Waxworks & Whatnots

Steadily the London Naval Conference continued last week to dwindle in news interest. If U. S. citizens had been interested enough to read much about it, or to care much about what they read, they might have been shocked, perhaps unduly alarmed. It is the same with the Chinese Famine. Thousands of people have been starving to death, month after month, and the thousands have been tediously adding up to million after million for so long that few practical U. S. citizens give it a thought. In London the practical proprietors of Mme Tussaud's Waxworks Galleries have made a waxwork conference (see cut). Englishmen thought it a joke last week to say that the real conference was providing "stiff competition" for the waxwork.

Hoover Leadership. In the first few weeks of the Conference, praise was heard for Statesman Stimson's "negative leadership." He had in his pocket the Hoover-MacDonald agreement reached at Rapidan (TIME, Oct. 14). This about covered the Anglo-U. S. naval situation, which was thus "in the bag."

Senator Reed, delegate, was assigned to the chore of negotiating with Ambassador Matsudaira, Japanese delegate. Together they had whipped into shape a tolerably satisfactory naval agreement (TIME, March 31) which the British like and which despatches from Tokyo said last week the Japanese government will reluctantly accept. That too was "in the bag."

But even before the U. S. delegation left Washington, President Hoover had received the French note of Dec. 25, 1929, in which Prime Minister Andre Tardieu fully and frankly laid down the proposition that France cannot in safety reduce her naval armaments unless the Powers will guarantee her safety. Several prominent newsorgans, including the New York World, pointed out at the time that this French position must block the Conference (as it has blocked it for ten weeks at a cost to the U. S. of $300.000). It was suggested that the President request delay, to permit diplomatic exchanges with France before the Conference opened. Fortnight ago the London Times explicitly blamed the failure of the Conference thus far on the double failure of Mr. MacDonald and President Hoover to hold such a preliminary exchange with France. But Mr. Hoover was pursuing a definite vision, a definite policy. It was outlined in full by the Chief U. S. Delegate at the first Conference session thus:

"We are ready to stay here until the problems are solved, until the opportunities are grasped and until we can give to the World an agreement."

"Conference of Nations." Ever since that announcement there has been trouble with the Press (double trouble last week), because for weeks correspondents and editors would not believe that this simple statement was the policy and the whole policy of the U. S. delegation.

Men of vision like President Hoover and Mahatma Gandhi (see p. 24) can act with a stripping away of nonessentials, with a direct, total simplicity. "Negative Leadership" in England, "Non Violence" in India should win, must win if persisted in long enough. Thirty-five months of President Hoover's term are unexpired, and the U. S. delegation costs less to keep going than a single battleship. There might be profound wisdom in allowing the "London Naval Conference" to become a permanent "Conference of Nations." Time and again cynics have said that the only "real" good the League of Nations does is to provide a sort of compulsory club where statesmen who would otherwise never see each other are forced to meet, jostle, rub their rough edges smooth.

Double Trouble. The extra trouble President Hoover and Statesman Stimson had with the Press last week was of their own making. Correspondents of British newsorgans in Washington were told at the State Department in words which had only one meaning that the President did not favor any sort of "consultative" agreement and of course did not favor any type of "security treaty" whatsoever.

The British correspondents put this on the wire. It reached London just after Mr. Stimson had announced (suddenly, at midnight to the Press) that he did favor a special sort of "consultative agreement," IF (the IF more important than all his other words combined) IF this "consultative" whatnot could be drafted in such a way as to have none of the aspects of a "security treaty" pledging armed U. S. aid to France in case of need.

Naturally Mr. Stimson's "IF" was some-what lost in the British shuffle, and next morning London papers said: 1) That Mr. Hoover wanted no sort of whatnot; 2) That Mr. Stimson wanted some sort of whatnot; 3) They drew the conclusion in biggest, blackest headlines that the President and his Secretary of State had disagreed.

Such headlines might have smashed the Conference. Heavy is the blame which cannot be dodged by those responsible. The more truth there is in the subsequent official statement that Mr. Hoover and

Mr. Stimson were in perfect agreement all the time (see p. 19) the more ghastly becomes the blunder of allowing the World Press to get a false impression which could easily have been avoided by simultaneous, identical statements in Washington and London.

"Little White Fib." Newspapers do not like to print statements one day, denials or corrections the next. Indignant was the talk of editor to editor, correspondent to correspondent last week. In Manhattan, focus of major news services, executives compared notes, agreed that little dramas, essentially like the following imaginary one, have been played several times in London in the past ten weeks:

Scene 1: The Ritz.

U. S. Correspondent: Mr. Stimson, was your conversation with Prime Minister Andre Tardieu this morning about Subject A?

Mr. S.: No.

Correspondent: Can you give me some idea what it was about?

Mr. S.: I have answered your first question. I have nothing more to say.

Scene 2: French Delegation Headquarters.

Same U. S. Correspondent: M. Tardieu, was your conversation with Mr. Stimson this morning about Subject A?

M. T.: Certainly, of course!

At an early stage of the Conference, M. Tardieu's actual words to one correspondent were: "But why do you Americans ask me? Why should you believe me? I used to be a newspaperman myself. When I worked for Le Temps we got our information from our own statesmen. We were afraid the other side might answer our question with, shall we say, little white fibs."

Progress. Friday, April 4, 1930. was announced last week as the day when the Conference will sit down for its next plenary session.

P: Chief Italian Delegate Dino Grandi offered "a plan to save the Conference": adjournment for six weeks. He was snubbed.

P: French Delegate Aristide Briand returned beaming and imperturbable from Paris. "The deserter is back," he chuckled. "Allans!" (Some correspondents thought that it was his shrewd "desertion" which moved Mr. Stimson to "save" the Conference by his abrupt midnight statement.)

Widely confused with Mr. Stimson's "consultative" No. 1 whatnot (see above), was a French proposal that John Bull sign a No. 2 whatnot, interpreting Article XVI of the League Covenant as binding John to accept the League Council's "advice" when war threatens.

British Foreign Secretary Arthur Henderson flatly announced, after bickering with M. Briand, that Britain will not sign an interpretation binding her under section 2 of Article XVI, which would give the Council power to order out the British navy and army against a peace-breaking Power.

But Mr. Henderson left a loophole for hope that Britain will sign an interpretation binding her under section 1 of Article

XVI, which would give the Council power only to order Britain to declare an economic boycott against a peace breaker.

Magnificently complex and minutely legalistic seemed this curious French scheme, to which M. Briand clung as next-best to a "security treaty." P: A composition disk in an expensive leather slip case was presented to each delegate by George V last week. The disks, autographed by His Majesty, are records of the King-Emperor's voice as he opened the Conference (TIME, Jan. 27 ). P: Wrote Funnyman Will Rogers in his syndicated article: "... I look for 'em [the delegates] on any boat now. If they can just get out of there before war is declared they will be fortunate. ... It will go down in history as a dressmakers' triumphal conference."

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.