The Evening Star MONDAY, JULY 1,1935. THE PEACE BALLOT.

Evening Star, Issue 22069, 1 July 1935, Page 8

The Evening Star MONDAY, JULY 1,1935. THE PEACE BALLOT.

The “Peace Ballot ”, which has been taken in Britain is a very great achievement for the League of Nations Union. To get written answers to a questionaire from almost twelve million persons denotes a tremendous feat of organisation, which is hardly lessened by the fact that the work was spread over nearly a year. Nothing could be more unjust or wild than the ‘ Daily Mail’s ’ description of it as “ a Socialist booby trap for Conservative voters.” The League of Nations Union embraces every form of politics. Leaders like Lord Cecil, who took a prominent part in the organisation of the ballot, have never been accepted as Socialists. The organisation of the canvass was kept wholly free from party influences. Over thirty bodies were represented in the central controlling council, and a- quarter of a million workers were called for, including committees in every constituency, to collect replies throughout the country.

It is less certain that the replies will have any effect on policy. The questions put to voters were as follows:

1. Should Great Britain remain a member of the League of Nations? 2. Are you in favour of an allround reduction in armaments by international, agreements ? 3. Are you in favour of an allround abolition of national military and naval aircraft by international agreement ? 4. Should the manufacture and sale of armaments for private profit be prohibited by international agreement?

5. Do you consider that if a nation insists on attacking another the other nation should compel it to stop

(a) Economic and non-military measures ? (b) If necessary, military measures ?

The first three questions did not need a reply. The affirmative answer that was given to them, almost by everybody, registered only what was known before. The remaining questions, like questions in most plebiscites, were too much simplified for their answers to have the best practical value. And there is always, in such cases, the danger of canvassers who will simplify them further* “ Do you • .want to

abolish war? Then sign ‘ Yes ’ to all these,” a form of approach that has been attributed to some Peace Ballot distributors, represents a method, un« failing in a proportion of instances, which has not been unknown even in Dunedin plebiscites. Almost everyone, in theory, would like to see the “ manufacture and sale of armaments for private profit ” prohibited. But if the alternative had to be great State services, in peace years as well as war time, no sort of an improvement might be made. Everyone in theory would agree to combined economic and non-military measures being taken by other nations against a nation that made war without excuse. There is provision for it in the League’s Covenant. But if Italy, for example, began war against Abyssinia, and, while the League States judged her action to be unjustified, America declared that in her view there had been provocation enough and in any case it was none of her business and she would go on trading, it would be a bold act to interfere with America’s trade. The question is more difficult when it concerns military action. It is easy to imagine wars of this collective kind which pacifists would be the first to approve, and others, in the same conditions, from which they would be the strongest dissenters. It is not clear that more good than harm would have been done if a collective war had been attempted against Japan when she made a war a few years ago which was generally disapproved by her neighbours. Collective security under the League’s auspices is the object of British policy, endorsed by all parties, but statesmen, when grave issues arise, must weigh more considerations than signatories to a plebiscite are apt to do in answering general questions put before them.

Nevertheless a great deal of thought will have been given by thousands to these questions, and all that thinking is to the good. The opposition that was shown at its commencement to the Union’s ballot, as likely to confuse issues more than to throw light on them, diminished very noticeably as it proceeded, and the ballot was approved in the most diverse quarters. Space was given for the elaboration of answers where “Yes” or “No” appeared to need qualification, but it is not shown how far that opportunity was availed of. The plan was that the ballot should be extended by the Federation of League of Nation’s Societies to at least forty' other countries. That should certainly mean an increase of its value.