THE H.B. TRIBUNE. TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 1922. THE BALFOUR NOTE.

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XII, Issue 231, 12 September 1922, Page 4

THE H.B. TRIBUNE. TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 1922. THE BALFOUR NOTE.

It is under this style that it seems to have been agreed that we are to recognise the note which, at the beginning of last month, Lord Balfoui' in his capacity of British Foreign Minister addressed to our European Allies upon the subject of international war debts. It will be readily remembered that the gist of this note lay in an intimation that, as Britain was called upon to make definite arrangements for meeting her big war debt to the United States, and the annual, interest thereon, it would be -necessary for her to ask her European debtors to take thought as to what they could do towards meeting the still larger aggregate debt owing by them to her. There was no suggestion of applying any immediate pressure, or of an ultimate intention to exact anything like full satisfaction, but merely an intimation, backed by a statement of relative economic conditions, that Britain’s Allies would be expected to do something towards helping her to liquidate her indebtedness to America, the whole of which had been incurred for the purpose of financing their, not her, part in the war. At the time of the issue of this note the cables gave us some pretty full extracts from Amercian press and platform comment on the tentative stand thus adopted by Great Britain, and this, it will also be remembered, was couched mostly in a resentful, and in some eases in an indignant, tone. On the footing that it is always well to heat both sides of a case, we may now give a considered summary of how the matter is regarded in the United States. This is provided foius by an issue of the London “Times” received by last night’s mail, taking the form of a communication, not of an American pressman, but of that journal’s own correspondent in Washington. He sets out by stating that there are, of course, wide divergences of opinion in the United States, as there are in the individual opinions of all peoples on any big question. All he claims is to put down what he believes to be the essentials of American sentiment on the points at issue so far as they differ from ours. In the first place, oui' American friends argue that a general cancellation of debts would mean a very different thing for the United States from what it would mean for iGreaX Britain;. She occupies a middle positi on, and if she for gives the European debts and is in turn forgiven her debt to the United States, she is neither worse nor better off than she was before. She receives a good equivalent for her sacrifice. If the United States forgives, it gets no equivalent. There are no debts which it owes to other countries to be remitted. It would be all pure sacrifice. This fact is put forward as obvious, though it is doubtful if British opinion has generally, grasped it.

Furthermore, the United States believes that it is already the only country on the Allied side which got nothing out of the war. It alone asked for and took no territorial compensation for its losses, either absolutely or under mandate. Nor did it gain (as it considers that Great Britain gained) the satisfaction of having its position of maritime supremacy secured by the destruction of its most formidable rival. Acording to the American view, England received from the war an immense increase in power, prestige, and territory, while the United States expected and took nothing. Why should it —so runs •American thought—now bear the expense to which England was subjected in securing these advantages 1

The American people, the “Times” correspondent states, admit that their country grew rich out of the war, but they contend that this was merely in theory, and that as individuals the vast majority have really benefited nothing. In fact, their position, they say, is very appreciably worse, the cost of living being much higher, while they are taxed as they never were before. It is said to be beside the question to point out that Britons are taxed still more heavily, for the income-tax is something entirely new to Americans and they kick hard against it. Beyond this, they say that whatever money may have been made out of the war by a section of the people was made as the result of “the accident’’ of America’s neutrality ; ■ that when she came into the war she spent with both hands in order’ to play a full part in it; and that as the result of that lavish expenditure the war was shortened and much treasure thus saved to her European “associates.” Despite the fact that they eventually found it necessary, or at any rate expedient, to intervene, they still fountain that “it was not their war anyhow.” They grant that, in a sense, it was a war to save civilisation, and that they are interested in civilisation. But they were not compelled to come in. As for the talk of future danger to the United States from a victorious Germany ambitious of world domination, they would, they think, have been quite able to look after themselves when the time came. Their motives were, they believe, entirely altruistic. It is further emphasised that the advances made to the European Allies were, in effect at any rate, subscribed by the people. Many of these denied themselves much in order to make their contributions, while others put their money in because they believed the investment was sound, some .depending upon the interest for a livelihood. In the minds of these latter there seems to be some doubt as to whether they are to be called upon to give up their holdings, or whether their own Government will assume the liability—a matter, we should have thought, quite beyond question. In any event, they point out, increased taxation would be involved. Americans, again, cannot be got to understand why they should be burdened with Europe’s troubles merely because, as they put it, European peoples cannot look after their own affairs, and are themselves holding back the world’s economic recovery through bickerings, jealousies, and envious diplomacies, the legacy of bad old times. Finally, the correspondent says, though Britain may be regarded as better than the rest, there ’s still seen no reason why America should pull the chestnuts out of the fire for her, while, unbelievable as it may seem to us, there yet survive from the revolutionary war old grievances and prejudices against everyone and everything bearing the name of “British.” To our ears none of these arguments may sound very convincing, but to the average American mind they are declared to be all-sufficient.