Yesterday the first real step towards unfillment of Secretary Kellogg's proposed treaty for the renunciation of war was taken when the British House of Lords adopted the resolution "that the proposals for the outlawry of war by the United States should have prompt and favorable consideration." Following France's suggestion that the United States sound out the powers on the question, this recommendation alters the proposal from a forlorn hope to a promising opportunity.

Mr. Kellogg has allowed the European nations generous reservations and granted none to the United States. His "implied reservations" to the pledge to renounce war as an instrument of national policy include self-defense, violation of the treaty by any signatory, obligations of the League of Nations states arising from the League covenant, and the Locarno obligations. To offset these concessions Secretary Kellogg has asked no reservations for such a vital American policy as the Monroe Doctrine.

In the new arbitration treaty which he is negotiating Mr. Kellogg has excluded from arbitration the Doctrine. But in the war renunciation treaty in its present form the United States promises not to emplay war as an instrument of national policy, with no exception in reference to violations of the Monroe Doctrine. Not accepting arbitration in such a case, the United States would be shackled by its renunciation pledge and unable to resort to force except through the weak plea of self-defense, a plea which the unified League nations would probably oppose strongly.

It would appear, then, that the United States should place some balancing reservations in the scales. The demands of both sides, even, if the Kellogg plan does not go through, should be crystallized for the benefit of future negotiation. Neither the United States nor any European nation will enter such a treaty blindfold, and the bandage might as well be removed now as later.