Nelson Evening Mail MONDAY, MARCH 4, 1929 TWO AMERICAN WRITERS

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXIII, 4 March 1929, Page 4

Nelson Evening Mail MONDAY, MARCH 4, 1929 TWO AMERICAN WRITERS

WE expect that the contentious and provocative article of the American journalist, Mr Frank Simonds, cabled extracts from which were published in our issue of Saturday last, will have surprised those of our readers who are not intimately acquainted with current American journals, and so had not had experience of the anti-British campaign which seems to be in full swing in the United States. At first we thought of taking the precis of Mr Simonds’s article, sentence by sentence and paragraph by paragraph, and exposing the falsity and fallacy of his contentions and arguments. But we do not really think they are worth it. Moreover, the process would be tedious. Neither is it necessary, for one particular paragraph contains the sum and substance of the article, and dealing with the statements of that paragraph will suffice to prove the disingenuous nature of the whole composition:—

While the American fleet is not being built against Britain in peace, it is very deliberately being built against Britain at war. The fleet is being built for the express purpose of abolishing the traditional British blockade. If the first sentence of that paragraph means anything, it means that the American lleet is not being built for aggressive purposes, so far as Britain is concerned, but that if Britain went lo war the American fleet would join Britain’s enemy and make war on Britain’s Navy. Thus, if Mr Simonds is to be taken seriously—which, we think, would be paying him an undue compliment —a prospective enemy of Britain could rely on the assistance of the U.S. Navy in any war waged against Great Britain. Therefore, the U.S. Navy s very existence would be an incentive to war and a standing menace to peace. In reference lo the second sentence of the paragraph quoted, \ve would point out that what Mr Simonds calls ‘‘the traditional British blockade,” is also “the United States’ traditional blockade, and was used fully by them in their war against the Southerners in the early 'sixties of the last century, and again in the Spanish-Ameriean war of 1898, when the Americans blockaded the

coasts of Cuba. In each case Britain respected America's blockade; but apparently, if Britain again finds herself at war—for the purpose perhaps of helping to enforce Iho edicts of tlio League of Nations—then the United States will not respect Britain’s blockade, but will break it, even to Hie extent of waging war. Fortunately these grave decisions do not rest with irresponsible journalists, such as Mr Simonds, and more fortunately still there are ways of affecting such decisions—as was the case in 1914-15, when President Wilson took umbrage at Britain's shutting out American trade from Germany. Moreover, wo will state a problem: If Britain were at war for the purpose of upholding the principles of tlie League of Nations, and the United States, in conformity with Mr Simonds’s dictum, were to go to war with Great Britain over the question of blockade, what would have become of the United States’ obligation under tire Kellogg Pact, not to make war except in self-defence? Mr Simonds makes us feel tired : Let us turn to the expressions of a saner and wiser American, Professor T. tierould, of Princeton University:—

There is no disguising the fact that there has developed a degree of irritation between Great Britain and this country that is very disturbing, and which, unless allayed, may have serious consequences. Foolish things have been said on both sides, many of them quite without reason; but unfortunately reason plays a very unimportant role in the determination of national feeling. Harsh and unpleasant things said on one side of the water are repeated and magnified on the other, and these are answered by others still more bitter. . . The reasons for British annoyance with us are easy to understand. We are, so we are constantly shouting, financially prosperous as never before; their trade lias never recovered from the shock of the war. They made with us, because they considered, it to be for their own interest, be it said, a, hasty and ill-considered settlement of their war debt, which throws on them a burden much heavier than that accepted by any other of our debtors. For centuries they have had a navy which has made "them supreme over the high seas; they are now compelled to admit that pre-eminence can no longer be theirs. They yield to financial power; but unwillingly, because they believe that their naval needs are much greater than ours, and that our claim to parity rests on no better basis than a desire for national prestige. . . They have paused in their building programme; why should not we?”

That is stating the case much more fairly. If a similarly reasonable spirit were displayed by the American Press generally, all misunderstanding would cease. There is no real cause for complaint, since the acrimony displayed against Britain will tighten and strengthen the ties which unite the Dominions to her, and, acting as a tonic, will strengthen her determination to put her house in order, commercially, financially, and in every other way, so that she may be prepared for any emergency.