Evening Star Newspaper, December 27, 1936, Page 27

Editorial Page Spec Part 2—8 Pages PARLEY AT B ial Articles UENOS AIRES HELD PRACTICAL FAILURE Torpedoing of Neutrality Pact Deprives Conference of Benefits That Had Been Hoped for. BY CONSTANTINE BROWN. Buenos Aires conference has been, from the practical point of view, a failure. The dele- gates spent the last days of the parley going through the motions of making it the outstanding peace achievement in the last 20 years. There were floods of oratory and every en- deavor will be made to hide from the public the fact that the Buenos Aires parley has been just another confer- ence, with wishes and hopes, but no practical results. There was only one really important principle on which complete agree- ment was essential—the principle of the neutrality of the Americas in the event of another world war. And on that point no agreement could be reached. The other matters on the agenda — inter-American intellectual co-operation, consultation in case of trouble, etc.—are of a platonic and meaningless character. ‘The failure to reach an agreement on the vital question of neutrality has dealt & severe blow to the peace hopes of the administration. As the war clouds are gathering more densely over Europe and Asia, President Roosevelt realizes that if the nations of the old continents were deprived of their sources of raw materials they would find it increasingly difficult to wage another war. This applies in particu- lar to the most belligerent nations— the “have nots” Germany, Italy and Japan. v It is an open secret that Mr. Roose- velt intended to summon a conference with the heads of the fully empowered representatives of the leading world powers to discuss the question of limi- tation of armaments, the best ways and means to prevent a further agres. sion, and, in connection with these, a reduction of tariffs and a more equal distribution of raw materials. It was | a tall order. But it was the only hope | of avoiding another world war. Common Front Needed. In order to force the issue and in- crease the chances of success of such a parley, it was essential that the American continents—the principal source of raw materials for the “have nots”—should present to the rest of the world a common front. Hence, the importance of the neutrality | agreement pledging both continents of | the Western Hemisphere—with the ex. ception of Canada—to apply a finan- | cial and arms export embargo against the belligerent nations. Had the conference met a year earlier, there would have been little opposition from France and Great Britain. In 1935 a European war seemed still only a possibility and not | & probability. The President'’s trip to Buenos Aires aroused Europe’s interest. Special correspondents were rushed to the acene and diplomats were instructed to keep as closely as possible in touch with the developments. And while | officially Prance and Great Britain were wishing the Americans the best | of luck, there was a certain amount of | uneasiness lest Mr. Roosevelt’s neu- | trality plans would be accepted. | ‘War is so close at hand that Great | Britain will need everything Argen- | tina and Brazil and Chile can export. | | ‘There is another angle -to this question. Despite the efforts made by President Roosevelt and the State De- partment during the last three years to change radically the policy of the United States toward the Latin American republics, there still is a strong antagonistic feeling throughout the southern continent against the “Colossus of the North.” For years the people of the United States were considered as a rapacious, greedy people, whose government dispatched warships and Marines whenever their investments were endangered. South American diplomats and political men recognize the new trend and the honesty of Mr. Roosevelt’'s “good neighbor” policy, but it will take some time before the rank and file of the populations in the southern continent can be educated to the idea that the United States seeks to be a disinter- ested friend. To the great majority of the South Americans we still a the “Gringoes.” - The flame of this antagonism— the shouts of “Vivael Presidente” heard at Rio and Buenos Aires meant little—is fanned by the interested European nations whose nationals form the upper classes of the South American countries—British, Span- iards, Germans, Portuguese and Italians. There are no American colonists in any of these countries, and the attachments of the immi- grants to their mother counrty is stronger and lasts longer—sometimes for generations—than in the United States. Effects Are Minimized. To camoufiage the unquestionable defeat of our pan-American neutrality policy, the State Department delegates are endeavoring to minimize its ef- fects. “In substance,” they declare, “the American proposal has been ac- cepted with slight modifications.” The modifications referred to are that the question of neutrality is being left to the discretion of each individual | nation to be dealt with in accordance with its own legislation. It is true that an agreement has been reached regarding pan-American consultation in the following cases: 1, an inter- American war; 2, an international conflagration: 3, a threat to the wel- | fare of the American republics. But consultation between states means mighty little