THE LEAGUE

Hawera Star, Volume XLVIII, 6 September 1924, Page 5

THE LEAGUE

MR MACDONALD'S SPEECH. A MIXED RECEPTION. SOME SEVERE CRITICISM. BY CABLJt—PBIBB ASSOCIATION —COPY RIGHT LONDON, Sept. 4. The Geneva correspondent of the Daily Telegraph says Mr MacDonald’s speech met with a mixed reception owing to its somewhat negative conclusion. It is understood that the French Premier (M. Herriot) is urging Mr MacDonald: to make a second speech before returning to London in order to clear up several points, notably Mr MacDonald’s allusion to the impossibility of designing the aggressor in the Great War until after 50 years. Mr MacDonald, after his speech, assured M. Herriot that he did not intend his allusion to cover Germany’s responsibility. . M. Herriot’s speech to-day will deal with Germany’s admission to the League,, which M. Herriot contends must not occasion exceptional procedure, hut be strictly in accordance with the covenant. He will argue-that the questions of disarmament, the pact of mutual assistance and arbitration cannot be dissociated and that

France’s treaties with Czecho-SJovakia and other States are to- be regarded ' as the strongest defence of European peace, ' Mr Charlton was the third speaker in the disarmament debate, following the Polish Foreign * Minister in the afternoon. His speech was almost wholly devoted to pressing the claim for an early disarmament conference, considering, unlike Mr MacDonald, that the psychological moment had arrived, and that such a conference would tend to establish more cordial relations between the nations and bring about a spirit of sweet reasonableness. The prospect of relief from the heavv burden of armaments would induce ali to come within the jurisdiction of the League. Mr Charlton disagreed with Mr Mae- • Donald’s method of convoking the conference. He proposed that the League should invite all 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 wanted disarmament, would lose confidence 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 the other nations were concerned. France’s anxiety regarding security would be removed if a general reduction of armaments was agreed upon, leaving individual disputes to be i settled by arbitration “or any other method that may be devised.”

■ PARIS, Sept. 4. The speech of Mr MacDonald at Geneva has been severely criticised in influential circles of France, especially Mr MacDonald’s reference to the difficulty of apportioning the blame in the cases of aggression, which is interpreted as a reference to the origin of •n war * is feared the references will encourage Germany in her effort to secure a revision of the clause in the Versailles Treaty blaming her as the cause pf the war. The Temps sums up Mr MacDonald’s speech as disarmament without guaran- > and arbitration without military 1 sanctions.

The clause in the Versailles Treaty referred to is contained in Article 231; •‘■J 11 ® states: “The Allied and Associated Governments affirm and Germany accepts the responsibility of Germany and her allies for causing all the loss and damage to which the Allied and Associated Governments and the nationals have been subjected as a consequence of the war imnosed upon them by the aggression of Germany and her £tilX€*S.