THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18325, 16 August 1921, Page 8

THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS

TO THB EDITOR. Sib, —I gladly accept Mr Howard Elliott’s challenge to produce evidence of the numerous errors and misstatements of historical fact contained in his sermon on the league of Nations. It is certainly courageous of him to say that he is prepared to stand by ..the facts as he stated them on that occasion. Unfortunately, the facts will not staijid by him. First, Mr Howard Elliott says—l quote from the Sentinel article —that “after the Napoleonic wars had devastated Europe, the Powers combined in what was called the Holy Alliance, to enforce a permanent peace.” Rarely have so many errors been packed into one brief sentence. In the first place, does Mr Elliott really mean the Holy Alliance or is he thinking of the Quadruple Alliance? The Holy Alliance was formed in the autumn of 1815; the Quadruple Alliance was formed 1 at Chaumont in 1814. I do not care which alternative he selects. The former alliance included only the three autocratic States of Central and Eastern Europe—Prussia, Austria, and Russia.; The latter, in addition to these Powers, included Great Britain. Neither alliance consisted of all the Powers of Europe. For this reason, among many others, neither of them is comparable to the League of Nations, which at present includes the vast majority of States, not only of Europe, but of the world, and which, in the intention of its framers, will ultimately include all the States of the world. Further, Great Britain was never a member of the Holy Alliance, as Mr Elliott led his readers (and hearers) to believe. Curiously enough, neither was the Papacy. The Pope at that time, Pius VII, “refused his adhesion to a league founded by a heretic and a Liberal ’ (Allison Phillips: “Modern Europe,” p. 18) —that is, by Alexander I, the Tsar of Russia. The Tsars of Russia, as Mr Elliott apparently does not know, have never from the time of Vladimir I betfn Roman Catholics Nor was the Holy Alliance a league to enforce a permanent peace. In form- it was a declaration of three absolutist monarchs of their intention to govern their kingdoms on Christian principles. In effect, it “had no real existence except as a noble ideal in the mind of Alexander 1.”

Secondly, Mr Howard Elliott in th. 6 next sentence goes on to say “the conditions then were almost identical with those surrounding the formation of the present League.” This sentence is delightfully obscure. If it ie intended to compare the international situation in 1815 with the international situation in 1918, every observant naan knows that, so far from being almost identical, they were radically different. If Mr Howard Elliott’s meaning is that the birth of the League has been attended with the same secrecy that surrounded the inception of the Holy Alliance, thej statement is equally untrue. That the inevitable result of the war, if the Allies were successful, would be the formation of a League of Nations was clearly stated by responsible leaders of public opinion in every year from 1914 to 1918. For instance, to take only the authoritative utterances of British and American statesmen, such a policy was declared in set terms by -the British Prime Minister in 1914, by Mr! Balfour in 1916, by Mr Lloyd George in £917. by President Wilson and by Mr C. 35. Hughes, the Republican candidate at the/American Presidential election, in 1917. Agfcin and again the formation of. the League was put in the forefront of the Allied war aims. It was preceded bv the fullest discussion in Parliament and in the preke. There was no such secrecy about it as attended the launching of the Holy Alliance in 1815.

Again, Mr Howard Elliott says that “the Hojy Alliance under the dominance of the Vatican, wrought the greatest mischief for all -time in international politics, occasioning/ as it did the announcement of the Mcfnroo pcflicy by President Monroe, a policy which to-day accounts for the strange attitude of the American leaders in regard to International affairs.” Again, wo have an of Mr Howard Elliott’s controversial methods. What was the “greatest misfchief for all time in international polk ticsj?’’ Was it the Monroe Doctrine or warf it the present strange attitude of American leaders? Mr Elliott has cunningly framed this sentence so that it is capable of both interpretations. But 1 cam scarcely believe that ho is referring to the present attitude of America. For Amlerica ‘ has refused to join the League of ;Nations, and in Mr Elliott's opinion the. League of Nations is a curse and not a blessing. ' He must, therefore, mean that the; Monroe Doctrine is the greatest mischief for all time. But the Monroe Doctrine kept the Catholic powers from having their own -yffjl in South America, 'therefore, Mr fclliott apparently believes that it was ths greatest mischief for all time that the Catholic powers were kept from having their own way in South America which, as;Euclidi would say, is absurd. Whichever alternative ho selects, he stands convicted of; using words without any clear idea of what they mean.

