Letter from Seán Murphy to Seán Lester (Dublin) enclosing a copy of speech by Ernest Blythe to the Ninth Assembly of the League of Nations

Dear Seán,

I enclose herewith a list of people¹ who have accepted our invitation to dinner on Wednesday evening next the 12th instant at the Htel de la Paix: the Vice-President is anxious that you should arrange to have a notice in the Dublin Press giving the persons on the list as being present. Bernard Shaw of course is a great catch and quite a lot of people were anxious to get invitations as Shaw has refused all other invitations.

I also enclose copy of the speech which Mr. Blythe delivered at the Assembly this morning. As I am writing this immediately after its delivery it is hard to say what the general impression of it is. It appeared to be well received though of course some of the delegations did not enjoy reference to the Economic Conference, the Secretariat, and the disarmament, others who share the same views were very pleased.

We are discussing the question of the Ministers at Paris and Berlin with the Canadians tomorrow. I will let you know the result of the conversation immediately. I will remember to send the dispatch through the department, but as Harding knows I am here I will have to reply to him direct. I will send you a copy.

 Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen

I do not intend to take up the time of the Assembly with an attempt to survey the excellent work which is being done in many directions by the League and its various organisations. The main matters to which I wish to address myself are the policy in relation to tariffs that emerged from the Economic Conference and the steps that are being taken for the prevention of war. Before entering on these topics however I should like to call attention to certain aspects of what might be called the internal politics of the League.

The action which it was necessary to take last week with reference to the re-eligibility of the elected members of the Council shows that a satisfactory method of filling the non-permanent seats has not yet been found. Only one conclusion can be drawn from the decisive vote of the Assembly on Friday, and that is that the present rules are unsuitable. For it is useless to close our eyes to the probability that fresh demands for suspending the ordinary regulations will be made in coming years. No cogent reason can be adduced for limiting exceptional measures to the present session. The continuation of a state of affairs in which the normal procedure is likely in one way or another to be set aside year after year can only result in causing general dissatisfaction. In the opinion of my Government, the difficulties which have been or are likely to be encountered would be overcome if elections to the Council were conducted in accordance with the system of proportional representation known as that of the single transferable vote. It would then be unnecessary to have any provision aimed against the election of a country for two successive terms. Due representation of geographical and other groups would be secured without even an informal allocation of seats and no nation could have a grievance if it failed to secure election. The objections usually urged against this system of election by proportional representation do not apply to its use in an Assembly like this where little more than fifty votes have to be cast. If the League is not prepared to adopt proportional representation there is a grave danger that the action taken last week on the recommendation of the bureau of the Assembly will lead ultimately to our being thrown back into the position of having a Council on which all seats are in practice permanent.

So far as the administration of the League is concerned I should like to express agreement with the views advanced by the delegate for Norway. In my opinion great care should be taken by the Secretary General and the Council to see that nothing is done to lend colour to the view that certain States have a prescriptive right to particular posts in the Secretariat. It is to be hoped that a time will come when officers of the League will be appointed and promoted solely on their personal merits and qualifications without reference to any question of nationality. At present, however, we must recognise that such a thing is not possible. National jealousies and suspicions are still too strong. I think, however, that the time has arrived when precautions should be deliberately taken to ensure that the international character and outlook of the Civil Service of the League and its undivided loyalty to this great international organisation will be maintained. I venture to suggest one method which, though it might be open to some objection, would at least be an improvement on what appears to be the present practice. I think it should be a rule that when a higher official of the League quits its service he should always be replaced by the citizen of some other country. Such a procedure would not prevent any country from having approximately the same number of its nationals on the Secretariat as at present. But it would prevent any member of the staff from thinking or having it thought that the office which he held was in the gift of his own Government. It would also tend to increase the efficiency of the Secretariat by causing a greater number of candidates to be considered on the occurrence of a vacancy than is the case at present, and it would ensure that the discretion of the Secretary General would not be hampered by the growth of a tradition which would give a preponderating importance to national claims.

