The Washington times., 1922-07-09
LONDON, July 1.

boNiot ucieBdtioH u Schot
- and The Hague and an off,
cial OF high degree in the Ameri-
can Government had recently q
conversation at which I was pres.
ent, and the course Of the talk
was % rational that / saw clearly
for the first time Just where the
Administration American and the.
Soviet Russian differ and where
they agree more than they differ.
They agree on more points than
} the French or the Belgians would
i with the Russian Soviet spokes-
man. -.
q They agreed that It was possible
and practicable to disagree on
theories and yet do business to-
gether. d..
They agreed that they might
disagree as to the principle Of pri-
vate property in Russia and yet
settle witty American property
owners in old Russia on terms
which would satisfy American
principles and not violate commu-
mist principles.
And they agreed that the way
to do this was to meet and. with
out mentioning the conflicting
theories Of property in the two
countries anu without attempting
TO lay down a general rule for all
American titles and losses, take
up each case by itself and. on its
own merits, adjust 1t.
In a word, cut out theory and
wholesale business. and get down
70 cases.
The conversation was not Of
ficial. II was personal. easy. pri-
yate. I may not report 1t there
fore; not verbatim or In detail.
Not a word was said that might
not have been heard by any one;
the conversation was creditable to
both parties to II and to their
respective governments.
The conversation began with the
Genoa conference and ended with
The Hague. Genoa had been =
meeting Of politicians VINO sst
down to make economic peace for
oil of Europe and rose satisfied to
have made q brief political truce.
A failure. ....
FIVE q. 9. REASONS FOR
NOT GOING TO THE HAGUE
The Hague was to BE- . confer
snce of experts and Lloyd George
said that by experts he. for one,
meant business men; bankers. law
yers, great merchants and econo-
nnists. And these experts were to
tackle, not the economic problems
of Europe and an the world be-
sides, but only or chiefly the com
parativeiy small matter Of arrans-
ing a basis for business between
communist Russia and the capital
ist countries that wanted TO trade
with Russia
The Russian said and showed
that he understood why the United
States would not como to Genoa
but he wanted us to como to The
Hague and he asked why We
should not be there. The Ameri-
can gave him five reasons 'why
not. Tho Russian discussed the
five reasons one by ono, reduced
them to two: one political. the othsr
economic; and he dealt with, the DO
iiticai objection ~ Tchitcherin.
lRakowsd and an the Russians
had debated n throughout the
Genoa Conferences. only much moro
dearly.
During the conference. you may
remember, the French and the Bel.
gians fought for the recognition
5 By Soviet Russia Of the principle Of
private property at least 90 far a.
French. Belgian and consequently
an other foreign owners Of Rus
dan property were concerned.
The Russians rejected this prop
.ssition on the ground that II was
Imposing French. Belgian and
other capitalist ideas, laws and
customs on Russia Russia had
had . revolution The Russian
revolution had becn victorious.
CLAIM RIGHT OF REVOLT
TO CHANGE LAWS.
The right Of . successful revolu.
ton to alter old laws, confiscate
old properties and set MP . new
regime was recognized IN the his
tory and established in the laws
s Of capitalist countries In which
there had been . revolution: IN
England, for example; In France;
and notably in the United States.
A. going revolution was. Of course,
unlawful and bound to be resisted
the world over, but . successful
revolution was always recognized
sonnetirne. A Tchitcherfu put Il