these days. Con- sultation is provided in the Kellogg- Briand pact and in the nine-power pact. Yet the result of such consulta- tions has been less than negative. Mussolini has conquered Ethiopia and the Japanese have taken Manchuria. Purthermore, there can be no com- pulsion” for the American continents to discuss their problems arising from an international conflagration. The summons for a meeting may be issued, but there are a number of ways whereby any of the 21 republics could obstruct a parley. And the chances | are that one or another will do so if interests are involved. locéxl'n‘iclsm is already heard in wul]ly- ington that the conference was poor] nnsdt insufficiently prepared. This ! criticism is Likely to grow louder after | Congress reconvenes in January. Iti is not justified. Few international } gatherings have been prepared with | To Italy and Germany the matter was | of still greater importance. France | was worried lest the neutrality agree- | ment be applied to the aggressor and aggressee alike. And these powers began to work, behind the scenes, in the capitals where they were strongest: The | British in Argentina and Chile; the Germans and the Italians in Brazil, Bolivia, Chile and Argentina: the | FPrench practically everywhere. These Dations, while likely to meet each other as antagonists on the battle- felds of Europe, worked for the | same purpose—to keep the South | American markets open as a source | of supply. Saavedra Aided Europe. Saavedra Lamas, the Argentine Foreign Minister and president of the | conference, was the most important | asset of the European powers in pre- venting the acceptance of the neu- trality plan. The Argentine states- man has just been elected president | of the League of Nations, an honor | which he prizes as much as the Nobel peace prize, bestowed upon him this | year through the efforts of Secretary | Cordell Hull. Mr. Lamas has been as enthusiastic 8 the other Latin Americans over the visit of President Roosevelt to Buenos'Aires. He was louder than the others in his praise of “the great President of the great American sis- ter republic.” He expressed his will ingness to work hard for the purpose of establishing & permanent peace in the Americas, but when the intoxica- tion of speech making was over and the problem of & neutrality agreement came to the fore, he did not hesitate to torpedo it remorselessly. ‘The United States :’dmn“k Am‘:r{- thing impossible of the - oan republics. Mr. Hull proposed that the two continents apply an embargo on credits and on the export of arms and ammunition to the belligerent nations, as provided in the present neutrality law of the United States. Surely, thought the Secretary of State, there could be no serious opposition to such a plan, since none of the other participants is in a position to grant & nickel's worth of credit to any one and not one of the South American greater care. The White House and | the State Department have gone out | of their way to avoid hurting the sen- | sibilities of the South Americans; the representatives of every little republic was treated with as much considera- | tion as if he were representing & major world power. The spade work was | done with a thoroughness heretofore unknown to the State Department. Mr. Roosevelt had set his heart on making the Inter-American Peace| Conference a success. He wanted to show the strife-ridden world that well-meaning people can get together and agree on certain policies to keep | out of war. His task appeared 80, much easier since no American War | problem could have arisen at the Buenos Alres conference. i Failed in Major Purpose. Yet, the conference failed in its major purpose. The psychological factors which prevented our southern neighbors from joining whole-Reart- bloc of neutrals to preserve world | peace had not been taken into consid- | | eration. An effective neutrality policy | could have prevented the European nations from having access to the raw | materials of the Americas. But the State Department overlooked the strong economic and racial tles which | exist between the Old World and the South American continent. President Roosevelt probably feels more keenly than any one else this lack of co-operation. His plans for & world conference to eliminate the im- mediate danger of another conflagra- tion have suffered a serious setback. The neutrality act of 1936, which ex- pires on May 1, 1937, will not be mate- rially changed, since the South Amer- ican countries have decided to maintain their freedom in regard to an em- bargo on war material. It is difficult to conceive how, under the circum- stances, Congress can agree to give the President discretionary powers to declare an embargo whenever he thinks it necessary; neither is it likely that it will place on the em- barga list raw materials, such as ofl, copper, cotton and wheat—which are |18 more important than actual arms and ammunition in another international conflagration—while the other coun- tries will continue to sell to all comers. Whatever efforts the diplomats at BY THE RIGHT HONORABLE H. B. LEES-SMITH, Pormer Postmaster-General of Great ain. NGLAND is ruled not by its King, but by its cabinet. The fabinet members themselves have always been well aware of this fact; but the immense defer- ence paid to the King gave an im- pression