Evening Post. WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 8, 1930. MR. HOOVER AND THE "GREAT INTANGIBLES"

Evening Post, Volume CX, Issue 86, 8 October 1930, Page 10

Evening Post. WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 8, 1930. MR. HOOVER AND THE "GREAT INTANGIBLES"

Except that both their names begin with an "H," and that they both were elected5- as Republicans to the Presidency of the United States, it would be difficult to find any points of resemblance between President Hoover and the late President Harding. In their manner of speech the contrast between the unadorned common-sense of Mr. Hoover and the vague and pretentious rhetoric of his predecessor is particularly striking, and the contrast is not merely a matter of form but has its roots in essential differences of mind, temperament, and character. Yet; there is a distinct suggestion of the inflated rhetoric of Mr. Harding's first Presidential Message in the first of these two sentences from President Hoover's address to the American Legion Convention, as reported yesterday:

In the great intangibles of human emotion respect is inseparable from goodwill. Tho maintenance of respect requires that we sustain preparedness for a defence that is impregnable, yet contains no threat of aggression.

Human emotions are necessarily "intangible." You cannot hit them with a hammer or tickle them with a straw, and so far the President is at any rate easy to follow. But when he says that "respect is inseparable from ! goodwill," does lie mean that goodwill is essential to respect, or vice versa? And whichever of the two things he means, is the statement according to fact? Before the World War the naval power of Britain commanded the respect of Germany, but the respect was unaccompanied by goodwill. Conversely, British goodwill for Portugal cannot be said to have been accompanied by respect. These two "great intangibles" seem to be by no means inseparables.

But when President Hoover passes from the rhetoric of the first of the sentences quoted to the argument of the second there is no room for doubting or disputing his meaning. That great intangible, respect, must have a tangible, basis, or it'will be insecure. The President accordingly stipulated "for a defence that is impregnable, yet contains no threat of aggression." The trouble, of course, is that under modern conditions the methods of defence and offence are so inseparable' that the Power which prepares to make its own defences impregnable is ipso facto, preparing the means of attacking others. , The essential distinction between the two purposes is recognised by the Kellogg Pact, but the substantial identity of the preparations is .a fact which it could not alter, and a strict compliance with the terms of the Pact does not exclude the operation of what President Hoover regards as the most dangerous of the great intangibles.

Peace, he says, requires that no one of us shall entertain, ill-will towards others and give them cause for the most dangerous of all emotions —fear.

In his talk of fear and his disclaimer of any Imperialistic aims the President is of* course thinking particularly of the feelings of Latin America.

3?rom post-war .happenings in America, he says, some leaders in. other countries camo to believe that they were in the presence of the birth of a new Imperial Power intent on dominating other people. This is an utter misconception of America. We know there is a desire to do justice and not commit exploitation. We .know there is no financial, traditional, or military Imperialism in America.

Among Mr. Hoover's own countrymen this talk is sure to have been well received. "Imperialism" is a term of abuse in the American vocabulary, much as "Radicalism" is at the other end of it, and the name is disclaimed and denounced even by those who are enjoying the benefits of the thing and would be glad to see them extended. So much depends upon the point of view, and it must also be remembered that the Americans are not the only people who unconsciously indulge themselves in liberties which they deny to other people. Incredible as it may seem, the Imperialism which has attracted most attention in the United States during the last six months is the ruthless Imperialism which has inspired Great Britain under a Labour Government to muzzle the patriots of India by persecution and imprisonment in order to dragoon the whole country into submission and deprive it of those inalienable rights of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" which the American Declaration of Independence declares to belong to all mankind. The readers of at least nine-tenths of the popular Press of America have been stampeded with indignation by mythical stories of this brutal repression, while the extent to which these same inalienable rights have been respected in the Philippines and Nicaragua is not worth a headline.

We mention this contrast not for the purpose of recrimination but as the basis of a plea for mutual understanding and tolerance. Britain was engaged for centuries, often aggressively, sometimes peacefully and even reluctantly, in extending the frontiers of her Empire in all parts of the world. But the days of that expansive Imperialism have passed, and her only ambition now is to make the best use of the immense territories she has acquired, treating the welfare of their inhabitants as

her supreme. concern and educating them for self-government where it can be done.. If that educative process had been carried far enough in India she would have been glad to leave that country to govern itself, but at present Britain could not retire wfth honour and safety, and intelligent opinion in the United States frankly recognises the fact. An analogous recognition is on the other hand due to the United States in regard to the Philippines. In magnitude, in complexity, and in their influence upon world politics the two problems arc not comparable, but in essentials they are much the same. The Americans would be thankful to quit the Philippines if they could do so without plunging the country into war and chaos, and to blink the fact would be a gross injustice. The extension of the influence of the United States, both political and commercial, in Central America raises some much more difficult questions, and some features of the "dollar diplomacy" by which it is done are as much open to criticism as those of the old Imperialism which its practitioners condemn and repudiate. But on the whole a development which has given us the Panama Canal and will soon have the Nicaragua Canal in hand is obviously a benefit for the world.