Britten to Britain

Every now and then, someone in Washington "speaks out of turn." Immediately, the rest of Washington is agog and remains so until it has decided whether the outspoken one is a fool, a publicity seeker, a self-important ass or a wise and forthright fellow.

It happened last week. Representative Fred Albert Britten of Illinois, chairman of the Naval Affairs Committee of the House, took it upon himself to cable Premier Stanley Baldwin of Great Britain and suggest that a select committee from the House of Commons meet with the Britten committee, "preferably in Canada after March 4," for "friendly discussion" about applying the much-vexed principle of seapower equality between the U. S. and Britain to all warships unaffected by the Washington treaty of 1922. When Secretary Kellogg heard about it he as good as called Mr. Britten a fool. "I refer you to the Constitution and the laws," he said. The Constitution, of course, vests the direction of U. S. foreign policy in the President. The Logan Act of 1799 makes it a criminal offense for any citizen without the Government's sanction to correspond with any foreign power with intent to influence either country's conduct "in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States." Anticipating some such move as Mr. Britten's, the State Department has lately been circulating copies of the Logan Act in quarters where it might be necessary.

Mr. Britten's reply to Secretary Kellogg was: i) that he had not contravened the President's power over foreign policy, since he did not seek to change a U. S. policy but to further the policy of Anglo-American naval equality long-since laid down; 2) that the Constitution charges Congress to provide, maintain and regulate the Army & Navy, and 3) that he had not violated the Logan Act since the subject for discussion was neither a "dispute" nor a "controversy." "My proposal has to do with peace," Mr. Britten observed.

Many a political pundit, especially the editorial writers of Eastern newspapers, expressed horror at Mr. Britten's "amazing indiscretion." They tartly accused him of publicity-seeking. They said he was trying to show off because he had just become chairman of the Naval Affairs Committee. They reminded people that he was the Congressman who wangled the Army-Navy football game out of the East and onto Soldier Field, Chicago, two years ago--a "publicity stunt" if ever there was one. Moreover Mr. Britten had been notoriously a Big Navy man. His volte face could only be meant as a grandstand play. The political pundits on the sidelines blushed for their country.

To such criticism Mr. Britten might have replied that 1) he had long loomed as large on the Naval Affairs Committee as its last chairman, the late Representative Butler of Pennsylvania; 2) that publicity-seeking is not necessarily reprehensible, depending entirely on what you seek to promote, yourself or a good idea, and 3) that one is not necessarily a Big Navy man out of sheer blood-thirst, that Big Navy men might gladly become Little Navy men if all other Big Navy men would join them.

If Mr. Britten is a self-important ass, colleagues who have known him in the House for 15 years have yet to find it out. He is blunt, yes, and self-confident, and a bit crude at times in a blustery Chicago way. But he has never been blown up about himself.

Laying aside folly, publicity and asininity, a part of Washington was obliged, therefore, to see if there might not be some wisdom in the Britten plan, however unconventional it seemed. Calmly examined, Mr. Britten's cablegram to Premier Baldwin, and the explanatory statement published with it, were found to contain the following points:

Premier Baldwin had, a fortnight previously, expressed a desire to see more personal discussion between U. S. and British representatives. (And Viscount Lee of Fareham had suggested a two-man conference.)

Mr. Britten well knew the kind of discussions Mr. Baldwin had in mind--informal discussions such as Mr. Britten and many another people's representative, from the U. S. and other countries, have participated in at meetings of the Interparliamentary Union.*

Britons and U. S. citizens were alike disappointed by the failure of the Geneva Conference for cruiser-limitation last year and "surely some way should be found" to discuss and prepare before the five-power conference scheduled for 1931.

It is often said that too many admirals spoiled the Geneva Conference; therefore Mr. Britten specified an all-civilian conference.

Following as closely as it did President Coolidge's blunt declaration of U. S. independence in Navy-building (TIME, Nov. 19)--a declaration which restored Anglo-American "understanding" to a pre-War mood--the Britten proposal seemed, just possibly, to be a blunt Representative's effort to start all over again, without Presidential prolixity or diplomatic red-tape, and get an elementary subject thoroughly thrashed out between the plain people of two friendly countries.

Etiquette demanded that Premier Baldwin consult the U. S. State Department and reply through it to Mr. Britten. Thoroughly annoyed by Mr. Britten, the State Department would have liked to discourage Premier Baldwin from doing more than acknowledge the receipt of the Britten cablegram. Premier Baldwin let it be known that his answer was "in the same friendly spirit" as Mr. Britten's message but left it to Secretary Kellogg to pass the answer on to Mr. Britten and the U. S. public.

President Coolidge let it be known that he resented the Britten "encroachment" on Presidential prerogative and the criticism of Coolidge conduct implied in the Britten proposal. It was indicated that Mr. Britten would receive the Administration's most awful rebuke, Silence.

Mr. Britten, unabashed, let it be known that he was pleased with the success of his effort, whether or not it resulted in a Congress-Commons conference. Whatever was said about him in the U. S., he had the satisfaction of seeing a great deal of approving comment in the British press. The worst British editors could find to say was that the Britten message was "not very important" because he is "well known as a Big Navy man." The Daily News (Liberal) remarked: "His real crime is that he has publicly administered to two governments bursting with etiquette a severe dose of common sense."

While the State Department clung to the Baldwin message and kept indignant Mr. Britten in the dark, in came the oar of Representative La Guardia of New York, chief House gadfly. He prepared a resolution directing the Secretary of State to transmit forthwith an invitation from Congress to Commons to meet for the purpose suggested by Mr. Britten at Havana.

Mr. Britten only found out what Mr. Baldwin had replied to him when Mr. Baldwin told Parliament. "I cordially reciprocate the spirit," said Mr. Baldwin. But, "except to remove the possibility of misunderstanding, I feel it would not be consistent with the courtesy which I owe to the United States Government to express my further opinion on the proposal on which, as I understand it, they have not been consulted."

* In 1904, Congress appropriated $50,000 for Interparliamentary Union sessions in St. Louis. Result: The Hague Peace Conference called by President Roosevelt in 1907. In 1913, Representative Ainey of Pennsylvania brought together the Union's Japanese Group and, by friendly discussion, helped avert war between U.S. and Japan. Congress appropriated $50,000 for Union sessions at Washington in 1925, and $10,000 for this year's sessions in Berlin.