the public at the end of the specified period or at any time prior to expiration of such period upon terms definitely set out and fair to both parties.

Finally, in the interest of the traveling public, the rates of toll to be levied should be subject to regulation by suitable public agencies, which also should have power to enforce necessary requirements as to methods of operation, the maintenance of the structure, and other matters in order to promote the public convenience and protect life and property.

о

MULTILATERAL PEACE TREATY

ADDRESS DELIVERED AT THE WILLIAMSTOWN INSTITUTE OF POLITICS AUGUST 22, 1928, THE MULTILATERAL PACT FOR THE RENUNOCIATION OF WAR, BY EDWIN BORCHARD

TOGETHER WITH

AN ARTICLE FROM THE FORUM, JANUARY, 1929, ENTITLED "SHOULD THE SENATE RATIFY THE KELLOGG TREATY", BY FRANK H. SIMONDS

ALSO

AN ARTICLE FROM HARPERS MAGAZINE, DECEMBER, 1928, ENTITLED "THE MEANING OF THE KELLOGG TREATY", BY HENRY CABOT LODGE 3D

SD-70-2-vol 17-10

THE MULTILATERAL PACT FOR THE RENUNCIA

TION OF WAR

By EDWIN BORCHARD

(An address delivered at the Williamstown Institute of Politics August 22, 1928)

I

The origin of the negotiations between the United States and other powers leading to the conclusion of the so-called Briand-Kellogg pact for the renunciation of war is well known. Beginning with an expression of good will in M. Briand's note of April 6, 1927, commemorating the entry of the United States into the war and expressing France's willingness to conclude a treaty renouncing war between France and the United States, the negotiations developed rapidly. On June 20, 1927, the French foreign minister presented the draft of a treaty embodying his proposal, providing for a condemnation of "recourse to war" and renouncing war as between France and the United States as an "instrument of their national policy." The settlement of all disputes was never to be sought "except by pacific

means."

On December 28, 1927, Mr. Kellogg proposed to the French ambassador the extension of the proposed declaration to all the principal powers. It was argued in the United States that, if the treaty were signed by the United States and France alone, it would be a treaty of alliance. In his accompanying draft of a treaty, Mr. Kellogg recommended the outright and unconditional renunciation of war and the solution of disputes by pacific means only.

The French press was critical. It was maintained that France had obligations to the League of Nations and could not make these new commitments. But the criticism was dropped after 48 hours on the publication of the French reply undertaking to renounce "wars of aggression." This gave apparently a new turn to the negotiations. The State Department did not reply officially, but officers of the department pointed out that the term "aggressive" changed the entire meaning of the proposition and was not acceptable to the United States. In this position the State Department seems to have had the support of the American press. Editorially it was agreed that "renunciation of aggressive war" was too intricate an expression to define and that the French interpolation of this qualification left Mr. Kellogg's proposition denatured of its vital part and meaningless. Mr. Kellogg pointed out in his new note that the first French note of June 20, 1927, contained no limitation of wars of aggression. In this connection it is well to note that Sir Austen Chamberlain rejected the attempted definition of "aggressor" in the Geneva protocol as, I believe, one who declines to submit a dispute to discussion in these words: "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."