THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 15, 1917. THE STOCKHOLM CONFERENCE.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 17083, 15 August 1917, Page 4

THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 15, 1917. THE STOCKHOLM CONFERENCE.

A sensation seems to have been created at Home by what has transpired within the last few days with reference to the decision of organised Labour to send delegates to the Stockholm Conference, and with reference to the connection which Mr Arthur Henderson, in the dual capacity of Secretary of the Labour party and member of the War Cabinet, had with that decision. The refusal of the Imperial Government to grant a,license to British subjects to confer with enemies in the manner that has been proposed—a decision which brings its attitude into line with that of the French, Italian, and American Governments—secures that the Stockholm Conference will not be attended by delegates from -the principal Allied countries—if from any at all, now that the Russian Government is said to be antagonistic to the project. This being so, it would not be surprising if the conference did not take place. Even if it is held, it is foredoomed to be a fiasco. . Perhaps, on the whole, circumstances are shaping more fortunately than otherwise in relation to the conference, but there seems to be a measure of extravagance about tho view that grave dangers would be associated with the gathering, or that it would have been disastrous if British delegates, properly representative of British Labour, attended a really international conference of a purely consultative character. It is at least reasonable to assume that German Socialists might, in such a case, have been convinced of the futility of hoping to bring more than an insignificant section of the British community over to their peace views. A true understand-

iug on the part of the French people of the conditions that governed the i decision of the British Labour Federa- . "ion to send delegates to Stockholm , should quickly dissipate any suspicion, if such has been engendered, that the determination of the British democracy to carry the war to its necessary conclusion has been weakened. It is tolerably clear that the decision at which the Labour Federation arrived was based on a misapprehension, for which Mr Henderson was responsible. The federation, which had decided to be represented at a consultative conference, will therefore scarcely resent the decision of the Government to veto the attendance of British delegates. It was assumed from Mr Henderson's support of the proposal to send delegates to the Stockholm Conference that the Government, of which he was a member, was sympatuetic towards the project, and that, also, the judgment of the Russian Government was reflected in the views he expressed. But Mr Henderson was apparently bent on inextricably confusing the limits of his functions as Secretary of the Labour partv and as member of the War Cabinet respectively, and he failed to take the Labour party into his confidence, even as he left the Government in ignorance of his intentions. He has marred an otherwise admirable record both by his inability to recognise the incompatibility of his presence at the Socialist Conference in Paris with his position as a member of the War Council, and by his indefensible action in leaving the Government in the dark as to his intentions, to say nothing of his withholding from the conference in Paris the information he had in his possession as the outcome of his visit to Russia. His defence of himself in the House of Commons on Monday, in so far as it was not composed of what Mr Lloyd George called trivialities, was singularly unimpressive. Mr Henderson has paid the penalty of his own lack of vision, but it is surprising to hear that a political crisis has been created in the United Kingdom by the consequences of his lack of frankness and by his forced resignation. It seems quite possible | that, if Mr Henderson had been more candid, the Labour Federation would have decided against sending delegates to Stockholm. In any case, there seems to be a disposition to attach an exaggeiated significance to the decision to which it actually came. The general tone of the conference at which the matter was considered was distinctly healthy, and, as Mr Asquith observed in one of those highly useful speeches which he has delivered since his retirement from office, there is no apparent reason to suppose that organised Labour in the bulk has weakened in the least degree in its de- • termination that the war should be carried on to the bitter end. The evidence is all to the contrary, and men like Messrs Ramsay Mac Donald and Snowden represent simply the extreme section, which has, fortunately, been greatly in the minority throughout the war. Upon his own showing Mr Henderson has a genuine grievance over the manner of the conveyance to him of the news of the Government's acceptance of his resignation, but there should be nothing in the circumstances of his resignation to bring the Labour party into antagonism with the Government. Ine whole sensation will probably be forgotten in a few days.