Cost of the League of Nations.

Press, Volume LXVII, Issue 20343, 16 September 1931, Page 10

Cost of the League of Nations.

According to the Geneva correspondent of the London Daily Express, " the finances of the League of Nations ■' are in a gravo position."' No financial details arc given in the cable message to-day to support the assertion, though it is mentioned that the chief criticism is against " the League's veritable debauch of printed matter." It is probably true that the League annually spends as much on printing as would build a giant howitzer gun; but even if most of what it prints is never read this is not an extravagance of a very vicious kind or of an intolerable extent. The Express itself perhaps wastes as much paper and ink in a week and contributes rather less to the world's sanity and security. But the discovery that the League spends money is not new. Ah'eady this', year three other critics have complained about its budget—Herr Hitler, of Germany, Lord Beaverbrook (through the Daily Express), and Sir Thomas Wilford, the Dominion's High Commissioner —but those who are ready to be impressed by the trio will find the facts a little appointing. The cost of the League this year has been estimated officially at £1,360,000, which is contributed by fifty-five nations. Great Britain is the largest contributor, its latest annual contribution being about £.135,000, which costs the people of Great Britain something less than a penny each. Preparation for Avar costs them over two pounds. The League's work for peace costs Great Britain about 5s a minute. Readiness for war costs her about £.1'75 a minute, Jt is impossible, of course, to assess in terms of money tho value of the League's services since its establishment on January 10th, 19*0; but to date its total expenditure on the pro. motion of international peace and social welfare has been about, equal to one week's post of the European War at its worst. It is true that the League has tended to spend more; and, although expenditure has increased mainly be--cause tho League has worked in a widoning field and lias had more work to do, a littlo less might be spoilt without achieving less. The League's critics should be eager to find, if they do not yet know, how this can be done; but §o far they have disclosed nothing to justify strong protests, while assertions that the League " is a torch which at " any moment may ignite the Euro- " pean powder magazine," and that Great Britain must at once get out of the League—which would not be out of ranges-are noisy nonsense.