The Otago Daily Times. TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 1925. ARMAMENTS AND SECURITY.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19407, 17 February 1925, Page 6

The Otago Daily Times. TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 1925. ARMAMENTS AND SECURITY.

That the President of tho United States is favourable to the idea of inviting the Powers to attend another conference at ■Washington to discuss the armaments question was made evident some time ago hi his own utterances. More recently ho has hecn fortified in/ that design by a request from Congress bearing upon the matter. Mr Coolidge apparently feels, however, that he cannot make a definite move until it is clear that a really favourable moment lias arrived for it. In this consists the explanation of his disinclination to offer any official comment upon statements suggesting that the British Government is hoping that another Arras Conference will be called, preferably by tho United State,*. Some uncertainty has yet to be cleared np respecting tho possibility of action on the part of the League of Nations. If the Peace Protocol had been expressed in terms that would have made it generally acceptable, a conference for the promotion of international disarmament would have- been summoned under the League’s auspices in Jtlne next. It was recognised that upon the success of such a conference tho operation of tho Protocol would be dependent. As it may bo assumed that the Protocol will not survive, in its present form, it is reasonable to conclude that the League’s proposal to call a conference, lacking the incentive which made it an essential sequel to the Protocol, will also be abandoned or at least be postponed. But only a definite abandonment by tho League of the conference which it projected will clear the way for action by the President of the United States. In due appreciation of the circumstnnce& Mr Coolidge is waiting to see what happens. Upon the general question whether a reduction of armaments is likely to be best effected through tho instrumentality of the League of Nations or through that of a conference at Washington, there is doubtless room for differences of opinion. The fact that the United States is not a member of tho League must have weight, however, as an argument in favour of the initiative coming from Washington, and it is very probable that the attitude of the British Government is correctly interpreted in the suggestion that it would view such a development with satisfciction. It may he urged, of course, by those who are inclined to be pessimistic or by those who scoff at the very idea of disarmament that another conference at Washington on a basis similar to that of three years ago does not hold out great prospects of practical achievement. The limitation of navies constitutes one aspect only of the great and difficult scheme for the reduction of armaments. The circumstance that President Coolidge is waiting an opportunity to bring about an Arms Conference has not prevented naval efficiency from being a very active subject of discussion in the United States for some time past. Coupled with this there is the plan, outlined in a despatch from Washington, for tho establishment at the Hawaiian Islands of an American naval base so strong that it would not ho worth an enemy’s while to attempt to reduce it. Like every other Government, that of the United States is not indifferent to the requirements of security.

A MILDER STRAIN,

We commented yesterday on the debate in the House of Commons upon the vote to defray the expenses of the Prince of Wales’s visit to South Africa. The extremist strictures invited caustic criticism. It is noticeable that the Daily Herald, thq representative organ of the Labour Party, takes a cautious lino in dealing with a question which may have caused some heartburnings in the not wholly united sections of Labour. If the Herald is not quite with Mrs Snowden, it is certainly not wdth Mr Kirkwood. It declares that “anyone concluding that Labour wishes to abolish 'Royalty forthwith would be astray.” It conditionally accepts the monarchical system for the time being, and goes so far as to say that action on the lines which it approves would put an end to criticism of royal arrangements. The Glasgow extremists may resent these admissions, but it is worth while to note the fact that Glasgow itself is not overwhelmingly extremist. If space permitted, we should like to reproduce the full records of the Glasgow elections on October 29 last. We must be con-, tent with remarking that of fifteen seats the Conservatives wrested four from their opponents, and Labour did not gain one from the other side. Moreover, anyone who takes the trouble to examino the figures will find that in most instances where Socialism' retained the seat the majority was greatly reduced. At the present time Glasgow is represented by seven Conservatives and seven Socialists. It would be a very great mistake, therefore, to suppose that Glasgow is altogether in the hands of turbulent agitators. Let us revert to the views, soberly expressed," of the Daily Herald : “In forcing Royalties to maintain the old 1 pomps and traditions their advisers are committing foolishness. . . . Royalties themselves should break down class traditions, and the nation should find for the Prince of Wales some job essential to the machinery of Government.” We cannot agree that the Imperial tasks already performed by the Prince with most happy effect have not been essential to the machinery of Government; but we are not disposed to deprecate the suggestion that some of the royal pomps, indicative of medieval legend rather than contemporary actuality, might suitably be abandoned. These relics or revivals of antique custom are acceptable to unbending'aristocrats and traditionalists, as well as to a section of the London populace; but their legitimate day is gone, and Royalty itself may entertain the same opinion. A greater simplicity of ceremony would be in consonance with the thought and sentiment of the time. Thus much would we grant to the Daily Herald, while with a correspondent, from whom we publish in this issue an earnest letter that does not, however, really tackle the problem,, we agree fully in deprecating the vulgar display of wealth that is flaunted before the public by some of the newer rich at Home. During the debate last week passionate allusion, was made to the unhappy conditions in which many workers aro obliged to live. It is a painful and pressing subject, but entirely irrelevant to the particular matter in connection with which it was raised. The Prince is known to be most sympathetically concerned in all projects of human betterment, and his influence goes in the right direction, hut it is necessarily an influence both personally and constitutionally limited. Some of his critics might be the first to protest if ho tried to take a direct part in political and social affairs. Indirectly., his Imperial journeys may not be quite unassociated with ideals and prospects of human advancement.