ARMS INDUSTRY

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXII, Issue 22131, 10 June 1935, Page 12

ARMS INDUSTRY

BRITISH INQUIRY PRIVATE OWNERSHIP VISCOUNT CECIL'S EVIDENCE NATIONALISATION ADVOCATED For the first time in British history an official tribunal sat in judgment last month on the future of the privatelyowned armaments industry. Only a handful of spectators thought it worth while to be present. It was a Royal Commission under the chairmanship of Sir John Eldon Bankes, holding its first public meeting since . its appointment by Mr. Ramsay Mac Donald in February. It will hear, among others, the heads of the great British munitions companies, who have never previously been compelled to justify themselves before the public. At the end of the inquiry it will draw up a. report advising the Government whether to leave the industry alone, control it , more tightly, or nationalise it altogether. But the .public showed no interest. The Middlesex Guildhall, opposite the Houses of Parliament, London, was al- , most empty as the six men and one woman on the commission took their places like Judges on the Bench to hear the first day's testimony. "Repulsive as Slave Trade" The chairman revealed that the committee already possessed the record of the secret inquiry in 1919 into the future of the Woolwich arsenal, and intimated that Government officials would be called to give evidence whenever necessary. The first witness was Viscount Cecil of Chelwood. who, on behalf of the League of Nations Union, declared that the munitions industry was "as repulsive as the slave trade." From a moral standpoint, he said, it was as much deserving of abolition as slavery or the opium traffic. Speaking as a former British delegate to many international conferences, Lord Cecil charged the armament firms with poisoning the atmosphere, placing obstacles in the way of peace, and being "a predisposing cause of war." He recalled the efforts of Mr. William Shearer to prevent a disarmament accord at Geneva, > and' for two hours submitted evidence similar to that already laid before the United States Senate arms inquiry committee. American Proposals Approved Lord Cecil begged the commission to recommend acceptance by the British Government of the American draft proposals for the control of armaments. But the evils of the arms traffic could not really be controlled, he declared, until the arms factories were placed under government ownership. • The ehfeirman interrupted to speak of the difficulty of international agreement and the complexity of trying to control the armaments industry without it. But Lord Cecil retorted: " I should not like to exaggerate the complexity of the task. The same arguments were used to prevent the abolition of the slave trade. Britain was the first country to abolish slavery, at an enormous cost to itself, but the other countries fell into line. • " I should'like to see the British Government put forward a proposal for the definite abolition of private profits from armaments how. In view of the strong 1 feeling in the United States on this subject and the change since the failure to ratify the Geneva convention, there is a very good chance of reaching an international agreement." If there could not be nationalisation, Lord Cecil continued, the best method of control would be not only export licences but import certificates, such as are required for opium. Colonel David Carnegie, a member of the Canadian munitions board during the war, suggested the establishing of a national board to deal by licence with the final manufacturing of armaments. Semi-manufactured war material could be made by private firms under a classified list, he suggested, but the final assembling operations could be carried out only in government arsenals.

Statement by Manufacturer While Lord Cecil was upbraiding the armaments manufacturers, Sir Harry' McGowan, chairman of the great Imperial Chemical Industries combination, was denying to the shareholders that the company was fomenting war anywhere.

" The accusations that we enter into arrangements with others for the purpose of provoking wars are too ridiculous for comment," he said. " In the last seven years our munitions making has represented only slightly oyer 1 per cent of the company's total turnover, and less than 1 per cent of the profits of the whole undertaking. " The best interests of your company are served not by conditions of war, but by conditions of peace. Like every one else we are much better off with the profits of normal industrial operations than with the sharp peaks of emergency war production. " We look forward to the Royal Commission's inquiry with equanimity and in confidence that neither Imperial Chemicals nor any of its constituent companies will fail to show—if such proof is called for —that the history of shs company's trading contains no incident which may be open to criticism."