Evening Post. FRIDAY, OCTOBER. 12, 1923. AMERICA'S ALOOFNESS

Evening Post, Volume CVI, Issue 89, 12 October 1923, Page 6

Evening Post. FRIDAY, OCTOBER. 12, 1923. AMERICA'S ALOOFNESS

Canning's familiar phrase about calling the New World into existence to redress the balance of the Old may be roughly applied to the political fortunes of Mr. Lloyd George. Since the British General Election in November last he has been more like a back number than at any time during the preceding twenty years, and in the calculations of the politicians he seems for the last six months to have almost ceased to count. Whatever impression he has recently made upon public opinion has been rather as a journalist than as a politician, but his visit to Canada has enabled him to catch the ear

of the Empire once again, and to show that before a great popular audience his personality and his oratory have lost none of their old magnetic power. The interest" of Mr. Lloyd George's Canadian speeches is, however, not confined to their personal aspect. They have a much wider interest both as the speeches of a distinguished British statesman addressed directly

to Dominion audiences —a proced-

ure for which there are unfortunately very few precedents—and rom the intrinsic value of some of his statements and appeals. Not the least interesting of these statements is that which he made about the problem of reparations in an interview at Ottawa. Here and there the message is so obscure as to suggest errors in transmission, but its general purport is clear and unequivocal. When he was in London and in office Mr. Lloyd George made more than one, direct appeal for the help of America in settling the problems of Europe. Speaking as a private citizen, and on the other side of the Atlantic, he wisely confined himself to eulogising American statesmanship for the wisdom of the advice which it had given, and said nothing to suggest that his gratitude was in any way concerned ■with favours to come. According to the Ottawa message which, we published yesterday, Mr. Lloyd George considers "that President Coolidge made a new proposal to solve reparations when he revived Mr. Hughes's sug-n-p.R+.ion at last year for an interna-

geswon oi last year ivi «*" '"•»"" tional commission to ascertain Germany's ability to pay." It hardly seems possible that Mr. Lloyd George should have described as a new proposal what, in the same breath he declares to be merely the revival of the old one. The reference to the original proposal as having been made last year is also inconsistent with the fuller statement -which follows. "Mr. Hughes's proposal," says Mr. Lloyd George, "was made on the eve of the former Premiers' Conference, obviously with reference to that Conference." As that Conference was held in 1921, the reference to it as having taken place last year must be incorrect. But the essential points are that Mr. Hughes made his suggestion before the Conference met, and that it was overlooked. It.would be pleasant to believe that there is also some mistake in the report of Mr. Lloyd George's explanation of how this was done: —

T was in Spain, and caw ;i brief denpatch enumerating the points of Mr. HukWb pronouftl, whereupon I immediately cubled to London that tlio

proposal should be considered. When I returned to the House of Commons they denied ever seeing the proposal, and even denied that the proposal was ever made." It is one of the blunders of history that this was completely overlooked—one of the blunders that lead to a catastrophe.

Such extraordinary blundering on so momentous a matter is hardly credible, but we are bound to take Mr. Lloyd George's word for it, | and at the same time to wonder

what good he can have expected to come from a statement which, on I the face of it, is so well calculated to do grievous injury to the reputation of all the responsible parties. Whether the " brief despatch" that My. Lloyd George read in Spain was an official document or merely a newspaper report does not appear. But in either case the negligence and the obduracy of his colleagues are almost beyond belief, unless we are to suppose that not only the " brief despatch," but the cablegram which it provoked from their chief, failed to reach them. Final judgment must, how-

ever, be suspended until they have had a chance of putting themselves right. If Mr. Lloyd George expected that his eulogy of the American Government would in any way modify the aloofness from European affairs which they have recently displayed, he has been disappointed. They have lost no time in putting themselves right

with their own people, and, from their point of view, that means making it quite clear that they are not prepared to take a hand in giving effect to the excellent advice which Mr. Lloyd George has eulogised.

A Washington message which Mowed close on the heels of Mr. loyd George's statement says lat "ib is authoritatively ascerlined that the United States Govrnment will refuse to take further litiative, its attitude being that le present European situation reners the value of such action quesionable." An immense majority f the American people appear to ie just as firmly set against any European entanglement as they rere before the war. The tentative ipproaches which the late Presilent made towards co-operation vith the Allies came to very little, md his last utterance regarding ;he League of Nations was just as xncompromising as the first. Speaking at St. Louis on the 20th June, Mr. Harding said :

In the face of the overwhelming verdict of 1920, the League of Nations issue is as dead as slavery. It is not for us. Even so mild a measure as American participation in the World Court of Justice is regarded as very dangerous by a large number lof his party. President Coolidge has shown himself a much more rigid champion of non-intervention than his predecessor, and this attitude is likely to be strengthened by the approach of the Presidential election and the strong running which Mr. Hiram Johnson—the most stalwart of the Irreconcilables —is making for the Kepublican nomination.