Detroit evening times. (Detroit, Mich) 1921-1958, 1941-04-01
FOLLOWING is the second in.

EOLLONiNO II the second In
i stallment of the address, de
.livered In 1927 by William Ran
dolph Hearst, at Oglethorpe Uni
yersity, Atlanta, Ga. advocatin,
liberal and enlightened co-opera
ton between the United State,
and the British Empire for worIs
progress and peace:
will read few essential ex
tracts from the proposal as ] hav,
made it:
Il think the time is right
to adrocdte the cooperation
OF the English-speakina
peoples Of the 1Oorld to
maintain peace.
II do not mean by this
any 'entangling alliance
"The plan I hare in mind
trould e1clpde considerd-
ton Of India. Egypt and
such subject peoples, and
1eouid simply mean that the
United States. Great Brit
ain. ireland. Canada. Aus
train, NeW Zealand and
South Africa 1rould coop
erote TO insure peace
among themselves and. as
far as possible. TO maintain
the peace Of the lcorld.
ut would not be an Of
fensiGe alliance.
It r0utd mt necessarily
fnrOtre any aggressive act.
1T 1UOuld be an under
standing. an agreement, a
compact to prerent the par
ties to the agreement from
mo KING icGr among them
selues. and TO protect arg
one and al Of the parties 10
the agreement from the
pdrlike dggtcssioHs Of
others"
want to call attention TO ths
fact-by reiterating the statement
that this proposal does not con
template an offensive alliance.
1t does not assert that TIN,
United States must support Eng
land or England support this
United States in any AGGRESSIVE,
act.
II does not provide that we shall
support England in maintaining
her dominion over subject nations
like India: or that she shall sup
port us In maintaining our domln
ion over the Philippines.
IL merely asserts that th'
United States, with Its forty-eight
Engiish-speaking states, and tbs
British Empire, with Its eigh'
Engiish-speaking divisions. Shall
agree 10 maintain peace betwees
themselves. TO promote peace a.
far as Is practicable throughout
the world and unitedly TO protect
themselves from the wariike az
gression OF any other nations.
This proposal has been exten
sively discussed throughout tn,
world and there has not developed
any considerable opposition TO u
from what 1 may call n nationa
point Of view; mean by that
that the opposition where II ha,
developed has been that of a Ger,
tain class rather than that OF an,
particular nation or people.
ERON certain classes and indi
L viduals here ana abroad liz,
following lines of opposition de
veloped:
First: The extreme radicals sp
posed IL because II did not full,
express the internationalism which
Is their theoretical objective:
Second: The very ardent advo
Gates Of the League of Nation,
opposed II because IL did not 2,
as far, from a theoretical point o
view. rs the League of Nations
although I think IL goes farthel
from a practical point Of view:
Third: II was opposed by thos,
who believed that the unity OF nc
ton among English-speaking ma
tons would result In united actor
among other groups of nations u
a way that would provoke wa
rather than eliminate IL:
Fourth: 1t was opposed by
certain group of English Statesmen
who thought that q combination o
this kind with the United State
would endanger Englsnd's rela
Continued on Next Page, Col. s
l. IL