FINANCING THE ALLIES.

Auckland Star, Volume LIV, Issue 59, 10 March 1923, Page 5

FINANCING THE ALLIES.

BRITAIN'S HEAVY LOAD. ATTITUDE OF AMERICA. A CONTROVERSY REVIVED. (By Cable—Press Association.—Copyright.) (Received 11.30 a.m.) LONDON, March fl. Lord Baliour, in the House of Lords, called attention to the misunderstandings arising from his Note of August last dealing with international indebteness. He has not taken part in subsequent controversies, thinking that as time passed and changes occurred the matter might be allowed to rest, but as the American Ambassador had declared the Balfour Note misleading, and hud requested the Government to make nn explanation to remove the impression the Note had caused, he thought his continued silence would bo misunderstood: The passage Mr. Harvey (the American Ambassador) complained of was that lie had stated that the United States insisted that though the Allies were to spend money. America was only prepared to lend on Britain's security. Mr. Balfour said he could not find anything that had passed that was misleading or obscure. Britain had suggested, as she had hitherto borne the burden of financing the Allies, that America, which had just entered the war, should relieve Britain -of the duty of further financing the Allies. If the United States had adopted the plan there would havo been no American loan to Britain, and many controversies would have been avoided. But the United States refused to lend except to Britain, throwing a double burden noon ua which we were still carrying. If United States' opinion adhered to the view that wartime deals between partners must be regarded as separate and isolated -undertakings. America's incontestable rights could not have been enforced in a manner less likely to impair happy Anglo-American relations than they had been recently. (A. and N.Z. Cable.)

AMERICA DBCXJNES COMMENT. (Received 1.30 p.m.) WASHINGTON, March 9. The State Department officials declined to comment on Lord Balfour's speech. They said they regretted a revival of the controversy, and since Mr. Harvey was not acting upon instructions of the State Department, they did not believe that the dispute was a matter of concern to this Government. The truth of Mr. Harvey's assertions rested between himself and Lord Balfour. —(A. and N.Z. Cable.)