to the world in general that he still retained the supreme authority. Now the world has suddenly realized that even so apparently private s question as & King’s choice of a wife is a matter for cabinet approval. Ours is a constitutional monarchy; acts of state are carried through the King’s name, but most of them are invalid unless they are countersigned by a cabinet minister. On all matters of state—even his marriage—the King can act only upon the advice of the cabinet. The objections of the cabi- net to Edward’s marriage with Mrs. Simpson were not due to the fact that she is an American or a commoner, |but_the attitude of this country and the dominions to her divorces, which raise awkward problems for one who is not only King but head of the Chureh of England. ‘Who, then, are these cabinet min- isters? How are they chosen? What are their duties in directing the course of the British ship of state? things I shall endeavor to make clear. | Election Sporting Event. As soon as an English general elec- tion has brought about the defeat of the party in power, the cabinet-mak- ing process commences. At dinner tables throughout the land guesses, prophecies and arguments begin as to be the leader of the party that just won the battle; but no one predict who is going to be hi colleagues in the cabinet, or has can is 20 what posts they will get. As a matter of t same spirit as for the Derby. Meanwhile, the prime minister is in constant touch with the King. At last those whom he has selected for the cabinet receive a message that he would like to see them at his private residence at a certain time. They go; and when they enter his study they |have not any notion whether they will come out secretary for war, min- ister of labor, secretary for India, first lord of the admiralty, minister of edu- cation or any of a dozen different of- ledly in Mr. Roosevelt’s plans for Fy ’neu. Whatever it is, from the mo- ment that they close his door they are in supreme command of that depart- ment and must answer for it to Parlia- ment and the nation. Position Not Certain. A cabinet minister is by no means sure that he will be sent to a depart- ment of which he has any previous knowledge. An old political hand once gave me a Diece of sound advice—“A department should be the specialist who has known its work for the whole of his life. But the control of a state ‘These | 'EDITORIAL SECTION he & Britain’s Real Rulers Cabinet Members Power in Realm—Their Duties as Compared to American Cabinet. been raised in his correspondence, or in the previous days’ sittings of Parlia- ment or in the press. His conversa- tions are naturally confined to the handful who are right at the top of | the department.” The civil service | consists of tens of thousands of of- ficials, but only a few dozen of them who will become members of the group i ever acquire a speaking acquaintance that will control Great Britain during | with a cabinet minister. He confines the coming regime. The prime min- | policy ister is a certainty—he naturally will | which he alone can decide, and if he himself to the major issues of attempts to enter into the minutise of his department he will certainly fail in his higher responsibilities. A very old minister summed up his duty in the words, “My business is not to | work my department, but to see that 1t is worked.” In my own experience at the head of two departments, one of which contained over 200,000 officers, the | greatest number with whom I had any habitual contact was about 20. At 11 o'clock the minister is prob- ably due at a cabinet meeting. He | walks over from his office to No. 10 Downing street and will arrive there well in time, for unpunctuality of even & few seconds at cabinet meetings is an unpardonable offense. The cabinet sits at a long oblong table; nine minis- ters sit at each of the long sides, an two at each of the short sides. prime minister sits in the middle one of the long sides in an armcl with an uncomfortably hot fire at back in Winter. The room on the great parade ground of t. James 3 front of them, while the words of com- TREATY WITH PANAMA TO PROMOTE HARMONY Regime of Law and Reciprocity to Be _Substituted for One of Force and Imposition. . BY GASTON NERVAL. governing the relations of that country with. -the United Panama accepted the sacrifices in- i Four powerful members of the British cabinet. Left to right: Anthony Eden, Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin and Sir Samuel Hoare. Lowerz Sir John Simon. —A. P.and Wide World Photos. of the cabinet room and which con- sists solely of books presented by cabi- net ministers. There are few cabinet | ministers who have not in their time been authors, so that most of them present their own books and leave them as mementoes in the room where they have spent so many fateful hours. I am, of course, prevented by my oath of secrecy from going far into the details gf cabthet meetings. A mul- titude of questions arising all over the empire have to be decided within about two hours, and not a second can | be wasted. Speeches are short, with | no “frills;” any one who spoke for more than five minutes would be regarded as a bore, Ministers who have no new point to make do not speak for the mere purpose of giving their opinion. On each subject proba- bly only four or five ministers take part; the