OCR Text |
Show THE CITIZEN EUROPE'S DOLLAR DIPLOMACY of morality and honor require of the United WHAT theis dictates the favorite theme of our friends across the Atlantic. v ust now it is a little matter of $10,000,000,000 that agitates our moral guides. If we will but refrain from exacting the payment of that sum by our war associates to whom we loaned it then, in their opinion, we will come up to that high standard of honor and morality which they have set for us. They think so well of us that they hate to see us descend from the noble idealism which they were fond of ascribing to us when the war was at its crisis. They want us still to be civilizations willing martyrs. They want us to keep their respect by continuing to sacrifice in their behalf. Besides, it would not be much of a sacrifice at all, seeing that we are so rich.' Maynard Keynes, one of the British financial envoys at Versailles, T.who withdrew because he was dissatisfied with the financial and economic terms, is the latest champion of the idea that the United States should forgive the $10,000,000,000 debt, a debt owed to us mainly by Great Britain and France. Mr. Keynes has written a book to exploit his notions. Like so many of oiir European friends he is distressed to see us blind to our moral obligations. After Europe has done so much for us we would be morally derelict, he thinks, if we failed to make up in a financial way that measure by which we fell short in the conflict. Most Americans go about pluming themselves on what we did in the war, but if they will read Mr. Keynes they will not throw out their chests in pride, although they may in anger. His argument and it is supposed to be the argument of our chief debtors is that the war always was our war, although we kept out of it for three years after it started, and that, therefore, the fight wras for us all the time. Ergo, if Europe was fighting for us all the time the sacrifices in men and wealth during the first three years of the war were for us ; consequently we should repay. And we can repay, in a small and modest way, by forgiving the $10,000,000,000 debt. Of course Great Britain will forgive her debtors if we forgive her the debts she owes us. Her European allies owe her much more than she owes us, but she stands ready, so we are told, to remit the debt owing to her if we will but remit the $4,500,000,000 loan with interest which she owes to us. In this fashion Europe will be financially and economically rehabilitated and civilization will be able to amble along n future. pleasantly into the sunlit and We hate to suspect our friends of selfishness, but every little while some of our representatives at Washington arises to tell us how our war associates are employing the glad days of peace to build great naval and military establishments with the money we have loaned them. Only the other day a congressman pointed out that Great Britain was about to spend something like $300,000,000 on aviation alone. Not to be captious, but merely to keep the record straight, attention must be called to the fact that our European friends are taking every commercial advantage they can of us in the rivalry for the world's trade. And yet they would have us remit the $10,000,000,000 and thus give them a better opportunity to prepare for war and to seize a larger proportion of the worlds trade. Sir Edward Grey came to our country with a mission to obtain as much help from the United States as possible. We were to ratify the treaty without change and then, being in the League of Nations, we were to finance the world. If we should make so bold as to demur our friends would be able to designate article and section whereby we were bound. Had we not agreed to preserve the territorial integrity and existing political independence of all the member nations; if so, how could we refuse to provide the necessary cash? Sojourning here for a few months Sir Edward Grey learned his lesson and went back to England to tell countrymen that the treaty would not be ratified without reservations fully protecting the United Nevertheless his countrymen States from European continue to fabricate ethical reasons and points of honor for benighted America, and all for the purpose of convincing us that we should continue to pour out our treasure for the benefit of Europe. President Wilson, himself, coincides with their views and con- - s tinues to write letters insisting on points of honor and moral obligations which Sir Edward Grey says do not exist. And how is it possible for them to exist if his government and the allied governments do not insist on them? Are we to be so asinine as to spend busy days and sleepless nights thinking up reasons why we are bound to surrender our substance to Europe? We may be sure that our European friends will do all the nceessary thinking along that line. They will continue to invent reasons why we should give our wealth away and come down to their level. In our own interest may we not devise moral obligations for our friends in Europe and may we not put the argument something after this fashion: The allies, as much as Germany, forced us into the war. Germany insisted on the freedom of the seas. She declared that the United States had a right to trade with civilian Germany, and, in any event, with neutral countries. The allies blockaded not only Germany but neutral countries and refused to let our ships go through. Germany told our government that it ought to insist on its rights and finally agreed to stop ruthless submarine warfare on condition that we persuade Great Britain and her allies to lift the illegal blockade. We failed to persuade the allies of their duty to us and, in consequence, Germany resumed the naval depredations which forced us into the war. Inevitably we were drawn into the conflict because the allies insisted on tactics not warranted by any of the international conventions. Viewed in that light, the United States was a victim. It was literally dragged into the war. But, of course, our friends will now say that they saved us from ourselves when they forced us into a war for liberty, democracy, free institutions, humanity and other things. And they will conclude by saying that we ought to pay them for being so good as to force us into the war. Whatever may be thought of the logic of our argument we dare maintain that it is just as reasonable as all of this propaganda designed to convince Americans that their highest duty is to give their wealth to Europe and keep on paying high prices at home for the privilege of being martyrs. . . PICKETING THE BALLOT BOX star-strow- . . self-intere- st. basic difference between the political parties and the Labor in politics is apparent. The political parties nominate candidates for office and support them in .the primaries and at the elections. The Federation of Labor simply establishes a political boycott of candidates. Being numerically too weak to win victories as a party it stands with flaming sword at the convention halls or at the primary polling booths and says : Nominate the men we indorse or expect defeat. It is patent that the use of the word nonpartisan is open to question, for while the American Federation is not a party in the full sense and will not operate as a party, yet it will have its principles and platform and will boycott all who refuse to give them support. In this respect it will be intolerantly partisan. It will be nonpartisan only in the sense that it will ignore the party label in order to defeat anyone who opposes the principles, policies, aspirations and demands of Labor. The movement carries the industrial warfare between Capital and Labor into politics and will intensify the conflict. On the other hand it is a perfectly constitutional and orderly method of settling controversies, for it appeals to the ballot and avoids direct action and revolution. It is objectionable only as all boycotts are objectionable. It is the picketing idea applied to elections. The one who holds aloft the flaming sword is not an angel, but a picket. Inasmuch as the federation has appealed to the political tribunal it must expect to have industrial disputes settled by that tribunal. In other words, Congress will feel at liberty to pass laws in accordance with the decisions rendered at the polls. If Labor wins the. laws will favor the Labor movement. If labor loses the laws will restrict that movement. The public will feel that it, too, must give a verdict as THE |