Evening star., 1921-12-05
BRAND and Curzon.

with the passage of several days
since Premier BRAND made his ex-
PLANTATION Of Frances need for a large
army" the Waterbury (Conn.) Re-
publican (republican) finds 1t Inter
esting to note that a more and more
critical attitude is being assumed
toward his pronouncements." These
reactions. says the Seattle Times
(intlependent). have been moderate
but decisive Italy is not sympa-
thetic; England now indicates.
through it's foreign affairs secretary.
that it is not disposed to look with
friendly eyes on the premiers posi-
ton; Americas comment has been
reserved, but a note of disappoint-
ment has crept into some of the
semi-official comment" More i'm
portant, however, as Interpreted in
American papers. is the widening of
the breach between England and
France as a result of what one writer
calls the public warning from the
British secretary to France to watch
her step"
In the speech in question Lord
Curzon said that peace will never
to steal a march on another and con-
clude an arrangement on its own
account" anu then he declared that
"the real strength and protection OF
France does not consist in the
strength Of her arms it does not
cause" but Gin the fact that the
conscience of the world and the COM
bined physical forces of the world
will not tolerate the temperance in
the heart of Europe of great and
dangerous power always rafting its
sword in the scabbard as a menace
to the peace of the world" This "re-
markable speech" in the opinion of
the Wilkes-Barre Record (republi-
CAM, may be regarded as Great
Britain's answer to the speech of
Premier BRAND" for. as the Detroit
News Independently says. "it is not
conceivable that the British foreign
speech publicly unless it comprised
the fixed policy of the British gov
ernment"
Because this is the natural infer
ence, and also because 'the prime
minister's sympathy" with the ad-
Boston Transcript independent re-
publican) finds Curzon's remarks, "the
essence of disagreeablen In eff
feet, he declares for a policy by
which Britain is to be supreme on
the seas, with no. submarines to
while France is "to depend on the
conscience of the world to defend
| her frontiers" Thus France, the Mo-
bile Register (democratic) adds. is
| taken to task "for following on land
the policy which Great Britain has
the sea-" France is ell-shocked. re-
marks the New Haven Journal-Cour-
Ter Independently, and needs nurs-
ing, not scolding.". and in the opinion
Of its neighbor, the Hartford Cour-
ant (republican) it makes little diff
Curzon's attack was malice or ira
ditional British stupidity" he has in
either case dealt a hard blow to suf-
fering France" which the New York
Times Independent democratic)
thinks was mot warranted' by the
ference. Certainly nothing in his
| statement of French policy, as the
Richmond Times Dispatch (demo-
| cratic) interprets it, justiies Curzon's
| Assumption that France deliberately
elects to pursue an isolated and in
dividual policy"
But just as many editors saw an
| element Of talking to Buncombe
county" in Brands address. 80 they
| find Curzon's remarks open to q sus-
picion Of domestic politics" and pos
sibly even Of jealousy, for, the Ithaca
Journal News independently points
| out, s'the French seem to have beaten
the British foreign Office In making
peace with the Turkish nationalists,
and London doesn't like that and
because Curzon "is just now fighting
a diplomatic battle with France over
the near east spoils," the Milwaukee
Sentinel (republican) suggests that
his warning against French mill
tarism may turn out to be no more
than . backfra intended to force
France to yield In the near east"
In any event, "the net result will