MR. MACDONALD’S SPEECH

Greymouth Evening Star, 6 September 1924, Page 5

MR. MACDONALD’S SPEECH

A MIXED RECEPTION.

FRENCH PREMIER TO REPLY.

(Australian and N.Z. Cable Association.)

LONDON, September 5.

The “Daily Telegraph's” Geneva correspondent says: Mr. MacDonald’s speech at Geneva! met with a mixed reception, oving to its somewhat nega tive conclusion. It is understood that M. Herriot is urging Mr. MacDonald to make a second speech before returning to London, ' clearing up several points, notably Mr. MacDonald’s allusion to ti e impossibility of’ designating the aggressor in the Great War, until after 5(1 years. Mr. MacDonald, after his speech, assured M. Herriot that he did not intend the allusion to cover Germany’s responsibility. M. IJerriot’s speech to-day will deal with Germany’s admission to the League, which, M. Herriot contends, must not occasion any exceptional procedure, but must be strictly in accordance with the Covenant. He will argue that the question of disarmament, the Pact of Mutual Assistance and Arbitration cannot be disassociated, and that France’s treaties with Czecho-Slovakia and other States are to be regarderd as the stongest defence of European peace. PARIS, September 5. Air. R. MacDonald’s Geneva speech is being severely criticised in influential circles in France, especially Mr. .MacDonald’s references to the difficulty of apportioning the blame in the cases of aggression, which are interpreted as having reference to the origin of the late war. It is feared these references will encourage Germany in her effort to secure the revision of the Clause in the Versailles Treaty blaming her as the cause of the war. “Le Temps” sums up Mr. MacDonald’s speech as “disarmament without guarantee,” and “arbitration without military sanctions.” AMERICAN CAUTION. WASHINGTON, September 4. An Administration spokesman, ' in authoritatively outlining its attitude regarding Mr. MacDonald’s land disarmament proposal at Geneva, declared that the United States Government considers this question as primarily European, adding that if the European nations could, as a preliminary, reach an agreeable basis, a conference would Lave a definite promise of success. The United States would then willingly assist, by participating in a similar way to what she did at the London Conference. The spokesman also pointed out that the Western nations consider naval disarmament as secondary, because none of them maintains a large standing army. The spokesman hinted that Secretary Hughes, during his recent European visit, informally discussed this problem with M. Herriot and Mr. MacDonald, all agreeing that any ultimate settlement will revolve round the ability of the British and French to effect a practical limitation which will yet retain adequate security for peace.

AUSTRALIAN LABOUR VIEW.

GENEVA, September 4.

Mr. Charlton (Australian Labour leader) was the third speaker at the disarmament debate, following the Polish Foreign 'Minister in the afternoon. ’The speech was almost wholly devoted to pressing the claim for an early disarmament conference, he considering, unlike Mr. MacDonald, that the psychological moment would tend to establish more cordial relations between the nations, and. would also bring about a spirit of sweet reasonableness. The prospects of relief from the heavy burden of armaments would induce all to come within the jurisdiction of the League. Mr. Charlton disagreed with Mr MacDonald’s method of convoking a conference. He proposed that the League should invite all the nations, including Germany, Turkey and Russia without delay. They must not procrastinate, otherwise it would be the beginning of the end. If something were not done now the public, which want disarmament, would lose confidsnve in the League, and the world would slip back into war in a few years. The London Pact had relieved the position considerably so far as France and. ether nations were concerned. France’s anxiety regarding security would be removed if a general reduction of armaments were agreed upon, leaving individual disputes to be settled by arbitration, or by any other method that may be devised. FRANCE WANTS PEACE. GENEVA, Sepember 5. M. Harriot said that he hoped one result of this Assembly would be to consecrate the principle of arbitration. He declared that the. agressor was the party which refused to abide by the arbitral award. This Assembly had a moral responsibility _to the world. Arbitration, security and disarmament were inseparable from each other. Arbitration, which was necessary for peace, must become a reality, and the loyalty of small nations must; be protected He emphasised the need for upholding justice for all. He endorsed the remarks by Mr MacDonald and declared : “All nations are clamouring for peace, so let us give them peace by international co-opera-lion. He welcomed American co-opera-tion, and said that France was not animated by hatred against Germany. Fiance fought German militarism. France adhered to the Covenant, but desired to make it a living thing. She aspired to peace by right and dignity. Owing to her own sufferings, she wished to assuage the sufferings of other nations.

He concluded: “France is striving for peace. AVithout arbitration, security and disarmament, international solidarity is impossible. France joyfully receives any proposals for conciliation, and offers all she can offer. She wants peace and to that end she hopes the efforts of the League will lead. ”