I do not agree with the Speaker who, on Thursday last, suggested that it was improper, or perhaps dangerous, for the League to deal in any way with the complex problem of Customs Tariffs. It is obviously not enough that the League should strive to bring about the reductions of armaments and to prevent war when disputes or ill feelings have arisen which involve a danger of war. It must also endeavour to dissuade nations from the adoption of policies which are likely to produce exasperation or a sense of injury among their neighbours. It seems to us, therefore, that the work which has been begun by the Economic Conference and the Economic Committee of the League of Nations is work which ought to be welcomed and should receive the assistance of all countries so long as it is not carried to unreasonable lengths and so long as it is clear that it is not intended to operate so as to prevent the development of countries which historical circumstances have left economically backward. It is unfortunate that the recommendation of the Economic Conference in regard to tariffs should have been so worded so as to call upon countries which have low tariffs, equally with the countries which have excessively high tariffs, to move in the direction of a reduction. Such a recommendation is unacceptable to my country, as well as to many others, and seems to indicate that the conference did not sufficiently bear in mind the difference in the needs of the countries which have reached a high stage of development and the needs of the countries which are at the beginning of their industrial growth. In the opinion of my Government the attention of the League of Nations and of the Economic Committee which it has created ought to be directed towards the reduction of any tariffs, the object of which is not solely the economic development of the countries by which they are imposed, that is to say, it ought to try to persuade the countries concerned to abandon what are called bargaining tariffs, as well as retaliatory tariffs, and tariffs which have a political object; but when a country imposes tariffs with the sole purpose of building up industries which it believes itself well adapted to carry on, the League of Nations ought not to run the risk of creating in that country the opinion that it desires the present geographical distribution of industry to become stereotyped. We cannot accept the view which, although it is not set out in the report, appears to have animated many of the speakers at the Economic Conference, that tariffs should be no higher than revenue requirements demand, that by a process of rationalisation the manufacturing industries of the world should be forced to concentrate into a few favoured countries and that other countries should be left dependent on the basic industry of agriculture, the depression of which has been deplored without the serious suggestion of any remedy. The Irish Free State has a low tariff and admits many important classes of manufactured goods free of tax, but it does not regard itself as an indifferent member of the League of Nations because it is likely not to reduce, but to increase its tariffs.

In connection with the problem of World Peace, there are two factors which are calculated to give us comfort. In the first place, the feeling in this Assembly is, as has already been pointed out, more optimistic than in many of its predecessors and in the second place, it seems likely that the Paris Pact will be accepted by practically all the countries of the world. This pact is of signal importance in relation to the primary task of the League, namely the preservation of international peace and the establishment of a rule of order and justice among nations. If it had been proposed at a juncture, when pessimism was in the ascendant, the prospects of its success would have been far less favourable. Skill and wisdom have been shown in choosing the right moment for action.

With the signature of the Kellogg Pact and its general ratification, it becomes the law of civilised society that resort to war is an outrage, that a State has no more right than a private individual to attack and kill its neighbours. Members of the Assembly will not attempt to minimise the importance of the Pact because it was formulated by the Government of a Great Country which has declined to enter the League. I am sure that we all welcome this great and impressive effort to save humanity from a possible renewal of the horrors of war.

While in Ireland,² Mr. Kellogg pointed out that a few statesmen could not ensure the peace of the world, but that if the peoples were determined to have peace they would have it. I believe that the Pact, if its influence is given free play, is going to have an incalculable effect in bringing about all over the earth a deeper realisation of the essential criminality of war and in changing the widespread desire of the peoples for peace into a firm resolve to have peace.

My country is bound by close ties to the people of the United States of America; and as one of the original signatories of the Pact which it accepted unreservedly, my Government is anxious to avail of this opportunity to express its high appreciation of the work of the American Government in the cause of universal peace.

The delegate of Canada, Mr. MacKenzie King, on Friday last recalled to us that his country had many years ago agreed with the United States that any disputes or questions that might arise between them should be settled by arbitration and that in fact many disputes had been so settled. He added that their experience led the people of Canada to favour, in so far as Canadian questions were concerned, the reference to arbitration of all international disputes of a judicial or legal nature and the settlement by methods of conciliation or arbitration of all other differences that might arise between Canada and any other nation. I do not hesitate to say that the Irish Free State is no less strongly in favour of arbitration than Canada.

It is the duty of all the Governments who have signed the Kellogg Pact to endeavour to bring about the conditions under which it can most surely achieve its object. They must work for the establishment of goodwill and the removal of mistrust among nations. The new agreement demands of the members of the League who accept it that the work of all peace organisations shall be intensified. It is a new summons to the nations to bestir themselves in solving their gravest problems. The answer of the League should be plain. The general Disarmament Conference has been too long postponed. The League cannot expect the peoples of the world to believe in the seriousness of the efforts made to guarantee peace unless Governments give some concrete proof that peace, not self-aggrandisement through new methods, is the object they have before them. There can be no approach to a certainty of peace until a serious beginning has been made with general disarmament. In almost every country, the great social evils of poverty and unemployment are breeding new elements of disturbance, because the vast war organisations are diverting the resources of the nations into wasteful channels.

A definite limit in time should be set to the work of the Preparatory Commission and the Council should be requested to call the Disarmament Conference before the next ordinary meeting of the Assembly.

It is better for the object in view that the full publicity of a Conference should be given to the difficulties that may continue to exist after the labours of the Preparatory Commission. Only through such publicity will it be possible for the public opinion of the world to exercise its proper and decisive influence on their solution.