LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

Hokitika Guardian, 6 September 1924, Page 3

LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

[ R F.UTEIt9 TELEO lIAMS.]

DISARMAMENT CONTROVERSY

GENEVA, September I

.Mr Charlton was tin.' third speaker at the disarmament debate, following the Polish Foreign .Minister in the afternoon. The speeches were almost wholly derated to pressing the claim for an early disarmament < onlereneo, lie considering, unlike Mr .MacDonald, that the psychological moment had arrived, and that such a eonterenee would tend to establish mole cordial relations between the nations and would also bring about a spirit of sweet reasonable •less. The prospe. t or rebel Irom the heavy harden of armaments would induce all to come within the jurisdiction of the League. Mr Charlton disagreed with Mr MacDonald’s method of convoking a conference, lie proposed that the League should invite all the nations including Germany. Turkey and Russia without delay. They must not procrastinate. Otherwise it would be the beginning of the end. If something were lint done now the public, which want, disarmament, would lose confidence in the League, amt the world would clip back into war in a lew .veins. the London Pact bad relieved tin- posit inn considerably so tar as I'ranee and other nations wide concerned. Fra lire’s anxiety regarding security would be removed if a general reduction of armaments wore agreed it|on, leaving individual disputes to be settled by arbitration, or by any other method that niav he devised.

FRENCH CRITICISM. PARIS. September

Mr 11. Mae Donald's Geneva speech is being severely criticised in inlluential circles in Krai ice. especially Mr .MacDonald's referent os to the difliculty of apportioning the blame in the cjtsc.s of agression, wliicli arc* interpreted as having to the origin of the late war. It is feared these references will encourage Germany in her effort to secure the revision of the Clause in the Versailles’ Treaty blaming her as the cause of the war. “I.c Temps” sums tip Mr MacDonald's speech as ‘‘disarmament without guarantee.” and ‘‘arbitration without military sanctions.”

FRENCH PREMIER'S STAND. LONDON, September ">.

The “Daily Telegraph” Geneva correspondent says: Mr MacDonald's speech at Geneva met-with a mixed reception, owing to its somewhat negative conclusion. It is understood that .M. Harriot is urging Mr MacDonald to make a second speech before returning to London, clearing up several points notably Mr MacDonald's allusion to the impossibility of designating the aggressor in the Great War, until after of) years. Air MacDonald, alter his sl>eech, assured M. Herriot that he did not intend the allusion to cover Germany s responsibility. AT. ITerriol's speech today will deal with Germany's admission to the League, which. AI. Ilerriot contends, must not occasion any exceptional procedure, hut must he strictly in accordance with the Covenant. He will argue that the question of disarmament, the Pact of Mutual Assistance and Arbitration cannot he disassociated, and that France’s treaties with Czecho-Slovakia and other States are to be regarded as the strongest defence of European pence. THE AAI ERIC AN VIEW. WASHINGTON. September I. An Administration spokesman, in authoritatively utliuing its attitude regarding Alt' Ma.-Ihumid's land disarmament proposal at Genenv, declared that the United States Government, considers this question as primarily a European one. adding that, if the European nations euuld, as a preliminary, reach an agreeable basis, a roufcrelioo would have a definite promise of success. The United States would then willingly assist, h.v participating in a similar way t-o wluvt she did at the ILoudon Confercme. The S| mkepuinin also pointed out that the Western nations consider naval disarmament as paramount tuul land (lisiLriuament as secondary, because none of them maintains a large standing army. 'Hie Spokesman hinted that U.S. Secretary Hughes, during his recent European visit, informally discussed this problem with Af. Herriot and Air AfaeDonald, all agreeing that any ultimate settlement will revolve round the ability of tlie British and French to efleet a practical limitation which will yet retain adequate,security for peace.