rest merely indicate whether they agree with them or not. At the end the prime minister interprets the general sense of the Cabinet and it is only on the rarest occasions that s formal vote is taken. I have never known any meetings so efficiently con- ducted as those of the cabinet, and it is only on account of this that the | innumerable questions raised week by | week in the government of the British Empire can be answered in a couple | of hours by a single body of men. Hurries To Luncheon. As s00n as the cabinet meeting has i ended the minister will hurry to a luncheon engagement. Unlike Wash- | ington, “London is a great commercial | city, and & host of socleties, institu- tions and official bodies have their , | annual meetings in London, accom- panied by a luncheon or a dinner. All of them aim at securing a cabinet member to speak, and our minister plying to the toast of “His Majesty’s | cabinet official is not a member of Congress and does not sit in either the Senate or the House of Representa- tives. In England he is a member of Parliament, usually of the House of Commons, and has to spend from soon after lunch until 11, 12, 1, 3 or 3 o'clock in the morning in the House. Our minister arrives in the House of Commons at a quarter to 3 for ques- tion hour. If ever any of my readers it g E i ¢ government department have a wholesome respect for the par- Hamentay question, for & minister who “let down” because the questions something for which I 41 ; E i | ing stations. I have heard of no chain | ‘| are 30 much more economical and ef- | will find himself at one of them, re- | | safeguarded in the possession of that BUSINESS CHANGES SHOW ] INDIVIDUALISM IS LOSING System as Whole Ca Sacrifices in Part, Under Various Legislation Forms. security. law which goes into effect next month, partly as & nesses having eight or more employes and businesses having less than eight. In such States businesses having less than eight employes pay only the tax to provide old-age insurance, and do not pay the tax for unemployment in- surance. Businesses having no em- ployees, that is, one-man businesses, pay neither the old-age tax nor the unemployment one. The difference, for example, be- tween & great oil corporation and a one-man fiiling station is that the corporation will ultimately pay 6 per cent of its payroll as a social security tax, while the one-man filling sta- tion pays no social security tax at all. The difference (in some States) be- tween a business having eight em- the former will pay 6 per cent, while the latter will pay only 3. Where there is competition between a business hav- ing more than eight employes and one having seven or a one-man business, the margin of taxation running against the larger business may be a material advahtage to the small business and 8 corresponding disadvantage to the large one. Changes in Corporations. Some large corporations, taking ac- count of this new tax (and also of certain other legislation), are mate- | rially changing the basis upon which | they do business. Some businesses which in part or in whole are on a “chain” basis, such as large oil com- panies that own widespread filling stations, are going out of the retail business. They are selling their filling | stations to the who formerly op- erated them as employes. It may be that the social security law alone would not have brought this change about. But previously and comparatively recently about | 22 States have enacted laws, directly | aimed to break up the “chain” form | 1 & year on one store up to| year on each store above 50 | under one ownership. This legislation | is consciously intended to break up “chain” system, to bring -bout’ individual ownership of various kinds | of retail business. | These laws are having a considera- | ble effect. Some oil corporations have actually begun selling their local fill- | grocery system which is actually sell- inz. Apparently the grocery chains| ficiently mamaged that they can pay | the discriminating taxes and still sur- | vive. But grocery chains, because of | the law, follow a policy of not adding to their number. The whole result is | that the area of business covered by | large corporations is diminishing; | the area of small, independent owner- | ship is increasing. In the increase 6f small, independ- | | ent business, as against large cor- | porate business-of the chain type, Uui some light for the many persons now | considering the future of the Repub- | lican party. For the moment let us consider the as the conservative party; conservative, that is, in a pas- ticular sense—conservative in the “‘preserve capitalism.” But capitalism, so-called, is merely a phase of indi- vidualism. The thesis of American conserva- tives, properly stated, is that they wish to preserve individuslism as against State collectivism, as against State socialism. In an individualist society, such as America has been, one right of the individual is to earn money, to save some of it, to acquire property with the savings, and to be property. This latter is caj s capitalism, thus seen, is merely of individualism. 