights what can be the reason for such vast navies. If we do not expect conflicts at sea, and all conditions in that regard are removed, then lot us manifest our faith by removing the burden of armaments. ’ The .State Department met the white panel' with reserve. Mr Stimson refused to comment, but stated he had heard no interpretation in the United States, that under the pact it was ready to abandon its policy concerning neutral rights at sea. Governmental circles generally regarded the paper as addressed more to the British public than to the United States, inasmuch as it dealt wih subjects to which United States is not committed.