WAR DEBTS

Southland Times, Issue 21772, 29 July 1932, Page 6

WAR DEBTS

: INTERESTING DEBATE WIN FOR CANCELLATION ADVOCATES INTER-CLUB FIXTURE Everybody’s Hall, Tay street, last evening was the scene of a spirited in-ter-club debate between teams representing the Invercargill Debating Society and Marist Old Boys’ Debating Club, when the bone of contention was “That America should cancel her vzar debts.” Mr John Tait, president of the Invercargill Society, presided over a record attendance and introduced the speakers to the audience. - The Invercargill Society, he said, would take the affirmative and the Marist Old Boys, the negative. Mr A. J. Deaker, leader for the affirmative, opened the debate. Tire year 1914, he said, saw the commencement of the Great War which at first was a European conflict, but gradually developed into a World War. America did not come into it until 1917 and up to that time she had been sheltering behind the Monroe Doctrine. When she finally realized that the war was being fought in defence of democracy she took up arms with enthusiasm, but she entered the war not only to preserve democracy, but because she was in danger. Her navy was unprepared and her army untrained, and Britain and France held the enemy at bay for 15 months before America’s first army entered the field of battle. The fact that America called her war loans Liberty Bonds was proof that she realized her danger. Great Britain’s loans to her Allies totalled seven thousand millions as compared with America’s total of two thousand millions and by way of evening up the sacrifices made America should cancel her war debts. Britain had had to cancel £500,000.000 loaned to Russia and the bulk of that money had been spent by Russia in America. America had made tremendous profits out of the war—mostly out of moneys lent by Britain and expended by her Allies in America. His chief reason for suggesting cancellation was the inequality of sacrifice. Had Germany won the war her indemnity against America would have been equally as great as that against Britain and France because America was a wealthy nation. If America insisted on the repayment of her loans then she must take goods; the debtor nations could not send gold. Cancellation seemed to be the only thing to do —tariff barriers would have to be removed and the trade prosperity of Europe would then reflect itself in America’s prosperity. Mr T. V. Mahoney, as leader of the negative, defended the case for America. Mr Deaker, he said, had overlooked the official attitude of the American people to war debts. The clamour for adjustment did not come from the debtor nations, but from three classes of the people—firstly, from private banking institutions and financial interests; secondly, from the Labour agitator; and thirdly, from the Press. Great Britain and her allies during the war found themselves in need of foodstuffs and armament which they could not produce or manufacture themselves and they borrowed from the private citizens of the United States to pay for those goods. America had already been very generous to all debtor nations in the funding of war debts, and she could not overlook the relative ability of the nations to pay as compared with the ability of the individual lenders in America to bear cancellation. Until America could satisfy herself that a stop had been made to the senseless and suicidal expenditure of public moneys by European countries in armaments, until she could be shown that cancellation would bring about a better attitude of the nations towards each other in world affairs, that it would set the wheels of industry moving again, that it would assist both America and Europe back to prosperity, there could be no question of cancellation. So long as Europe remained indebted to America, he concluded, their very indebtedness was the greatest factor for the ensuring of permanent peace. The second speaker for the affirmative was Mr J. L. Cameron, who criticized the leader of the negative’s reference to European expenditure on armament and quoted figures to show that Britain’s post-war expenditure was 48 per cent, above that for 1909-13, France’s 57 per cent and America’s 135 per cent. Such was America’s spirit of Christian goodwill and hypocracy. The question of reparations, he stated, was indissolubly bound up with war debts, and it was quite, possible for America to cancel'the debts without inflicting any serious burden on her citizens. Mr K. F. Jones, second speaker for the negative, maintained that the struggle for industrial supremacy between European countries reached its climax in the Great War. America as a neutral country took the opportunity to establish fair and honest trading with the combatants. It was unreasonable to suggest that this export trade had been built up by profiteering and business dishonesty. Referring to the idealistic picture his opponents had painted of the world prosperity that would result from cancellation, he predicted that the blare and din of battle were nearer than he would care to admit,’and if America weakened in her attitude the world would become involved in a greater struggle than before. Mr M. M. Macdonald, the third speaker for the affirmative, took the view that it was a matter of economics, not of politics, and not of history but of the present time. The revival of trade and world prosperity depended on the question of cancellation. The entire war debt was not worth as much in dollars and cents to America as a prosperous Europe would be. Mr J. G. Hickey concluded the case for the negative with a sparkling speech in which excellent oratory and Irish humour and appeal were predominant. The Great War had not been fought to preserve democracy, he said. It was an ordinary trade war and America as a neutral country was not interested. Her citizens had invested their savings with the Allies as an ordinary business proposition. Was it not clear that the burden of cancellation would fall on the American taxpayer, who already had enough to do to pay his own debts without being inflicted with the worry of other people’s debts. America had treated Great Britain far more generously than Great Britain had treated her debtor dominions. There had been no reduction of interests in Empire debts. Europe had the ability to pay—she could find the money for armaments and also for Disarmament Conferences from time to time, for all the use they were. If the debts were cancelled the mad race for militarydomination would begin anew.

The leader for the affirmative then replied. If it was a question of, just debts, he said, and America was asked whether she would sacrifice money or lives, the lives that she was saved through the Allies’ stand during the 15 months it took America to prepare her armies, there could be only cne answer. ““Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors,” he concluded. The judge, Mr S. M. Macalister confessed that he had had a very difficult task. He congratulated those responsible for the selection of the subject, as it was one that was foremost in the minds of all thinking people in the

world to-day. He stressed the necessity for thinking internationally as it tended for the good of nations individually and the world as a whole. In his opinion the affirmative had the easiest proposition to put up, but they had to prove affirmatively just why America should cancel her war debts, and he considered they had not quite shown why. Nevertheless he awarded his decision to the affirmative, although they could have won more handsomely. He had thoroughly enjoyed the debate, especially the Irish eloquence and the pleasure of listening to the different styles. On the motion of Mr Tait, a hearty vote of thanks was accorded to Mr Macalister. The chairman then went on to express his pleasure this interclub debate had afforded his society. It was not only of great benefit to the individuals who attended these debates, but also to the community generally because it cultivated the art of speaking and expression and was of high educational value.

The president of the Marist Old Boys’ Debating Club, Mr P. J. McCarthy, in acknowledging the chairman’s remarks, said it had been an education to listen to the speeches made. The benefit to them was that of having studied their subject, delved into it and endeavoured to understand it. They were doing the community more good than by cancelling the war debts. He congratulated the speakers on their performance and expressed his pleasure at the encouragement rendered by the audience. Mr Mahoney, on behalf of the Marist Old Boys’ team, heartily congratulated the Invercargill Societ’ ’s team on their success. Mr Deaker briefly returned thanks for the generous remarks and said that he looked forward to future inter-club debates with a good deal of pleasure.

The final night of the Invercargill Debating Society’s 1932 session will take place on Wednesday next and will take the form of a general discussion on economic questions o- to-day. Mr J. Hargest, M.P., and Mr W. Hinchey have each consented to deliver addresses.