PEACE CONFERENCE

Gisborne Times, Volume XXV, Issue 2119, 29 June 1907, Page 2

PEACE CONFERENCE

United Press Association —Copyright THE HAGUE, June 27. Owing to tlio ))ossibility of attaching a soli-propolling torpedo to a fißliing boat or other small craft, which could approach a warship unsuspected, Sir E. M. Batov, the British representative at the Peace Conference, proposed to restrict the employment of torpedoes to recognised warships. The proposal is analogous to the prohibition of .civilian combatants without uniform in lund warBritain proposed to abolish contraband of war, this owing to the divergencies relating to the definition of contraband and the friction arising out of the right of search. Germany wished to exempt mail steamers from the delay involved in search. • Britain’s and Germany s draft proposals regarding the Prize Courts differ materially. Germany proxies a tribunal constituted in war time, the members being practically nominated by the two belligerents; Britain proposes a court of .export jurists and consuls to be established ill peace | time on a neutral basis. Received Juno 29, 0.22 a.m. THE HAGUE, June 28. An American proposal at the Peace Convention is regarding the Drago Doctrine which opposes the employment of force for the recovery of debts due under contracts between individuals and States until arbitration fixes the amount due and respite for payment. »

DISARMAMENT. 1 I 1 AN INTERESTING PAPER. j It is characteristic of the slipshod I pliaraseology of the day (writs Mr. I \V. A. Lloyd, lion, secretary of the I Wellington branch of the Intcrnation- I al Arbitration and Peace Association) I that disarmament does not mean a I movement in favour of disarming, but I merely limitation of armament on the I basis of a common understanding be I tween the Powers of Europe. Such limitation, as ail abstract proposition, I has the unqualified suport of majority of European statesmen. Wheth- 1 er it comes within the bounds of l'rac- I tical politics, is a question on which a great divergence of opinion exists. I It is significant of the weakness oi I the opposition that the movement lias never been opposed from the moral I and ethical standpoint. . Opponents have concentrated their efforts on I two things only: Desirability and practicability. , I Those who oppose limitation, be I cause present conditions compel huge 1 armaments, are under the rieccessivy I of proving that such conditions are | noccessarily ~«rmanent, otherwise the contention has no meaning. Now, we may at once admit that present | conditions render huge armaments j imoeratively necessary as a guarantee* of national sucurity. Nobody proposes limitation under existing conditions. To do so would he tantamount to advocating national suicide Advocates of limitation are hardly angels—not yet, anyhow whatever j their future state might be—and they are unlikely to sacrifice the nation to an ideal, however beautiful. The point of attack is—not the armaments themselves, but the conditions which render them necessary, and not even the most bellicose individual would maintain that wo should keep our navy and army up to their present standard if there was no necessity for so doing. PRACTICABILITY. The nations are sending to Ihe Hague their most iepresentative men. It is not incumbent on those favouring limitatipii to formulate a scheme for attainment of the end desired. That it is the business of the able jurisconsults who compose the conference, and they bring to tlieir task the brightest intellects of their age and civilisation. . Among certain opponents of limitation there is a tendency to charge its advocates with disloyalty. Perhaps the charge is not often made openly, but it is none the less implied in some of the attacks on the movement, as any one who lias discussed the matter with the man in the street must know. No proof is offered in support of such a serious allegation, and those who make the charge are either lamentably ignorant of the 1 question,. or are guilty of deliberate misrepresentation. Why love of one’s own country should mean hatred of the other fellow’s lias never been explained, nor is ever likely to be. As reasonable to maintain that love of one’s own family implied the necessity of pursuing the man next door ' with a gun. PUBLIC OPINION.

What are some of the means by which it is proposed to alter present conditions? It is proposed to create a healthy public opinion on the matter of war, by educating the people on the different aspects of the question. Once get a majority of those who have to pay the piper to see, not merely the inhumanity of war, and its utt'er barbarity, but its futility, and the rest is plain sailing. For the education of the people, and tlis creation of a sane public opinion on the subject of war, the press is far and away the most potent instrument!. It is pleasing to reflect that its attitude on this great question has been worthy of its highest traditions. Even where doubtful of the jiracticability of limitation, it lias been almost uniformly sympathic. How much the movement' owes to this attiitude, it is impossible to say, but it is certain nothing like present progress would have been possible but for the press support. So far as the Church is concerned, and the word is used in its wider applicatjgn and official sense, its attitude, v, on the whole, has been pathetically disappointing. It is somewhat difficult to speak plainly on this phase of the subject. The regrettable divisions between the various demonatioiis render combined action in any ono direction almost impossible. One despairs of common action on the basis of common agreements, owing to each being so busy discovering new disagreements, and accentuating the importance of the old ones. It must not be imagined the Church has ever opposed limitation; indeed, it could hardly do that, but its attitude is decidedly lukewarm. The present is a magnificent opportunity to show that we still hold to the principles of the Magna Cliarta or Christendom, the Sermon on the Mount. In New Zealand, at any rate, whatever may be true else-

where, the Church has shown herself sympathic towards the movement. Still, the Church ought to lead, in this as in everything else which makes for the uplifting of humanity. Happily, there are those in every demoninat'ion who are worthy of their high calling, and it is to them we must look for help in the present crusade. THE CONFERENCE.

The objective of the conference should meet with the earnest; approval of all who desire the welfare of humanity. The conference is the visible expression of a noble ideal. It-is the result of years of toil on the parti of those who beleived passionately in the ultimate triumph of good over all the powers of evil. But if the Church desires to he left alone in the process of committing slow suicide, then she must not complain if she has neither jiart nor lot in the glorious work of the future. EXPENSE. No article on disarmament would bo complete without reference to the financial burden entailed by the maintenance of armies and navies. To take Europe as an example: The war budget of Eurppe in 1899 was approximately, 205 millions sterling. lii 1906 the sum had risen to about 28C millions. This is an increase of 74 millions, equal to 26 per cent. Including the increase in the New World and Asia, mankind is paying something like 120 millions more for defence than eight years ago, an annuJr increase of 15 millions. One hundred and twenty millions per annum is equivalent to 4 per cent, on a capital sum of £3,000,000,000. In other, words the equal of a new debt of 3000 millions lias been placed on the shoulders of the world’s toilers! And we talk about trade depression, about the unemployed, and the impossibility in Europe of finding the money for ohl age pensions. Is there any wonder? The marvel is we have borne the burden so long. That this kind of thing cannot go on indefinitely is generally admitted. So that, after all, whether we favour limitation now, or whether we do not, we have to acquiesce in limitation at the point financial exhaustion. Consequently. the only queston is, shall we cry “Haiti” now, or let things slide until forced to stop owing to having, reached tlig limit of our financial tether. AVAR.

AVar stands self-condemmed as the supreme barbarism. It is monstrous anachronism in an allegedly civilised state of society. It destroys respect for the moral law, creates a false code of honor, and debases all who have anything to do with it. ItOutrages those humanitarian ' principles which should regulate our conduct towards each other, engendering “envy, hatred, malice and all uncharitableness” . towards those who share with us the burden common to iife. No compromise is possible. War. must be stripped of the false glamour which surrounds it. and exposed in all its hideous nakedness. Then men and women will shrink from the nameless horror ia terror a-W disgust.