REPARATIONS

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XIII, Issue 251, 8 October 1923, Page 5

REPARATIONS

The Position Reviewed Lord Curzon and Premiers OMINOUS SYMPTOMS. BRITAIN AWAITING FRENCH PROPOSALS. (By Cable.-Press AsßOciati on.—Copyright.] . London, October 6 Lord Curzon, in a speech at th© imperial Conference, said: “We welcome our Allies’ victory in th© Ruhr, if victory it was,” but he pointed out that, as th© British Government had anticipated, this had produced the beginnings of internal disruption in Germany. This disruption was not mereiv an ominous symptom, but had portentous economic significance, as it meant the ultimate disappearance of the debtor himself.

Lord Curzon added that Britain awaited and expected the next pro* posals from France. Britain was quite ready to receive and discuss in a friendly spirit th© measures France now proposed to take. He stressed the British right to be consulted and expressed tli© opinion that th© German surrender should have been made three months ago, but he suspected no German Government at that time could have survived surrender. It was at present uncertain whether Herr Stresemann. who had th© courage and wisdom to take this step, would survive. Wer© we, however, any nearer a settlement? Would reparations begin to flow in? Lord Curzon intimated that the Government thought th© time for discussion between the Allies had come. He said he had not concealed th© British view in conversations with th© French Ambassador, and it had the approval of Mr. Baldwin, who recently did so much by his visit to Paris to recreate a friendly atmosphere. After a rather heated discharge of rival guns, the German Government were, so far he could gather, sincere in their intentions, and had taken th© steps required, though it might be too much to expect that the abandonment of resistance would be 'followed instantly by enthusiastic co-operation. Our position at Cologne gave us a right to be considered in any local arrangement that might be proposed, and in that position we hfid no intention of abandoning our reparation claim, willing as we had been to pare it down in the interests of settlement. This rendered it impossible that any such settlement could be reached without our co-operation. Our stake in the economic recovery of Europe, which in some respects affected us more than Germany’s immediate neighbour, made us long for a peaceful issue, and we had already shown willingness to contribute. to that issue by unexampled concessions. # “A DICKENS OF A MESS.” The “DaiiJy Express,” in an editorial comment, says: “Lord Curzon’s reference to the Ruhr is only a restatement of the British position made on August 11. The result is merely to publish to the world the fact that Britain has no settled policy, and her Ministers speak with different voices as occasions demand. First w© have the British not© of August 11, then the Baldwin communique after the Paris interview, then Lord Curzon’s reassertion of the August note. We have little sympathy with the French viewpoint and none with th© German. Lord Curzon leaves us exactly where we were, in a dickens of a mess. There is only one way out. namely, to draw clear of Europe and turn our energies to the Dominions, colonies. India, and Egypt. Thus we should And work for th© workless and safety for the State.” The “Morning Post’s” Paris correspondent reports that all information reaching the French Government from th© Ruhr indicates that though resistance has technically ceased, the railwaymen, miners, and others are not returning to work. It is confirmed that 1 received a month’s pay in advance large numbers of workmen on October as previously, while in the Palatinate many thousands were actually three months in advance on the same date. —(A. and N.Z.)

FRENCH PRESS ASTONISHED ANGRY COMMENT ON THE SPEECH. PAST CONTROVERSIES REVIVED. (Received 8. 9.40 a.m.) Paris, October 7. Lord Curzon’s speech astonished and angered the French press. Th© “Figaro” says Mr. Baldwin’s speech revealed an original thinker and a sincere friend of France. Lord Curzon’s revealed a man embittered at the failure of his pplicy. The speech does not improve the prospects of a settlement. Th© “Echo de Paris” says th© speech will revive all the past controversies because it implicitly advises the Germans to hold out “Le Matin” remarks that Lord Curzon not merely differed from French views, but was offensive. Th© “Gaulois” observes that it was a singular speech, aud brutally threw oil on the fire, The “Pent Parisien’tt states that Lord Curzon’s chief anxiety was apparently not to improve the happy effects of Mr. Baldwin’s intervention, “L’Oeuvre” says the speech, as usual, was extremely disagreeable, and some parts were frankly hostile—(Reuter.) ABUSE OF LORD CURZON. BRITAIN’S TWO VOICES. (Received 8. 9.50 a.m.) London, October 7. Th© “Sundav Times’s” Paris correspondent says: The question being asked in Paris is: How can one Cabinet contain two statesmen who express such divergent views as Mr. Baldwin and Lord Curzon? It is questionable whether even Mr. Lloyd George had ever to sustain such a torrent of contemptuous abuse as Lord Curzon has brought upon himself. France has felt, for several months, that Lord Curzon aspires to become a mediator between Franc© and Germany. France will not have Lord Curzon as a mediator. WORK IN THE RUHR. FRENCH COMMANDER AND THE MAGNATES. (Received 8. 9.10 a.m.) Paris, October 7. A telegram from Dusseldorf says that General Degoutte conferred with Stinnes and three mining magnates regarding th© conditions for resumption of work in the Ruhr and resumption of reparations deliveries.—(A. and N.Z.) STRESEMANN’S RUHR POLICY. USELESSNESS OF RESISTANCE. Berlin, October 7. In a speech in the Reichstag. Stresemann, defending the abandonment of passive resistance, said the situation with which the Government was confronted when it resumed office was that passive resistance was no longer at its strongest and the French and Belgians were not to be brought out of the occupied regions by resistance alone. The weaker th© resistance got the bore difficult it would become to utilise it diplomatically for Germany. The

Government’s effort had been to find a formula making possible th© use of th© abandonment of resistance for political negotiations, but th© task could not be effected. Failure was suffered in that connection. If tho Government thought that by continuing passive resistance it could have achieved something valuable for German freedom it would hav© continued it. but the country was in such financial chaos that the day was near on which the German mark would cease to be a means of payment, not only abroad. Th© sole possibility of the solution of th© reparations problem lay in th© agreement of the Allies on one side and Germany on the other. Th© French Government would illustrate its goodwill by entering negotiations now that passive resistance was .abandoned.— (Reuter.)