8 society thus conceived the number of individual own- servative point of view, desirable. In the New Deal there are at least two such tendencies. Just what the New Deal is is not easy to say; for the New Deal as & whole contains some features pointing toward collec- tivism, other features pointing toward restoration of American individualism to & more healthy basis. Some parts n Be Saved Only by 3 80. Much of the public thinks so. In California recently a proposal to enact & discriminating tax against chain stores was deféhted in a popu- lar referendum; it lost in 57 oyt of the State’s 58 counties, with the agricule tural regions going against it with especial strength. The California vot- ers, after abundant debate, seem to have concluded that they prefer the chains. It may be also that the independent owner of a filling station, who was formerly an employe of a chain, will be less comfortable in his new status than in his old one. Not every man is equipped to be a busipess man “on his own.” Some of those newly transe ferred to that status may find it irke some to meet even a small pay roll on Saturday night, to borrow from the bank and repay the loan, to endure periods in which income does not come up to outgo, to look after the wearying details which, in a chain, are system- tized. No doubt some of those who re now changing from employed man- ager of a filling station to independent owner of it will at times look back with regret to their former status. But regardless of whether small own= ership is less efficient in the economie and even the social sense, it is never- theless desirable from the standpoint of saving America for individualism. 1f individualism in America is in dan- ger, if it is necessary for the larger ployes and one having seven is that gowners of property to make some con- cessions in order to save the system, then here would seem to be a good place to make one. The whole of the battle to save jn- dividualism is, at this moment, a lok- ing one. Any one who doubts that must be blind to what is going on in America and the world. He must have failed to see the significance of the recent election. That election cannot be blindly resisted. It must be ac- cepted as the present will of a great majority of the American people. Whether “Mr. Dooley” was right or not, whether the Supreme Court fol- lows the election returns or not, it is certain business mygt follow them. It is universally conceded that the indi~ vidualist system must endure some modification. The fight to preserve it is a losing war in the sense that the system can only be saved by giving up some parts of it as it now exists. If the war between individualism and collectivism were conducted by one general supreme in command, he would conclude that his military strate egy must be that of the rear-guard fight. He would look over the fleld as a whole, and decide thst in order to .| win the war he must lose some hate tles. To try to win every battle and skirmish, to yield nothing, would be to invite loss of all. Such a general might readily decide that preservation of the chain system in all its recent size is one battle which he chooses to lose, or at least not to fight. There are battles much more important to win, battles wiich will be either indi- vidualism’s Gettysburg or its Water- loo. Possibly the most crucial one is to prevent disastrous inflation—for reasons not convenient to set down in this limited space. To win the major battle for individualism, it may be de~ sirable to lose some 0T ones. The t situation does not mean, and the New Deal legislation does not mean, that the whole chain idea will be extinguished. Nothing in the exist- ing New Deal legislation necessarily goes that far. Mgre than half the States have refrained from adopting discriminatory legislation against the chains, although the agitation for such laws has gone on for some years. Some States which have tried the ex- Pperiment may come later to feel that the chain system is preferable—there is a large body of consumer sentiment which feels that way. At a later time it may be possible to debate the issue solely on its economic and social merits. In_some calmer future we may be*able’to decide on the basis of economic evolution, Tregardless of Ppolitics. But s0 long as the individualist con- ception of society is in danger in America, so long as there is a large body of opinion or emotion which op- poses big business on the ground of bignéss—and an even more formidae able body of sentiment which says, in effect, “let us have more and more bigness and then let the Gowernment take it over”—so long as these condi- tions exist, it is certainly not prudent for any political party or other group trying to save individualism- from ex- tinction to make a stubborn stand on this one point. . (Copyright, 1836.) Layrence of Arabia Saw 90-M.P.H. Boats LONDON (#). — Torpedo = carrying speedboats, which could tear over the water at 70 to-90 miles an hour, were one of the last dreams of that ro- mantic figure, Lawrence of Arsbia (Aircraftsman T. E. Shaw), it has just been revealed here. Lawrence was working on designs for such a craft when he was killed in s motor-cycling accident at Wool, Dorset (May 19, 1935). : His collaborater, Edward Spurr, young Bradford engineer, continued with the designing work and the ves~ sel is now stated to be ready for building. ‘The speedboat is of revolutionary type, said Spurr, and could be fitted ‘to carry four torpedo tubes or to 200 men at a speed of more than 70 miles an hour. g Spurr said with Lawrence he made