Activate Javascript or update your browser for the full Digital Library experience.
Next Page
OCR
‘ Os
x O88
Ni cy
§ X
Sw zx
S OX
<= ~NX
Le S
& . rs
il?
AY i
ek it!
Tor All aw
Lit
“Cetceprppp ysl
“Ts it Only a Curtain- Raiser?”
By Georce A. SCHREINER
might well be read, with profit, by every adult in the United States, After
dissecting the Balfour note in-very masterly fashion, the writer arrives at the
following conclusion: /
“Although the note does not conclusively shut out possiblity of a compromise
reparation settlement based on debt cancellation, it conculsively establishes the
shifting policy of the British Government with respect to America and: interallied
debts. The Balfour note unmistakably aims at building up a case in the minds of
debtor nations against America as the stern and unrelenting creditor that refuses to
join with Great Britain in lightening the burdens of Europe. The unfairness of
such a play is manifest. Instead of furthering cancellation of the Anglo-American
loan, it works against it. For it tends to stir up and crystallize American senti-
ment against it. If, in addition to shifting Great Britain’s responsibility to
America, its purpose is to lay the foundation for trading with France, the policy
that inspired the communication. ts even more questionable. Following so closely on
the British Premier's recent warning to the nations against insincerity, the note is
distinctly off key. \While the communication may. not mean all that it expresses
and implies with respect to Great Britain’s position on interallied debts, clearly
its intent is to embarrass America and that unjustly.”
| Awiehs this caption The Washington Post of August 4, brings an editorial that
On the previous day the same thinker had this to say:
“With a show of generosity, the London Government states that, if the debts
owed: by-it were ‘cancelled—which refers to the Anglo-American loan—it would
be willing to cancel debts owed to it even though such credits greatly exceed the
amount of its debts. When read in the light of facts, the expressions of good will
and kindly motive that accompany this statement of the British position carry
little conviction. The British note indicates willingness to cancel claims against
other nations aggregating approximately $12,000,000,000, if America would cancel
its claim of something over $4,000,000,000. That is, on paper, British generosity
is willing to sustain a loss three times as great as the gain. But when it is noted
that British credits include debts owed by Russia and Germany and other nations
that cannot, at least for a very long time, be expected to pay, the British proposi-
tion becomes simply an offer to cancel a mass of claims that are in large part of
no value for release from a fair debt. Thus, instead.of sustaining loss exceeding
gain, Great Britain would be clear winner by such arrangement—and America
would be clear loser.”’
Even The Washington Star, none too well equipped mentally, found Balfour's:
note a little too well endowed with spines and bristles to fit into its calloused craw.
On August 2 it had to make the following admission:
“But the feature of the note which will leave the most disagreeable taste in
American mouths is the avowal of the British Government that it has no desire to
make a profit out of the loans it made to the allies. ‘In no circumstances,’ says the
note, ‘do we propose to ask from our debtors more than is necessary to pay‘our
_creditors. And, while we do not ask more, all will admit: that we can. hardly
be content with less,’
. “Laying aside, the suggestion that the American Government seeks profits from
its war loans, this paragraph of the British note reaches the supreme height of incon-
sistency. In-one breath it declares the British Government. can wipe off credits