The Washington times., 1921-09-18

M
Lord CurzOn nor Winston ChurchilI
on the list Not only are those Two
gentlemen arrogant and aristocratN
and headstrong, but they are full OF
imperialistic convictions that "ouio
have made II difficult for them tc
refrain from pushing to keep the
British navy as big as possible In
rela atiOn TO ours.
With the list as II Is Tentatively
let out at present there IL no reason
why It should not have entirely har.
nonious relations with the American
delegation. The only shrewd trader
n II is affability itself.
This slate lis as follows: Arthur
..nns Balfour, Andrew Bonar Law,
Wellington Evans, Lord Lee Of Fere-
ham.
Balfour An Able Diplomat.
Mr.. Balfour is looked upon as the
ablest diplomat, outside Of the prime
minister. that the British possess. He
is not so notable for policies as he Is
for the shrewdness and agility with
which he conducts q case already
agreed upon.
In fencing. in debating. in those
qualities that make a negotiator pure
and simple, he Is the best bet the
English possess, outside of Mr.. Lloyd
George. who has his hands full run
ming all the other troubles OF the
British Empire and could scercely be
across the ocean for two months.
Mr.. Boanr Law has had compare
lively little to do with public affairs
since he left the cabinet several
months ago. giving health as his rea-
son.
Mr.. Bonar Law had become the floor
leader of the conservative party, or
the Liberal Unionist. as II Is called.
before the coalition was formed. He
proved painstaking and successful In
steady, non brilliant way that the
English like. and when he entered the
Coalition during the war ii was to
hold the conservative strength and
represent Mr.. Lloyd George on the
floor.
To Do Lions Share.
II Is a fair guess that Mr.. Bonar
Law will do the bulk Of the routine
work for the British government at
washington. with Balfour furnish
ing the strategy.
Mr.. Evans represents the War De-
partment and Lord Lee the navy.
They would presumably be selected
more for technical details than for
participation in general policies.
This list leaves untouched the ques-
ton Of the colonies. A good deal Of
ignorant comment has been printed on
this aspect Of the conference. There
is no question OF voting concerned, as
there was at Paris.
II makes no difference how many
| delegates, or how many delegations.
effort to find steps on which the five
great powers can agree, China being
represented, but without power.
Therefore Great Britain would gain
nothing by having the colonies also
represented. The general cause, how.
ever, would gain, and the point of
view OF the United States would he
strengthened, as Capada, the strong
est OF the colonies, showed at the
London conference in June and July d
desire to support US where our in
terests come into conflict with those
of Japan.
South Africa also showed sympathy
with the United States, and II she
| should send General SHUTS the liberal
element, now weak, would be decided
ly strengthened.
The four American delegates are
all conservatives, though Mr.. Hughes
| is q progressive conservative. Senator
Lodge Is opposed to almost every
thing the conference is called to &C
complish. Mr.. Root, like Mr.. Hughes
although a conservative, is second 10
none in his devotion to better foreign
relations.
Conservatives in Command.
It is unfortunate that Mr.. Meighan
the prime minister of Canada, will be
unable to attend, even II the colonies
are represented, since he has an elec
ton on his hands. His record at Lon
don showed how much his presence
would forward the purposes that the
United States Government has ir
view.
With Senator Borah, the main cr1
ator OF the conference, not on 1t, the
whole responsibility for success, as
far as this country Is concerned, /;
left with the conservative wing of the
Republican party.
This is really just as well. Tht
progressive Republicans and thu
Democrats will have no role except II
case OF failure. and in that case they
will combine to infliCt the penalty.