The Bridgeport times and evening farmer., 1919-12-29
revealed

ference invariably revealed the | inconVenjent time.
 Sometimes their answers suggested d annoyance, but none of them display ed the strident antinathies of Senator Sherman or the active hostility of Senators Reed and La Toilette. Most of those questioned would certainly have been happier if the Conference had been postponed until America had sraightened out her own political and industrial problems and ratified the Treaty of Peace.
 When it was pointed cut that the date of the Conference October 29th) was fixed by the Covenant of the League of Nations and that the invitations were issued by the United States Government, which, presUnl- ably, knew it's own business, the answer was that the Big Four had made other mistakes, some of which had already been recifed, and that the holding of this Conference at the date fixed. was a decision which Inight wisely have been raconsidered. It was also urged that in making this and similar commitments, the Pres1- dent had acted too automatically. The President Of the United States did not face criticism alone. Un- happily, there was some disposition to place upon Great Britain respOn- sibility for what appeared to be un- necessary preciHitancy.
 The unsatisfactory feeling was strengt thened by the failure of the American Government to secure the appropriations necessary to meet the expenses Of q conference which it had invited to Washington. The spec tacle of Britain meeting the current expenses was displeasing to Ameri- cans; it brought mild ridicule in the Press, and it was difficult to make some people believe that Britain had no ulterior motives.
 Do the people think the Conference will help America? Are they ;Lverse 10 it's ideals? The people of America are not averse to anything which Is likely to help suffering humanity.
 It is possible that a plebiscite would give a big majority for an in.- mediate ratification of the Peace Treaty and the Covenant of the League of Nations, even though it in cluded the Labour clauses.
 Americans are conscious of the strength, and feel able to get even with any situation, but many would vote for ratification only on account of the worlds sorry plight.
 Their reservations, instead of being made in the Senate, would be made in their hearts, and an undercurrent Of dissatisfa Ction would probably re- main and continue for some time. Americans do not anticipate national advantage from the Conference.
 They believe in their ability to make their industrial conditions bet +a1 h Or ganising Committee. Even AIexicans who were in Washington asserted that their national constitution pro vided moro than the Conference promised.
 Some of the observers were amused at the spectacle of official representatives moving amendments to the official program. In America this procedure deceiVes no one. Their political experiences have opened their eyes, and they are fully aware of the reasons which prompt men ro vote for official propositions and to speak in favour of variations which may appeal to groups Of supporters in their several countries.
 Will the nations accept The findings of the Conference? Will it be possible to impose international uniformity in industrial affairs? found some who believed that the nations would Of fctally accept the findings, but none outside the Conference who believed that international uniformity could result.
 Racial chara cteristics, climatic conditions, and physiographic oppor- tunities differ too widely for uni formjty in hours, wages, and methods to be possible. What may result is an arrangement by which the exhaustive effects of work may be ascertained and the real value Of work deter mined.
 Generally it was agreed that hu- manity demanded the abolition of conditions which destroy health and happiness. but that the world is so short of necessaries that it cannot continue the support of the idle. Each nation, they think, may be expected. at least for many years, to guard jeaIously its right to work out its own salvation in accordance with it's national circumstances and CFpor- turities. Attempts to infringe this right may provoke international ouaI reIs of far greater seriousness than those which arise from our own de- marcation squabbles
 Of the industrial situation in America it is necessary to speak with the greatest difidence. As it exists today 1t is reflected in the police strike at Boston, the steel strike, and the coal strike. The first was broken.
 The conditions under which the men worked were bad, and ought to have been voluntarily improved by the authorities. Many of the mems places have been filled, but the au- thorities still hold the streets with armed soldiers, who maintain order and direct traffic.
 Reports concerning the steel strike are conflicting, and an outsider can not discuss the situation without run ming the risk of making it worse. Enough for the moment to say that the employers made the most of the tact that one Of the men appointed to lead the strike had been a militant member of the I. W. w.
 Coal, in America as well as in Britain, has been the source of in finite trouble. Here again there are many conflicting statements, but out of the confusion of Utterance. of charge and counter charge, come facts which justify the mems demand for additional pay, and which vitiate
 r,Fa+