Eveing Post. TUESDAY, JANUARY 30, 1923. AMERICA AND THE WAR DEBTS

Evening Post, Volume CV, Issue 25, 30 January 1923, Page 6

Eyeing Post. TUESDAY, JANUARY 30, 1923. AMERICA AND THE WAR DEBTS

Mr. Stanley Baldwin, the Chancellor of the Exchequer,, made an excellent impression in the United States by the businesslike and candid fashion in which he opened the British case before the Debt Funding Commission at Washington three weeks ago. He had not come to make excuses or to appeal to America's finer feelings or to plead for indulgence of any kind, but to settle a business matter on business lines as between debtor and creditor, without discount of any kind on the score of friendship or sentiment. He made this quite clear in his opening words. "We have come," said Mr. Baldwin, "to express our intention of repaying our debt. It is our way to pay as we go, so far as we can. From that fixed principle we do not intend to depart." As business men, the Americans fully appreciated this straight talk, and there was nothing in the manner in which he conducted the negotiations to forfeit the confidence inspired by his opening. But the candour with which on his return to London the Chancellor of the Exchequer, has reported on the progress of his mission has not received an equally warm welcome in America. Officials in Washington, and members of Congress, are said to be astonished at his remarks and even to express their disbelief in the accuracy of the cabled reports. The official verdict is that, "if true, the remarks are highly impolitic, and will further diminish the likelihood of an early settlement of tlie debt question." The context shows that the words "if true" apply not to the substance of the Chancellor's criticism but to the accuracy of the reports. There is good reason to believe that the remarks as cabled to America are true in both senses.

"The great difference between America and Britain is," says Mr. Baldwin, "that in the States the final settlement of the debt question is in the hands of politicians." He is satisfied that the Secretary of the American Treasury could have made terms with the British Government if the matter had rested with him, but that it had been immensely complicated by getting into the hands of Coriress. The correctness of this diagnosis is surely beyonH question. There is more politics than statesmanship in Congress, and one of the crucial difficulties of America's foreign policy is the persistence with which the lolitic^l element intrudes into a sphere where dignity, consistency, and efficiency agree in demanding that party politics should be barred. It is in the mischievous activity of the Senate that this weakness is most conspicuously displayed—a result due to the special jurisdiction which it enjoys under the Constitution in.regard to foreign policy and to the irresistible temptation which is thereby held out to it to get even with a President whose autocracy cannot be as conveniently curbed in other ways. The fierceness with which the Senate threw itself into the fight against the Versailles Treaty and the League of Nations was largely, if not mainly, inspired by the desire to put President Wilson and the Democrats down. The fear that his Republican successor might get too much credit for himself and his party by the complete success of the Washington Conference came very near to wrecking its work in the Senate. With these cases fresh in our minds it is unnecessary to say more of the special risks to which the United States is exposed from the intrusion of party politics into the field of foreign affairs. _ ' Though the Chancellor of the Exchequer made no express reference to the party politics of America, he indicated a special weakness of her politicians as a disqualification for the task in hand.

It had to be remembered, he said, that America, politically, was still a country people, the bulk of whom had no knowledge of international trade. The majority of Senators came from agricultural and pastoral communities..

It is probable that Senators who might even have detected in the previous remarks a compliment to their Americanism have found this criticism much harder to bear. No politician likes to be called ignorant, and if the charge is made to include the whole class of politicians, and even a majority of their constituents, it enables him to dignify and intensify his indignation by an admixture of patriotism. No examples of Senatorial indignation have been supplied, but the New York Press appears to be agreed in condemning the Chancellor's candour as indiscreet.

Mr. Baldwin, says the "New York Times," appears tt> have suffered from the strain of the necessity of being reserved and discreet while in this country. He_ gave vent to some inept remarks which should have been reserved for the private ear of Mr. Bonar Law. When Mr: Baldwin hears from some of our pastoral Senators he will begin to understand what he has done. .

The " New York Times " may be regarded as too broad-minded to suffer from bias in favour of the politicians, but " indiscreet " would surely have been an apter epithet than "inept" for Mr' Baldwin's remarks. There would have' been nothing either inept or indiscreet in tha remarks if addressed to the Prime Miniater'o private ear, nor

does the " New York Times " venture to question their truth. On the contrary, its reference to what the Chancellor of the Exchequer may hear from "some of our pastoral Senators" implies that it is the effect, of the criticism upon their amour propre and not its inaccuracy that constitutes the offence. The very next sentence to those which we baye quoted from the Chancellor's' statement confirms the justice of this view. "Whether the debt is funded now or in the future," he says, "it could only be funded on such terms as could be got from Congress." If the matter is definitely and irrevocably in the hands of the politicians, what is the good of publicly attacking the competence of the tribunal ? Criticism of that kind is more likely to confirm its hostility and to make it more exacting in its demands than to effect any improvement, and though it mo.y not be good law that " the .greater the truth the greater the libel," the spirit of that remark has .an undoubted application to criticism of the opposing party or its representatives under such conditions. Mr. Baldwin's candour was employed to better purpose in Washington than in London.