FRANCE REJECTS PROPOSALS.

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume XLII, Issue XLII, 5 January 1923, Page 5

FRANCE REJECTS PROPOSALS.

DISAPPOINTMENT IN GERMANY,

£ [ij TWO ALTERNATIVES,

BY CABLE— PBES3 ASSOCIATION—COPYEIGHT

LONDON, Jan. 3.

The Daily Chronicle's Paris correspondents says that so far as any useful purpose is concerned the conference may be regarded as dead. The Trench rejection of the British scheme was immediate and brutal. Having hitherto regarded Mr Lloyd George as the cause of all the trouble the press is now blaming Sir John Bradbury and Lord cl 'Abernon.

One newspaper describes the scheme as "Made in America." France's fundamental objection to the course is •■that the plan destroys the whole programme of sanctions and further occupations, intended to divide the RhineJnnd find the Ruhr from the rest or ■Germany, so permanently dividing and weakening her.

M. Poincnre, in a statement prior to ■the conference, said: "I shall refuse to allow the French plan to be destroyed by a debate on details. Either there shall be a vote on the. French plan as it stands, or we shall agree to disagree. 'We have made every possible concession in order to avoid wounding British feelings.''

It is learned that M. Theunis declined to act as a conciliator, feeling ■■that the great divergence between the '.French and English plans makes an open rupture almost inevitable. BERLIN, Jan. 3.

Political circles, while criticising Mr JBouar Law's scheme in detail, regard it as a reasonable basis for negotiations, as it recognises the economic facts.

M. Poineare's scheme is unanimously condemned as an attempt to enslave Germany and indicating that M. Pom-e-are does not want a settlement, Jsut merely the destruction of Germany.

It is believed here that the only hope lies in America supporting the British solution.

PAEIS, Jan. 3. The Temps to-night said: "The British reparations' policy survived a change of Ministry. When Britain submits a project "which brpigs us, within four years, face to face" with a ruined Prance and a re-established Germany,

how can we belioA'e in British diplo

■macy? The bonds which existed in war time have vanished, and the ContinentVal Allies can only count on their own .strength to safeguard their security •and independence. Let them think of the future."

When the Premiers' Conference opened M. Poincare made a two hours' ..•speech explaining why the British plan was unacceptable.

Mr Bonar Law, replying, said he •would detail the British objections to the French plan to-morrow.

Commenting on M. Poincare's criticism, the British Premier said he was perfectly willing that Belgium's priority should stand. He did not think the .British scheme violated the treaty, but he would take a legal opinion on the matter. He did not attach importance to the French objections to a German -chairman for the proposed commission for the control of German finance.

He agreed with M. Poincare that there were real and vital differences between the British and French viewpoints, and it would be better to face ■■this reality. It was useless to make an impracticable and patched up agreement. France's proposed committee in Berlin would in reality become a taxing authority, which was very dangerous. Prance proposed, even during the first year of a moratorium, to exact from Germany the cost of the army of occupation and reparation in kind totalling over £70,000,000, whicli would innate and not stabilse the mark and prevent the balancing of the Budget.

There wore only two alternatives facing the Allies, either to attempt to take something now or restore Germany's credit. According to the best opinion Germany had collapsed indus-1 trially owing to the inflating of the mark. Italian and Trench gold deposited in London, to the taking up of which M. Poincarc objected, was sent to the United States several years > ago to pay for munitions, and, if the ..gold is to return to England, France and Italy will have to raise the necessary money to pay for it. NEW YORK, Jan. 3. Tlie Washington correspondent of the New York Times states no further indication will be made by the United .■States Government to the Paris Premiers' Conference concerning repimitons, and tnc United States will rest on its prior informal feelers and suggestions contained in Mr C. E. Hughes' recent speech. It is felt these were to indicate that the United States hoped the suggestion for a factiinding commission might be adopted ■lay the Premiers if they arc unable to agree upon any of their own plans.

The United States will not press its suggestion and does not intend to issue au invitation to the Allies to appoint .an expert commission, but should they •do so of their own accord the United ■States Avill gladly accept an- invitation io appoint American members of the Commission.