Great Falls tribune. [volume] (Great Falls, Mont.) 1921-current, 1922-07-08
OUR DUTY TO EUROPE

THERE is much discussion as to
l our duty" to Europe, both in
this country and in Europe. There
is considerable difference of opin-
ion in this country about what our
duty to Europe may be, but there
is practically no difference at all
in the European view Of our duty
toward them. All the nations OF
Europe, with the possible excep-
ton of Great Britain, are agreed on
it. However, much they may dis
agree on other subjects. they are
a unit on this. Our duty to their
minds consists in our %cancelling
the debts they already W. US and
lending them more money-that,
and nothing else. The reasons as
signed for this conviction are vari-
ed, but they all reach the same con-
clusion. The most common reason
assigned by the allies for their on
SlItlOll ID lllo We ~
getting into the war, and that they
fought our battles for US, protect
ing US from the evil designs of Ger
many, and so we should forgive
them their borrowed money as a
sort of payment or compensation
for service rendered to US. OF
course, the enemy countries can
hardly use this argument. Their
design was to skin us alive if they
won, and they admit it. In fact,
the documentary evidence of this
intent was found in Berlin and pub
lished after the war. Their argu-
ment is therefore addressed to US
on other lines than that OF senti-
ment. They say we should assist
them financially because 1t will pay
us to do SO. If they were one on
their feet financially, they would
be a good customer and buy many
goods from US on which we would
make a big profit. In fact, some
American financiers sing the sam
song. But Uncle Sam, who is never
averse to turning down an honest
penny and will often take a long
chance where he sees promise OF
a long profit, turns a cold face and
a deaf ear to this siren appeal. The
security for the loan looks pretty
bum to him. He is willing to gamble
a bit, but not on the "heads ! win
and tails you lose" principle.
Then there are the newly formed
republics who make claims on our
purse on sentimental grounds. Are
we not brothers? Is it not a we'll
established principle that the elder
brother with a heavy purse should
stake his younger brother and give
him a start in business? Former
loans to these younger brothers
were merely for food and lodging
loans. They kept them from starv-
ing in the early days following the
war. Now they want their elder
brother to stake them to a business,
out of the future Of profits of
which they will pay him back all
former loans and grow rich them
selves. They can hardly believe
that so rich a relative as Uncle Sam
will button up his pocket and refuse
to recognize his plain duty to the
premises. Then, there are the So
called neutral countries of Europe.
All these made a good deal of
money out of the war, but strange
to say, they are all hard up and
want to borrow some from Uncle
Sam. They feel that 1t is his duty
to lend, because he has the money
and they need it. We have listened
to this plea to a considerable ex-
tent. Switzerland, Norway, Sweden
and Denmark have all floated loans
here. But to tell the truth and
shame the devil. we have held them
up pretty well in the terms of the
loans-eight per cent, or better,
they have paid US on their bonds.
The American idea of u duty
to Europe is very different. The
prevailing idea is that we have done
our full duty already, SO far as Civ
ing up our money is concerned.
Any further transactions of that
kind are not a matter of either duty
or sentiment, but strictly a matter
of business. So long as Europe
goes on spending money like a
drunken sailor, and spending money
that it does not have, through issu-
ing floods Of paper promises to pay
gold in some distant future, the
owner of American gold dollars
feels inclined to keep them in his
pants pocket, no matter what rosy
inducements are offered him, or