The Washington herald., 1922-01-01

will and mercy. UnhappiIy he gave
them the impression that France
thuoght only of herself and Of what
the world should do to pay her for
her terrible sacrifices. IN his pic
ture of bleeding France h, did not
include bleeding Belgium. Italy, Eng
land. Canada. Australia. New Zea-
land, all of whom sat at the table
and all Of whom had suffered losses
and were borne down and are stngger-
ing under debts. if not equal, at least
comparable to those OF France.
1t was mistake of emphasis. that
brilliant writer simon Strunsky
says. He points out that the thing
really relevant in Mr.. BRANDS
speech was practically concealed
from the public-that France had
disarmament plans on hand which
soon would reduce her army one
half and her term of military serv-
ice from three years to eighteen
months. 1t Is a fact that NJ.
Brands tragic picture Of the dan
ger so obscured this statement SO
vitality important to the work OF
this conference that I have met not
a few people who commended that no
such statement was ever made. One
has only to look at the text of the
address to see that It was there,
though SO out of proportion II was
to the bulk OF the speech that il
failed of its effect.
Crisis Precipitated.
The speech was disastrous. "I
was never SO heartsick in my life"
1 heard one OF the greatest and most
important men in Washington say,
after 1t was over. And then came
the crisis. Mr.. Wells, that ardent
advocate of the brotherhood Of man,
knocked his doctrine all to smith
Greens by accusing France of want
ing arms to turn against England.
Lord Curzon, as militant as Mr.
Wells, made a most unguarded
speech for man in his position.
There IS no telling to what proper
ton the rumpus would not have
gone II the conference itself had
not settled back to steady work ana
Mr.. Harding had not announced in
his casual way that he was for an
association of nations.
Could this unhappy incident have
been avoided? II the conference
had shown a more sympathetic un
derstanding OF the way France Is
feeling today, II there had been the
realization which we certainly
should expect of the effect of CALI
ing her into a gathering of this
KIND and then letting her premier
sit for a week with practically no
attention 1t probably would have
been. One thing is certain-that
with a more responsible journalism,
a less excitable and better informed
public. as well as less irritable
statesmen across the water the
crisis never would have developed to
threatening proportions.
Ratio squabble Gives Lesson.
IL there Is much to learn from this
incident about the foresight, tact
and restraint with which an inter-
national conference must be con-
Quoted there is also much to be
learned from the episode of the
French naval ratio.
As Mr.. BRAND was leaving the
conference on the opening day an
american journalist asked him
what he thought Of II. The Ameri-
can way, he said: "A l. Americaine."
Ana then he went on to remark
that when the time came France
would do like Mr.. Hughes and talk
In the American way. Weeks went
on and France had no chance to
talk In anybody's way about her
naval ratio. Everybody else but
herself seems to have taken It for
granted that LIS was to be her
proportion. When her turn finally
came, however, she threw out the
demand which we know-ten 49,
0OO-ton capital ships was her word.
The figures looked appalling, pre-
posterous-they produced as have
said, almost panic. Now obvious
ly The panic would have been avoid
ed as far as the public is con-
cerned, II the matter had been kept
In committee where 1t belonged and
where the French intended to keep
IT, Given to the public, 1t stirred
up anger on both sides Of the
water, whipped up suspicion, set all
the busybodies at reading sinister
meanings into the French proposal.
There was no trouble at all when
Mr.. Hughes appealed to Mr.. BRAND
in getting the ratio dropped back to
the LIS first suggested. There
seems to be nothing In the least
alarming about the French desire
to have a larger auxiliary craft
tonnage. That Is, when you get
down to the real facts, there was
nothing sinister militant or unrea~
sonable intended. The French seem
s3nply intent On proving, that they