MORE TOLERANT THAN AMERICA.

Taranaki Herald, Volume LXVII, Issue 16448, 30 May 1919, Page 8

MORE TOLERANT THAN AMERICA.

UNITED STATES EDITOR’S IMPRESSIONS.

Sir. Oswald Garrison Villard, editor of the New York Nation, who has been spending tho last four weeks in London, lets for Paris recently. I saw him at the Savoy Hotel, and he consented to say something for the Manchester Guardian about nis impressions of England and the way in which feeling hero compares with that of the United States (writes the London correspondent of the Manchester Guardian). Air. Villard said that the first thing that struck hin tj ou his arrival in England was tho pinch greater tolerance that existed hero in comparison with America, aud Ids impression in that regard had been strengthened during his stay. In America persons of minority opinions were treated almost as social outcasts, whereas it seemed to him that in England most people were ready to listen to opinions from which they disagreed, and did not allow differences of opinion to interfere with their social relations. The British Government, Mr. Villard said, was also much more tolerant than tho American, although there had been incidents such as the interdiction of the dispatch of certain papers abroad. Such papers as the Labour Leader or the Herald would not have been allowed to exist in America during the war, nor would the American authorities have permitted public meetings in favour of peace such as had been held in England throughout tho war. ' Air. Villard considered that this tolerant spirit honoured both the British Government and the British public. CONSERVATION STRONGER IN AMERICA.

Mr. Yillard said that ha had also boon “profoundly impressed” by the keen intellectual interest shown in England, in the problems of the future. There was, unfortunately, no such general interest in America in these problems. There was no Labour Party iu America, and no such large groups of young thinkers and writers on international subjects as was to be found in Great Britain. Such writers and -thinkers were very few in America. In fact, America was much more conservative than England; most people wore content to go on in the old way, and did not realise that a new world was coming and that there were problems of iimnensil importance to be solved. 1 asked Mr. Villard what he thought of the effect of the victory on the public temper in this country. Ho replied that there seemed to him to bo less bitterness than in America against our enemies, although, perhaps, he had liardly seen enough to form an opinion on that point. Certainly some of the English newspapers were still very bitter, but he doubted whether they reflected public opinion in general. No doubt, Mr. Villard wont on to say, the very completeness of the victory bad had the inevitable effect on feeling*in England, as in,other Allied countries. However much wo rejoice at the destruction of the Gorman military power, nevertheless the sweeping character of the victory had inevitably .strengthened Imperialist feeling and ambitions, in all the victorious countries, and England was no exception to the rule. A victory rather less complete might have been more healthy for the victors.

LABOUR AND MR. GOMPERS’ INFLUENCE.

“What astounds me particularly in England.” Mr. Yillard proceeded, “is the rapprochement between Liberal intelligentsia and Labour. It does not exist in the United States, thanks to the stupidity of Mr. Samuel Gorapers, whose views on Labour questions are at least a quarter of a century behind the times. Nevertheless, despite Mr. Gompers, and notwithstanding his opposition, there arc the beginnings of a Labour party in the United States. In the near future the history of American Labour will be that of a light between the Gompers view and one more like that of the British Labour Party. Unfortunately organised Labour in the United States has been too often identified with lawlessness and violence. This has repelled a good many people who are sincerely desirous of advancing the cause of Labour. “On the other hand there is in America a complete misunderstanding of tho'Socialist party. The term Socialist is still believed to be synonymous with Anarchist, and in New York a man who declared himself to he a Socialist would ho almost ‘declasse.’ There is another sign of the lack of tolerance in tho United States. Further, there is no political choice in America; no vital issues separate the Republican and Democratic parties, which have the same faults and tho same tendencies. The only marked difference between them is that the Democratic party has Woodrow Wilson, whereas the "Republican Party is wholly reactionary.”

1 asked Mr. Villard how he thought that the press in this country compared with that of America. Ho said that it compared very favourably. There was no great press of the Left in the United States, and scarcely a really Liberal daily like the Mauches; ter Guardian, the Daily Nows, or even the Westminster Gazette. There was now a daily Socialist paper in New York called the Call, which was getting on very well, but it stood alone. In this regard Mr. Yillard consideredthat England nad an enormous advantage oveß America.