Evening star., 1922-08-27

sistance which the United States could
render from the moment of her entry.
American manufacturers were already
turning out artillery and munitions
on a large scale. The government
furnished these indirectly. Their
claim now rests on the fact that they
supplied the cost Of theamaterials in
stead of the materials themselves. Is
the difference very great?
Dollars vs. Lives. -
Had the American armies been then
in France these munitions could have
been used by them. Because they
were not yet there, and these shells
were fired by allied troops against
the common enemy, must they also
be paid for by French and British tax
payers? Should not Americans rather
rejoice that by these supplies they
were able to take an effective part
in the struggle?
The services of the men placed by
the allies in the fighting line were
given to the common cause. The lives
sacrificed during that year were given,
for alas they cannot be restored.
Should the contribution of the United
States be on different basis, a mere
loan to be repaid? Are dollars more
valuable than lives?
Our next question is why did the
United States advance these sums ?
Reasonable self-interest is the basis
of all business transactions, and
think we will agree that it was also
the prime motive actuating the vari-
Gus countries. France had no option,
for she was invaved. Britain's bond
to defend Belgium was powerfully
seconded by self-interest, for it was
better to fight with France as an ally
than to fight later alone. In like man.
ner 1t was better for the United States
to fight with 100000 veteran troops
as allies than afterward to fight alone.
I do, not mean that there was no
altruism in the motives of the United
States and Britain, for there was. but
ize that self-interest was in every in
stance dominant factor. 1t was a
case of helping others-and ones self
Held War Contribution.
France and Britain threw every
available man into the field because
it was to their interest to do this.
Britain also advanced huge sums to
her allies because it was to her inter-
est that they should make a strong
resistance to the common enemy. She
certainly did not make her loans as
commercial transactions. Why did
the American government make ad-
actuated Britain. 1t was to her ad
vantage that the allies should make
an effective resistance while her
armies were getting ready. Had she
not done this the war-her war
might have been lost before she could
strike a blow. To claim that these
advances resemble ordinary CONNER
cial loans is to ignore facts. They
were advances to associates to be used
in the joint enterprise. for the benefit
of all; and they were made because
it was to the advantage of the Ameri-
can government to make them. Incl
dentally. they were made under the
supervision of the U. S. Treasury De-
partment.
Let us imagine a case between in
dividuals. A banker and farmer
own large adjoining farms. They put
in a drainage ditch for their joint
benefit. There was a great rock ledge
to cut through and the work was
costly and dangerous. The farmer
supplied and paid the large number
of workmen required. The banker
supplied money to purchase tools and
blasting powder. The banker now
demands payment of the cost of the
materials he supplied and allows the
farmer no credit for the men he em-
ployed. Were not the services Of the
workmen as important, as the tools
and powder? The workmen needed
tools, but tools were useless without
workmen. What would any of you
hard-headed business men say II you
were. that farmer? Would not a court
hold that the parties were not ordi-
nary debtor and creditor, but associ-
ates; that this was not an ordinary