The Ocala banner. (Ocala, Marion County, Fla.) 1883-194?, 1921-06-03
ron WHOM DID HARVEY speak,


Representative Floods attempt, by
means of resolution introduced in
the House to ascertain whether Ann
bassador Harvey in his speech at the
Pilgrims dinner acted under instruc-
lions from the State Department is
seemly and proper. The country has
a right to know whether Mr.. Harvey
spoke for Mr.. Harding and Mr..
Hughes or whether he spoke only for
the former editor of \ political perio-
dical who has been converted tenn
porarily into diplomatist.
Under any system of parliamentary
government speech such as Mr..
Harvey made would be the subject of
Immediate Interpolation. Either the
Prime Minister or the Foreign Secre-
tary would be asked as a matter or
course whether the Ambassadors ut
terances were official and whether
they defined the politics of the Gov
ernment
If Sir Auckland Geddes were to de-
liver such an address in Washington,
Lloyd George would expect as a mat
ter of course to be questioned in the
House of Commons, and either to up
hold or to disavow the Ambassador s
definition of the Governments pro-
gramme. As Mr.. Harding and Mr..
Hughes are not members of the Sen
ate or the House of representatives,
it is impossible to question them from
the floor, but either branch of Con
gress has right to ask the State De
parment whether Mr.. Harvey spoke
lin compliance with instructions re-
ceived by him" and whether he voiced
'the sentiments and policies of the
United States Government.
Mr.. Harding and Mr.. Hughes are
directly responsible for Mr. Harvey.
He is their personal representative,
and if asked for information by Con
gress they could hardly refuse to say
whether Mr. Harvey was speaking for
them or for himself.
Many of our contemporaries have
called attention to the striking differ
ence, not only in tone but in substance
between the Harvey speech and the
brief address mace by President
: Hasrfdaif1fig in the presence of the soldier
dead on the pier at Hoboken. This
difference cannot be too strongly en-
phasized: yet it is the Harvey speech
and not the Harding speech which fs
generally accepted as the expression
of American foreign policy.
The President, standing before the
5000 collins on the pier, made no at
tempt to translate his deep feeling
into programme of government, but
his Ambassador speaking in London
was definite and specific not only in
the matter of foreign affairs but as
~ tAC aims anu OUJCtto Vi LILO <AtACl-
lean people in entering the war. Mr..
Harding's emotions, no motter how
beautiful or how admiringly expressed,
cannot serve as an adequate substi-
tute for an ineligible foreign policy,
and in the absence of any official
statement to the contrary other ma
lions are warranted in assuming that
Mr.. Harvey spoke for the President.
More than that. they are warranted in
assuming that Mr.. Harvey spoke in
the manner that he did because the
president desired to have his message
presented in the crudest and baldesr
terms.
AS the issue stands, George Harvey
is the foreign poicy of the Harding
Administration, and he will remain
the foreign policy of the Harding adj
ministration unless something comes
out of the White House or. the State
Department which can be accepted
as complete or partial disavowal.
World