WILSON-CLEMENCEAU AGREEMENT

Dominion, Volume 18, Issue 117, 9 February 1924, Page 7

WILSON-CLEMENCEAU AGREEMENT

SECRET COMPACT DENIED STATEMENT BY LLOYD-GEORGE AMERICAN PRESIDENT PERFECTLY LOYAL Mr. Lloyd George denies the accuracy of the article in the “New York World,” and declares that to describe the Wilson-Clemenceau agreement as a secret compact is ridiculous. By Teleghaph—Press Association. —OofyuokLondon, February 7. Mr. Lloyd George denies that the Wilson-Clemenceau agreement was a secret compact. Mr. Wilson acted in perfect loyalty, and neither M. Clemenceau nor President Wilson was responsible for Mr. Lloyd George being summoned to London when grave matters were being discussed. —Reuter. (Rec. February 8, 5.5 p.m.) London, February 8. The text of Mr. Lloyd George’s statement includes the following passages:— “Tho Foreign Office letter contained the proof sheets of documents proposed to be distributed by the French Government- One was headed, ‘Articles concerning the guarantees cf the execution of the Treaty, as approved by President Wilson and M. Clemenceau on April 20.’’ Another was headed, ‘Treaty between France and tho United States as approved by President Wilson and M. Clemenceau on April 20.’ ” Mr. Lloyd George adds: ‘These documents must, I imagine, now be published. They will tell their own story.” Mr. Lloyd George concludes by quoting fully Mr. Spender’s explanation issued to tho Press, in which Mr. Spender says: “I must say on behalf of Mr. Lloyd George that he did not authorise the interview. I should like to corroborate his statement. If thqre is any carelessness in the matter it is entirely mine. I take all the Maine. I did not ask his permission to use anything ho said, and if I have gone beyond what I should have repeated, I. am extremely sorry. 1 was askbd to write a, description of Mr. Lloyd George’s life and I put in a few' observations hero and there.”—Aus.-N.Z. Cable Assn. (Rec. February 8, 10.45 p.m.) London, February 7. Mr. Lloyd George, in an article in the “Daily Chronicle,” states that he is unable to accept tho views attributed to him in the “New York World” article as accurately setting out the facts of .what happened at a critical moment in tho Peace Conference. He declared that when, ho returned to Paris from London in April, 1919, lie found that an agreement had been reached between ex-President Wilson and M. Clemenceau on two very important issues —firstly, the military occupation of the Rhineland; secondly, American guarantees of the French frontier against Gorman aggression. “To describe the agreement as ,a spcire-ti oompaot between .MrWilson and M. Clemenceau is ridiculous. Mr. Wilson acted in perfect loyalty, and blame cannot be imputed to either Mr. Wilsoii or M. Clemenceau. The fact that Mr. Wilson and M. Clemenceau had reached agreement was communicated to mo upon my return, and the agreement regarding the occupation of tho Rhineland was, .alter some modification. ultimately incorporated in the Peace Treaty Ihe documents when published wall tell their own talc.” Mr. Lloyd George expresses regret at the delay in replying to the Foreign Office letter. This was due to the fact that the latter was unsigned. Ho is of opinion that it would have been fairer if Mr. MacDonald had waited to hear his explanation before making a statement lo the Press, and concludes: “Mr. MacDonald probably will find that most, if not all, of these documents, nave already been published by M. Tardieu in France, or Mr. Baker in America.. Both of these gentlemen between them published the most secret documents.” —Router. DOCUMENTS NOT RETURNED TO FOREIGN OFFICE SITUATION EXPLAINED TO FRENCH PREMIER London, February 7. Tho Foreign Office on January 22, during the period of transition between tho old and new Governments, when there was actually no political head {it the Foreign Office, decided as a matter of courtesy to send tho documents to Mr. Lloyd George, asking whether he objected to their publication, and indicating that it might not be a disadvantage to Britain if they were published. , Mr. MacDonald learned of the alleged Lloyd George interview half an hour after he received a report from Paris with winch ho was pleased, because it showed how well things had gone since the Labour Government came Thro office. On inquiry,- Mr. MacDonald learned that the French Ambassador had called at the Foreign Office on January 8, and the Foreign Office carefully considered the hitherto secret documents for several days. As Mr. Lloyd George has not yet returned the documents, which wore tho Foreign Office’s only copy, it is impossible to say what they contained. . . It is understood that tho incident is a groat blow to M. Poincare, with whom the Labour Government had been getting on very well, and with whom important arrangements were • made in regard to the Palatinate, Obviously M. Poincare might suppose that the action was taken behind 1 is back. The Marquis of Crewe was instructed to call on M. Poincare this morning and explain the whole situation.—Renter. ACCURACY OF ARTICLE (Rec. February 8, 8.35 p.m.) London, February 8. Mr. Spender, writing to the “Daily Express,” says© “I am willing to admit I may have been .tnar'crce®, but niv report was an accurate account of what was said. There were two other journalists present whe can coiTobortte what I pM i 'sbed« Atr

Lloyd George showed us a vital document which he complained he had never seen before. It was an agreement between France and the United States.” —Aus.-N.Z. Cable Assn. LACONIC REMARK BY CLEMENCEAU (Rcc. February 8, 9.15 p.m.) Paris, Febraary 7. M. Clemenceau, interviewed by the “Intransigeant,” regarding the Lloyd George incident, laconically remarked: “Show me a secret treaty signed by ex-President Wilson and mo and I will undertake to pay the whole of tho reparations.”—Reuter. FRENCH PRESS INDIGNANT Paris, February 7. The Paris Press is indignant at Mr. Lloyd George’s statement, and dwells on the fact that the accusations were made just when Mr. Wilson died. Tho “Matin” says: ‘Wo knew that Mr. Lloyd George was capable of treating historical veracity with the utmost fantasy, but we never thought he would go so far as to imagine a secret treaty which does not exist merely in order to flatter the Labour Party.” Tho “Petit Parisien” says: “Mr. Lloyd .George’s calumny, by. its very gravity, excludes all probability.” The “Gaulois” says: “Once again Mt. Lloyd George is taken in the very act of littering incorrect statements.” —Aus.-N.Z. Cable Assn. COMMENTS OF GERMAN PRESS “WASHING DIRTY LINEN AT OPEN GRAVE” (Rec. February 8, 9.15 pun.) Bfrlin, February 7. The Llovd George revelations occupy extensive space in the newspapers. ‘‘Germania.” fie organ of the Centre Party, described the episode as “washing tlm Allies’ dirty linen at ■in open grave,” refers to “tho wretched intrigues of the Allies behind tlje gorgeous scenes at Versailles,” and savs “the bad conscience of the authors of the Peace Treaty is reflected in the discord their work has lol't behind.”—-Aus.-N.Z. Cable Assn. Berlin, February 7. “Vorwaerts” savs: “Whatever mav have been the standpoint five years ago, to-day Dlr. Lloyd George makes himself the mouthpiece of the great majority of the English people and Parliament, who do not want French troops to stay on German soil. In order to save his political existence he is compelled to defend himself against the charge of having been partly responsible for the intolerable st-ito of Europe produced by the question of the Rhineland being left open.’’—‘‘Tbo Times.”