VOICE OF THE WORLD

Evening Post, Volume CXV, Issue 147, 24 June 1933, Page 23

VOICE OF THE WORLD

A'note of pessimism runs through the i . annual, report of .ProfesArmaments sor Nicholas Murray 15utand Peace, ler, director- of the Division of Intercourse and Education, to the Trustees of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Professor Butler writes: "Apparently tho spirit and temper of-* mind j which led' to the* conference on the Limitation of Armaments in 1921, to the signing of the Treaties of, Locarno in 1.025, and to the signing of tho Pact of Paris by 15 Governments in 192S and now adhered to by 60 nations in all, have been almost as completely forgotten as though they did not exist. ~ . j Those profit-making undertakings which are interested in the manufacture and shipment of arms are steadily reaching out to influence the policy of Governments as well as the approach to public opinion through the Press. Changes that have recently taken place in the control of several important newspapers on the Continent of Europe must be regarded as' distinctly ominous.

. . . The growing movement to. make the .'manufacture "of'munitions of war _, (government, monopoly will ,be greatly strengthened as public opinion comes to recognise the dangers of permitting the continuance of conditions under which z.eal fpr : private profit is free vigorously to oppose the highest public interests of the people of the. world. ... The record of the year 1932 is so disappointing, indeed, so bad', that it offers new .and compelling challenge to - the .Carnegie Endowment for International. Peace." '■'

"What seems to be forgotten by thp pessimists is that this International international law, which Law. we seek'to develop, is ■ '"■*'-. ;an infant thing. It is scarcely 30.0 years old, whereas the law of England (to take one example) dates, back for -, more than 2000 years; and the infant cannot do n_ much as the, adult," writes Professor K. A. Eastwood, of Manchester University, in the "Millgatc Monthly." "There has been a time in the history of every legal system when the administration of justico consisted simply in inviting people to forgo the settlement of disputes by ■ private-ven-geance and to submit them to arbitration. The State was not strong enough to compel obedience. But as time went on theJState became strong enough to compel reference to the Courts of certain disputes, still leaving other classes of disputes to private settle-' ment; and* it was not until the State was well developed that the certain administration of law which wo now know was. attained. , So, too, there is no reason to suppose that because States do not readily submit to international organisation.today they will bo equally unwilling ;in the future.-' But just aa the development of national justice has been gradual,, so also will be the development of international justice. All law rests ultimately on the consent of the generality of those -whom it governs, and the best service that can be done for internationalism today i_ to attempt to* select those subjects on which a general consent may be obtained. They may be few and by no* means so advanced as some might wish. But general consent on small things is'better than disagreement on bigger issues; for consent produces tho habit" o-f consent, and by that alone can 'development bo' fostered."

Professor 11. E. Armstrong gave the Huxley Memorial LeeNo Common-, ture at the Imperial ColSense, lege of Science and Theology. The professed literary class today, he said, put our education to shame, showing as, it did a complete lack of general culture — that it could only interpret and play upon human feelings; taking note neither of human advance nor of the evidence of latent perfectibility and desire for knowledge; mere scribblers of while-away-time stuff, however elegant their language. As a class, however, scientific workers were still more blameworthy, as they made no literary effort on the public behalf. A rare success, such as that scored by Jeans, was proof that the demand existed. We needed to abandon the uso of the word science; no one understood it; the public thought of it as something good only for tho few, not for everyday use. Once there was a Sunday lecture society; today we rushed off somewhere in n motor-car or doped ourselves with Hollywood. Huxley spoke of science in 1854, in his celebrated definition, as trained and organised common sense— in italics. As there was no common sense to train and organise, there could be no science, in general.

Sir William Crawford in a recent . speech in London, said: The New "While it would be uuTomorrow wise and premature of me to say that the. depression -isr a.'aii end, you-'cannot stop me believing that it is. Though an advertising man, I confess that one of the qualities I like so much about this country is its reticence in advertising. We are not a nation of high-powered salesmen, and I am glad of it, for excessive .advertising and' high-powered salesmanship tends to destroy the' individuality of the people. Nevertheless, in a new and harder world, tho hour has. come when England niusj_,' speak up, both within thCße islaiids and in the outer world. In* this work wo are fortunate in the possession of a Press that' is beyond compare "the world's best. From the columns of the newspapers we must drive homo over more deeply the merits of British merchandise. In the new 'economic era that lies ahead of lis. now ideas and new methods milst be, adopted. Manuiac-

turers and advertising men must go up, together into the watch tower, and put the telescope of foresight to their oyes. They mu.t examine the ground a!ic*;icl, and give full information of the changing conditions before us. . . . We must spread throughout the world a strong consciousness of British invcirtiyenes,3, craftsmanship, thoroughness, and finish. We must call advertising into service, to project across the world the soundness of Britisli goods. Economics are never tho same thing twice. If we will pass safely from,the economics that arc gone to the economics thill are coming, wo must advertise. Instead of fighting the phantoms of yesterday, let us plan for the new tomorrow."

" 'Things arc in a hopeless tangle.' 'Life is very difficult.' Too Much 'There doesn't seem to Theory. be any way out of the mess.' Meanwhile—as those, are beginning to discover who have become thoroughly bored with tie-, struetive criticism—life proceeds very, much as # it has always done, audi on j the whole it not nearly so complicated as tho theorists would have us believe," | says the "Morning Pout." "Tho lower ' orders of Nature, plants and animals, appear to live and struggle in a spirit; of comparative serenity, not to* say cheerfulness. It is only man who has, evolved the distressing habit of worrying himself to death. Can it be that the foal trouble with us is not so much a lack of brains as a superabundance of problems and perplexities that have no reality outside' the brains Which conceive them?"

Professor C. K. Webster* (London . School of Economics) Japan and stated in a recent China. - speech that it ought to bo frankly admitted that the application of any sort of sanctions to Japan in respect of Manchuria was impossible, because Japan had the strategic supremacy in the Far. East. It was impossible to dcfend < China as she had a right to be defended under the treaties, and therefore China had a right to special concessions. One of tho great failures of the League of Nations had been its attitude to China since the war. Its duty was to lend her money aud, if necessary soldiers and sailors, and to help her to put her house in order.. Ho predicted that before she had done so Japan ; would also be taking part in tho work, and then would be the time to ask Japan to reconsider her attitude towards tho recommendation's "of' the Lytton Commission. '."

In a speech at Bournemouth, Sir Henry ' -' ' Page Croft, M.P., said ' Indian . one would have thought Policy. that thi! world waa mad A enough already without risking a .new centre of turmoil in the British Empire. But some of the ruling statesmen appeared, to bo suffering from a similar attack of the rabies of experiment, and were prepared to start reporms in India which they themselves admitted were a grave risk, and which might well involve that vast country in the same despair which had been witnessed in Russia and China. We were the trustees for 350,000,000 Indians, and had no moral right to hand them oyer to untrained politicians when we know it could only mean the gravest reaction in their civilisation. ' To' grant selfgovernment to Indians at the behest of a section of the populii.ee who were disloyal and who had declared, through their leaders, that they. we're out for secession and repudiation, '-and who threw back the Government reforms in its face, was cowardly and unworthy of. British statesmanship. .. ■ '' *