And so 1 could go on. The wholo article teems wsth absurdities, with false suggestions, apd tricky innuendoes, For example, Mb, Elliott says that the Pope gave President IVilson a present valued at £BOOO. He; wftilfd lead his readers to imply that thil was a personal gilt from the Pope to President Wilson. 1 ask, is it possible to ‘treat a man seriously who would matte such a suggestion' I have no references beSide me to enable me to give your readers the exact facts regarding this transaction. Probably, the Pope gave Mr Wilson a gift for Mr Hoover’s umd for tho relief of destitution in Belgium or m Central Europe. I do not know. As 1 say, I have not the lacts beside me. But 1 should os i soon believe that the Pope gave Sir Robert Stout £BOOO for university educatio# in New Zealand or that he was subsidising Mr Elliott s own organisation, as fselieve that he gave a personal gift to President Wilson. Pins Mr Howard Elliott evqj: heard of Mr Wilson’s record as Goyernqr of New Jersey? No man, as yoqr intelligent readers know full well, hat done more in one day to put down corruption in polities than the ex-Prcsident. To) suggest that ho could be bribed by the Pope is a public scandal of the most intolerable kind.

Mr Elliott makes great pTay with an artickr, against the League of Nations writsßTl -tv a Mr E. P. Hewitt, K.C.. an Engluji barrister, whom he calls a legal and institutional expert. I, too, am an English barrister. For the last 12 years 1 LaveP.Jjeen in and out of the Temple in LondojQ almost every day, and I never heard.of Mr E. P. Hewitt. Certainly, to call him a legal and constitutional expert is to play with words. Tho National Review, in which the article appeared, is the organ; of tho most reactionary and militaristic party (fortunately a very small party}.- in England. I attach no weight to any article on tho League of Nations coming from such a quarter. As all lawyers and 'Wrists know, there is one outstanding consuliitional and legal expert in England to-day)’ I mean Sir Frederick Pollock, K.U., whoso: writings and opinions are regarded with deference all over the world. I advise Mr Howard Elliott to read his book on the League of Nations. Let him study, ponder, and reflect on one of Sir Frederick s concluding sentences: “And if they” (i.e.. the people of England and of the world) '‘’are. oast jpwn by the failure of the covenant •to satisfy tho whole world at once, or to realise!'in a few months tho completion of taakaiithat former generations did not find it pbidible even to begin, let them take heart from the saying of Colbert, a great French man of affairs: ‘II ne fant jamais so mettro dans I’csprit que ce que Ton fait est parfo.it. Mais il faut ton jours choroher a avaneer pour approcher tie la perfection, qu’on no trouve jamais.’ ” One!.';other point. Mr Eiliott complains that I distorted his meaning when I said that ihe denounced the League of Nations v becaiifti in it we shall sit cheek by jowl with (he representatives of Catholic States. Well.) his exact words in this article are these,; “It is a fact that the Vatican con trok the league as at present constituted, since of the 41 members 24 at least are directly under the tutelage of the Papacy. ’ I simply put these words before your readers, and ask them: “Did I do Mr Elliott the smallest injustice when I said what.lj did in my speech?” There are many other misrepresentations in this-,article which I could expose. But I am cbfltent to submit myself to the judgment of the public. Mr Elliott is no dpubt. as MjliJKompton Knowles has suggested, a sinceuei man. So was James IT of England. So was Philip II of Spain. But a man must have other qualities besides sincerity before he can become a safe guide or a real loader of public He must bo a candid and careful controversialist: he must be broachminded and statesmanlike in his utteranceaphe must .sift his facts and be largo hearted and understand the point of view of h£» opponents. Judged by these and simikr tests. Mr Howard Elliott fails, and fails miserably.—l am. etc., W. Henderson Prxnoi.e Thg';University of Otago, August 15