Evening Post. THURSDAY, JANUARY 30, 1919. AT THE PEACE TABLE

Evening Post, Volume XCVII, Issue 26, 30 January 1919, Page 6

Evening Post. THURSDAY, JANUARY 30, 1919. AT THE PEACE TABLE

Full accounts of the debate on the League of Nations are reported to-day to have been well- received by the London press, " apart from the Morning Post, which continues its destructive criticism." The reports of the debate which have reached this country are, on the contrary, exceedingly meagre, and they are interlarded with hostile comment, in the very best style of the Morning Post. It was a brilliant scene (wo were told yesterday) when President Wilson, in the tense silence of concentrated and universal expectancy, set in serious motion tho idealistic movement towards the creation of a League of Nations to end war for ever. The President's statement was charmingly eloquent but disappointingly unconvincing. Full valuo was given to every word, and also to every omission, for the great assembly ob»iously realised that the argument was more the idealistio product of study than a substantial machine for permanently remedying human, frailties. i By a singular disproportion these disparaging comments are given more space than the report of the speech at which they are aimed, more space even than the reports of President Wilson's and Mr. Lloyd George's speeches combined. And the wonder is increased by the fact that the whole of this remarkable message is headed "official." It would be interesting to know—and the people of this country, whose knowledge of one of the most momentous events of our time is confined to this so-called official message, are entitled to know—what its origin and authority really are. Destructive criticism has its place, but we should expect even the Morning Post to I give its readers some means of learning j the nature of the arguments attacked apart from its uncomplimentary epithets, and such one-sidedness is entirely out of place in an official message. If New Zealand's official representatives, from whom we have had no direct word on the subject, have nevertheless authorised tlie despatch of this polemical and pessimistic message, it is gratifying to find that opinion both in Washington and in London is more hopeful. In Washington the official opinion is that tho action of the Conference regarding the League of Nations represents "a tangible step towards the realisation of the League," and no serious opposition is expected in Congress. London is pleased to see that "the Conference has, really got to work." It has assuredly got to work on as great and,, inspiring a ] task as mortal man ever a,tfempted. It is more than a century since such an j opportunity occurred. More than a century may pass before another occurs, unless the recurrence of war on an even ! I more terrible scale than that of the one through, which we have'just passed pro- I vides an earlier opportunity. In these circumstances President Wilson may be j pardoned if he brought something of the prophet's vision as well as of the statesman's " nicely calculated less or more " to the support of his argument. Five years ago a League of Nations was too remote a possibility to be worthy of serious discussion. But absurd as the idea would then have seemed, it would not have been regarded as more absurd than the prophecy that before five years had passed two million Americans would have crossed the Atlantic to take part in a European quarrel, or that at the next General Election in Germany New Zealand soldiers would be policing tho streets in order that the electors whom they had helped to emancipate might go to the poll in peace. The fact that these last two miracles have actually occurred should make us less sceptical re-' garding the third. ' Those who sneer at the League of Nations as an impracticable, dream should remember in particular .that all the achievements of human progress were at one stage classed, among

The wild delusions of the crack-brained

The blend of the ideal and the practical in President Wilson's speech may have distressed the wWldly wisdom of the Morning Post and our own "official " chronicler, yet for all that it may have been the very thing that was needed. We should have been in a position to speak less hypothetically if a. summary of the substance of the speech had taken the place of the hostile comment, but we are not left entirely in the dark. A Washington message makes it perfectly clear that President Wilson's proposals are not entirely Utopian and millennial, are not merely " the baseless fabric of a vision " which aspires to cure all human frailties by a' stroke of the pen. When we last heard from Mr. Taft, who as an ex-President of the United States and the probable successor of President Wilson as the head of its delegation is an authority to be reckoned with, he spoke vaguely of international control as the solution of the Pacific problem, but the message in question shows, that the President himself has grasped the condition which brings this idea down from the region of the clouds and possible chaos to that of practical common-sense. He is said to contemplate the control of the Pacific colonies by a single Power, subject to general supervision by the League of Nations. This means that the international control, which was full of peril to those who know the mischiefs of a condominium, is to be rendered safe and practicable.. The acceptance of 'this vital condition goes a long way towards justifying the opinion of some of the London newspapers that " General Smuts has supplied the basis of the official scheme-for the League." General Smuts's pamphlet is supposed to represent the views of the British Government, but it' is only fair to point out that the idea is anticipated in the Round Table article to which we referred yesterday. Another Washington message reports that American opinion has been surprised by the disclosure of a secret treaty between Britain and Japan allotting the Marshall and Caroline t lslands to Japan. People more accustomed than the Americans to " entangling alliances " will not share this feeling. The attitude of k Mr. Hughes shows that Japan was wise to be unwilling to clear the Germans out of all their Pacific possessions in 'order to be told "Hands off!" by Britain at the instance of Australia as soon as the work was done. But for our own part we are quite unable to see that the treaty has altered the honourable obligation of Britain or her Do-, minions in the slightest degree. Japan has been our Ally, and our faithful Ally, through all the perils of the war. Without her help Samoa and Gallipoli would have been equally beyond New Zealand's reach; Anzac and its immortal memories would have been unknown; and instead of attacking the German and the Turk . in those early days both' Australia and New Zealand would probably have had their shores raided. Treaty or no treaty, an Ally who has rendered us such a service cannot be ignored now that tho war is over. Whether international con-, trol or individual annexations are to be the order of the day, Japan is entitled to a fair deal on the same basis as the rest of the Allies> and if we " play the game" as faithfully as she has played it during, the war we shall concede the claim without cavil or discourtesy.