World Affairs Institute

WHAT WILL GREAT BRITAIN SAY?Source: Advocate of Peace through Justice, Vol. 87, No. 7 (JULY, 1925), p. 386Published by: World Affairs InstituteStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20660961 .

Accessed: 15/06/2014 14:03

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

World Affairs Institute and Heldref Publications are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extendaccess to Advocate of Peace through Justice.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.86 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 14:03:09 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

386 ADVOCATE OF PEACE July

Indeed, most of the troubles between na

tions arise over empty phrases. It would

greatly lessen the causes of international ill-will were empty phrases relieved of their emptiness. International behavior needs definition. As recently said by David

Jayne Hill, "The more profoundly the

subject is considered, the more clear it be comes that international action should be controlled by rules previously agreed upon and solemnly accepted. The sum of these rules is what we mean by 'international law/" Evidently our present relations with Mexico clearly indicate an absence of "rules previously agreed upon and sol

emnly accepted." Had there been such

rules, the present situation need not have arisen. La Prensa (New York), refer

ring to this matter, says: "Now, the one

solution to this verbal war would seem to

be a return to the normal ways of doing

things. Mexico has an ambassador in

Washington, and the United States has one in Mexico. They should be the means

of communication for the two govern ments." We agree with this view. These

agencies of government exist for such business. But there has not appeared re

cently any clearer demonstration of the

need of an extension of the principles of

international law than in these recent

unhappy communications between the

United States and Mexico.

WHAT WILL GREAT BRITAIN SAY? k S WE fare forth to get a settlement of

jljL onr claims abroad, one naturally wonders what Great Britain may be think

ing. It is reasonable that we should wish

to hear from our debtors?France, Italy,

Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Greece, Jugo

slavia, Eumania, Esthonia, Latvia, Eussia.

We have sent identical notes to all of these

except Eussia, asking for a solution of

the debt question. We have suggested to

France that she send a commission to

America to go over the matter. Our gov

ernment is quite insistent upon the point that whatever is done should be done in

Washington. It is not strange that a

creditor should expect his debtor to come

to him. In all fairness, also, it is just to remark that it is time these debtors did

something about our claims. But most of these our debtors are

debtors also to Great Britain. Great Britain has received nothing from her

debtors; but, as a debtor nation herself, she is paying her bills. Why should Great Britain pay her bills and the other debtors be let off? Since Britain has funded her debt and is paying, she must wonder at our leniency toward the other debtors.

But there is another difficulty involved. It is suggested in certain quarters that we fund the French debt to us on terms more favorable than those accorded by our government to Great Britain. There are reasons why this should be done. If such an arrangement were made, however, it would be somewhat in the nature of a

penalty upon Great Britain for being the first to pay up. If we arrange with France or Italy, for example, to pay us

interest or capital, without any reference to the claims of Great Britain, we might be well within our rights; if we wish to

give preferential terms to other debtors

than Great Britain, it is in a sense our

own business. But in such a case it would

be quite natural for Britain to take the

ground, if any payment is made by her

debtors to the United States, that payment shall also be made to Great Britain at

the same time and in the same propor tion. Furthermore, Great Britain could not be expected to look with complacency upon one of her debtors granting priority treatment to another creditor, even if that creditor be the United States. In our

steps toward settlement with our debtors we cannot, of course, ignore the one who is paying on account.

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.86 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 14:03:09 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions