AMERICAN VIEWS.

FROM OUR OWN CORRESPONDENT. NEW YORK, Tuesday. Associated Press despatches from Paris intimating that the failure of General Pershing to proceed to London to lay America’s Medal of Honour, voted by Congress on March 4, on the tomb of the British Unknown Soldier, was due to the “bungling” of British officials, have created some resentment, which is augmented by the report that the American guard of honour brought from Coblenz to Paris to assist in the ceremonial in London undertook a futile journey. The situation was explained to-day by Washington advices declaring that the facts have not been correctly represented, and adding a positive assurance that no discourtesy to General Pershing was intended. In this connection a letter from Lord Curzon to the ILS. Ambassador, Mr. Harvey, dated Sept. 29 is quoted, assuring the Washington State Department of his profound appreciation of the action of Congress, and expressing the hope that the ceremony of presentation could be arranged at an early date.

Most well-informed people here realise that the British Government desires further to cement friendly relations with the United States, and the explanation for the incident generally accepted here is that given by the New York Times to-day, as probably “negligence on the part of some official whose duty it was io act in the matter, or perhaps one of lower rank, who lacked power or will to break the red tape coiled around him.” It is certainly a regrettable incident, to which the American Press, inspired by the Paris despatches, has given considerable space, and it is deplored generally because it gives to a certain section of the yellow Press another chance of nourishing the ancient grudge by quoting “one more incident of British tactlessness.” On the other hand, it is realised here that the alleged tardiness of the British Government officials in fixing a date, and ensuring General Pershing’s presence, so far from constituting an affront, was due to their desire to make the ceremony as impressive as possible.

The Washington officials deplore the publicity given to the matter, and I am able to convey to you an assurance that neither the State nor the War Department believes for a moment that the British Government intended any discourtesy to General Pershing, whose visit to England was subject to the condition that he must return to the United States by Nov. 1. In view of General Pershing’s knowledge of the circumstances of the case, and his deep appreciation of British goodwill, nobody here attributes to the General any personal responsibility for the Paris despatches which gave rise to the misunderstanding, albeit there have been some suggestions here in quarters which should have known better of an “apparent gratuitous affront by one English-speaking people to another.”