SIR A. BALFOUR.

Hokitika Guardian, 11 September 1922, Page 1

SIR A. BALFOUR.

A SPIRITED DEFENCE, OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS. AUSTRALIAN AND N.Z. CABLE ASSOCIATION. LONDON, Sept 8. The Australian Press Association’s Geneva correspondent says Sir A. Balfour spoke for an hour in defence of the League’s activties in the past, in explanation of the limitations of the present and in advocacy of increased powers for the future. Referring to Lord Cecil’s criticism of the League’s helplessness in the presence of war in the Near Eftst, and his demand that if tlio League is to justify its existence it must in future he all or nothing, Sir A. Balfour said the' Council was constitutionally incapable of intervening. Furthermore, the League possesses neither money, ships or men. Nevertheless it has an increasing moral influence. He hoped the material authority would develop hy evolutionary processes. Meanwhile the League must content itself wi its moral influence to promote peace. The founders of the League were concerned only in proserving peace, which they imagined was established, not in winding up a war of which the present Near East conflict was practically a contin nation. They ovon thought they were removing tile debris of the war and rearranging the map of Europe in conformity with .the wishes of tlie population, not any of statesmen or publicists of the world. They then foresaw tho calainitious struggle now proceeding in the Near East. The League was not armed with machinery capable of ending tho great war, of which the struggle now proceeding was probably the last epinode. It was not to deal % ,\vitli that kind of crisis 'that the Longue was created, even re garding the functions therewith tho League was endowed. The League was not efficiently equipped, its authority was now greater than before, hut was till miserably equipped owing to tho mere j’want of money, which prevented the doing of many things, it wished to do, and was constitutionally authorised to do. Lard Cecil seemed to think tho League should assume national obligations, and should supersede Foreign Offices and War Offices. Ho warned Lord Cecil and similar critics that if the League were even to reach that height, it must he by slow stages, remodelling tho machinery, building achievement upon achievement and gaining increased confidence. Tt would he madness to act prematurely. They would rush into n catastrophe if they used nn imperfect instrument which broke in their hands. It would ruin the League. Referring to Snrrc, Sir A. Ballou:' said the League’s efforts hud been greatly liam.mvd hy maii; min propaganda in the district, by people who wero more concerned in discrediting' the Government than in securing good Government. The propaganda oven extended to the League at , Geneva. The propagandists refused to avail themselves ol the machinery which entitled them to secure an mvostigaton of alleged grievances by the Council of the League, hut preferred an insidious campaign from house to house There was no possibility ot examining or refuting tho allegations. Referring to Dr Nansen’s criticism ot the League’s inactivity during the Russian famine and plague, Sir A. Balfour stated that everybody, includ}n«r the League iGovernments and charitable public, had been hampered by the knowledge that contributions would lie administered hy the Russian Government in whom nobody had confidence. Tho Soviet had command oi gold which it c ould apply to the relief of • its own people. He admitted something must be done with the Russian plague, which menaced Europe. Mr Lloyd George had done everything possible and would have done more, but famine and plague coincided with the great coal strike in Britain, which cost the nation two hundred millions. It was impossible then to foresee the ultimate development ol the strike. Since then the Government had contributed £250,090 sterling and the British public have voluntarily subscribed more than any other 'nation. The Government furthermore offered to subscribe £IOO,(KK if tho combined nations of the world agreed to contribute £200,009.