Evening Post. FRIDAY, JUNE 16, 1933. A BRIGHTER AUGURY

Evening Post, Volume CXV, Issue 140, 16 June 1933, Page 6

Evening Post. FRIDAY, JUNE 16, 1933. A BRIGHTER AUGURY

♦ — v The Economic Conference on .which the hopes of an almost, despairing world, have' been fixed, ever since Mr.. MaeDonald suggested, "it at Lausanne nearly <a year '.ago* made a good- start- oft * Monday. -But- on Tuesday a debate, which not long ago was expected to last for Weeks, canie Very near the.point of collapse. Like the nations that- they represented■; the delegates had : ; lost all interest in the proceedings, and were inclined to doubt whether it was worth while going on. The question was whether the Conference;. was;.. to be torpedoed by the war debts before it had even got way on,; arid it. was a question "which, the .Conference itself; was .unable to answer. ,- The Responsibility lay between the White House and Whitehall. ' Why' June 12 should have been fixed' fpr the opening of the Conference by men who publicly admitted that a problem of which they were unable to suggest even a tentative solution was-not solved by the 15th is an unexplained mystery. .It was natural for the armchair critic to discover the cause in the notorious perversity of the politicians, but as there was no possible suggestion of bad faith the discovery was rather a figure of speech than an explanation. Today at any rate the critic must join-with everybody 'else in rejoicing that the perversity of the politicians has been overruled by the wisdom of the statesmen, and he may draw a moral of charity from the fact that in this case the polilicians-and the statesmen are the same people. Whether it is to the President or to the Prime Minister that the greater share of the gratitude with which the world is overflowing today belongs is a foolish and worse than futile question. It would be equally absurd to inquire which of them is entitled to the greater credit for his share in the Washington conversations. Each of them has played the game and played the man throughout. -Each of them without sacrificing the interests of his own country has shown a broad and generous regard for the "difficulties of the other.'. Each of them is entitled to full marks, and as they are not rival captains in a Test match is no need to detract from the value of their joint service by wrangling about their respective merits. What Britain thinks and feels about President Roosevelt's contribution to the settlement is admirably expressed in the comments of "The Times" which are reported today. Nothing could be more satisfactory than the Anglo-American, agreement. President Roosevelt deserves world-wide credit .for his vision, courage, and cooperation, despite domestic difficulties, enabling the negotiation of a final settlement in an atmosphere of goodwilland mutual aecbmraoclation. .-, Except for the reference to domestic difficulties every word of this tribute might as appropriately be written in Newi'York about Mr. Mac Donald. He has" made, his'.pwn, unique contribur tions to the settlertient, but there has been no call upon his courage comparable to that made upon Mr. Roosevelt's by the hostility of a Congress over which he has no legal control! We have a special reason for emphasising the happy harmony of the Anglo-American co-operation which has relieved the world/ of a great fear and renewed those hopes of a permanent associa-i tion which perished when1 Woodrow 'Wilson's great. "work' ;• was repudiated by, his own countrymen. An unfortunate~contrast to ,the settlement arrived at between the ' two Governments is presented by the' tlireat of Anglo-American friction in the Conference itself. The interpretation of Mr. Cordell Hull's speech as "implying the strongest; disr approval .of Ottawa 4' fortunately pears to have been confined; to the fears—or the hopes—of-" American reporters looking for trouble. It was emphatically repudiated by Mir.' Bruce and other Dominion delegates whom they consulted, and the speech as reported shows no Irace of it. But yesterday brought us a disparaging criticism of the speech which on the face of it was unfair on one point and on others is not borne out by the summary which is cabled today. It may well be correct to say that the speech of the American Secretary of State did not compare well with, Mr. Chamberlain's singularly happy effort, but to add by way of further depreciation that "Mr. Hull skated over the whole surface of economics without even an indirect reference lo war debts," did him a

serious injustice. Mr. Mac Donald would have been wiser to leave the war debts alone. Mr. Hull did well in refusing to follow his bad lead, and he was instructed from Washington not. to touch the matter. The Conference is no place for such a perilous subject. The statement follows that Mr". Hull spoke vaguely about "international co-operation", and "the liberalisation of commercial policies," , ■ but it was' left\ to the; individual imagination to • decide .whether ho included America among-, the- nations eager to soil but unwilling to buy. ;It will be a sufficient answer to this very, harsh criticism to quote a few sentences from today's report. • Trade barriers inevitably caused a disastrous reaction upon production, employment, prices, and distribution. Strangulation of international^ • trade revealed tho most .tragic phase of that short-sighted, and ruthless, policy.': The inevitable effect had., been : to! reduce to tho lowest1 level all -.prices of primary commodities? .Had not the time come for Governments . to .:cease ..erecting trade barriers with their excessive and rank discriminations arid- hate-breedirig reprisals and retaliations? ..International co-operation today: was' a, fundamental necessity..The Conference should proclaim that economic nationalism* was a'discredited policy." All excesses.in the struoturo'of trade barrielrs should .bo "removed. ' , ' As the American tariff is- perhaps just as serious an. obstacle to the recovery of the world as the war debts', such a magnificent declaration of. faith from the American Secretary of State is surely matter for profound gratitude and lively hope and not for carping criticism. The Anglo-American agreement regarding the war debts is, of course, by no 'means a final settlement of that menacing problem. It is merely a "without prejudice" arrangement which by a small payment on account saves Britain's honour without compromising America's claim, secures the postponement which the -United States Congress would1 evidently have refused if the matter had come before it, saves the Conference from the sudden death that was threatened, and gives time for a calm and deliberate consideration' of every aspect of all the great problems' involved. , Except for the shadow of the war debt the outlook for the * Conference , was already bright.' It is. certain to be stimulated now. to 'greater hope, energy, and goodwill,- and the same may be said of the diplomatists who will have the war debt problem in hand. It would have been a simple matter, for Congress to precipitate disaster by refusing a'-postponement. It would be an infinitely graver responsibility to wreck a settlement in which representative's of the world, including America herself, have agreed.