LEAGUE OF NATIONS

Manawatu Standard, Volume LVI, Issue 141, 16 May 1936, Page 10

LEAGUE OF NATIONS

CRITICISM IN THE HOUSE. SEEKING A WAY TO PEACE. Per Press Association. WELLINGTON, May 14. Tho discussion on the League of Nations and sanctions, introduced by lit. Hon. G. W. Forbes, was continued in the House of Representatives. Mr W. J. Poison agreed that international trade was “the cement of peace.” He thought a great majority of the people were so anxious for peace that they would make any sacrifice for it. Recent events had shown that the League of Nations was not properly founded. The League had become only a clearing-house for information, and if civilisation were to survive the League would have to be built on different foundations, with some power behind it. Mr J. A. Leo said collective security had not been tried up to the present, they must not hasten to liquidate the League. He believed that if the present Government of France had been in existence twelve months ago Fascism and Mussolini would have been checked, and if the League had ono magnificent victory—and it had many minor achievements —lie believed it would endure for all time; but they had to be consistent. There was the pacifist mind, and lie had nothing against it, which believed that the way of the Crucifixion was tlie way which extolled the League of Nations and collective security but refused to face up to the responsibility of collective security. Ho trusted the League, instead of being liquidated, woulu go on and that they were not going to condemn the League iur its tuilures of 20 years when they were conscious of the fact that the system it had hen established to supersede had failed throughout the ages. Mr J. Hargest said that because of tho League they could look back on 16 or 17 years of peace, and if they could go on for another 16 or 17 years they might reasonably hope the nations of the world had come to resort to settling their disputes by peace instead of resorting to force. Mr F. \V. Schramm said Britain had been consistent in her League ideals and had been the leader in collective action. France, who had used the League for her own purposes,, had failed England at the critical point. The British Government could not be blamed for not standing alone and stopping Italy from going to war with Abyssinia. That would have meant a world war. The House adjourned for luncheon.