New-York tribune., 1920-02-08
France, England and Italy Firm.
ly Believe That Such a Course
Is Only Right

OF the reasons why the United State.
should thus consent to tax itself fol
$10,0o0,000,00o of principal and {
very large number Of other billions
representing the cost Of the interes,
on this vast capital? It is essentia
that this phase Of the question shoulc
be understood in the United State!
If there is to be any real grasp o1
the European point Of view.
The reasons are twofold: First
OF all, the World War to the Euro.
pean mind was always our war. In
it France and Great Britain, In par
ticular, made sacrifices out Of all
proportion to those made by the
United States, whether the measure
be in money, in lives or in anything
else. If the United States had an
equal interest, an equal RESPONSE
bility in the defeat Of Germany,
then there is logically no reason
why the United States should not
pay its proportionate share. Not to
do this would amount to letting Eu-
rope bear our burdens and discharge
our responsibilities.
And now, when Europe has borne
the greater share Of the burden and
finds itself at once victorious and
approximately bankrupt, It sees the
United States by contrast both pros
porous and in position to demand
the payment Of interest and princi-
pal on q vast debt, which represents
the expenditure of our European
associates in fighting that war,
which was American quite as much
as European. No equalization of
the blood cost of victory is possible,
but it cost France 100000 lives to
hold the German, the British En-
pire 100000 lives to perform it's
mission, while the United States ex-
pended considerably less than 10O,-
600. But if no equalization of the
blood cost is possible, at least, so
Europe argues, there was all tho
more reason for an equalization of
the money tax.
We Gave Europe Cause
Now, alongside Of this reasoning
stands another set of circumstances
which Should go a long way toward
explaining the European point Of
view. If many British and French
public men and private citizens
alike believe that the United States
should undertake this burden, if
europe thinks that the United States
has a moral obligation, it is able
to find not little support for this
view in the statements made by
americans in Europe last year. We
liked in Europe in a manner which
Permitted Europe to believe we were
apable of making such q contribu-
slon. 1t is not merely that Europe
would now put upon US a very great
Surden because we are Compare
JiVely more fortunate, but that Eu-
rope would now invoke the deeds
cur words seemed to promise.
am very anxious to make this
POINT clear to my readers, because.
II 1t is not appreciated, the present
and all similar European proposi-
tions must appear to Americans al
sheer and preposterous presump-
ton, as efforts to take ADVANTAGE of
American generosity, as merely de-
signing and selfish ideas. If Europe
has been led to make such proposi-
tlons as those of Mr.. Keynes and M.
hloot, the reason is to be found in
the way Americans representing the
United States in official capacity
talked in Europe during the peace
conference.
Europe assumed from this talk
that America was prepared to be-
come full partner in the new world
organization, in the league Of nations
firm, and that it was ready to put It's
capital and its credit into the busi-
ness, without stint. Now, If this were
the case, then there would be a col
orable warrant at the present time
tor asking US for a contribution
which would not be out of propor-
ton to the contributions already
made by Great Britain and France
during che war, which was, in a real
sense, the first step in setting up the
league of nations itself.
Two Points of View
OF course, If the United States
only entered the war as a limited
action, as a temporary partner will
mo fn dr f%e v~o ~