THE REPARATIONS

Manawatu Standard, Volume LII, Issue 120, 21 April 1932, Page 7

THE REPARATIONS

BRITISH BUDGET ATTITUDE.

GERMAN PAPERS ELATED

“DEATH SENTENCE” -INTERPRE TATION.

(United Press Association —By Electric Telegraph.—Copyright.) Received April 21, 11.30 a.m. BERLIN, April 30. “The death sentence on reparations” is the interpretation the Press puts on the British Chancellor’s decision not to provide for war debt payments, pending the Lausanne Conference. Most of the newspapers are elated at tins decision. Though official circles are reticent, it is reported here that the German Budget, similarly, will exclude mention of reparations. NO BUDGET PROVISION. REACTION IN "UNITED STATES. WASHINGTON, April 19. The failure of the new British Budget specifically to provide for war debt and reparations payments next year brought a quick declaration from Senator Reed, an Administration spokesman, that this Government expected to make a debt collection. Foreign nations do not have to make any debt payments to the United States under the one-year moratorium until next December, and if there was any hint ot a continuation of that moratorium, Mr Reed said, he did not know of it. The Washington correspondent of the New \ r ork Times states that Mr Chamberlain’s Budget message to the British Parliament by not providing for the next fiscal year’s payment of debt to the United States provoked a sharp and varying reaction in official Washington. The Treasury Department professed to regard the omission as an expected move, whereas the State Department indicated that no such definite statement was expected, at least before the Rejiarations Conference at Lausanne in June. White House maintained a complete silence. However, Senator Borah, in a caustic speech in the Senate, reiterated his opinion to any cancellation or revision, “until the peace treaties have been revised and armaments reduced. At the same time he attacked Mr Alfred Smith’s proposals for a modified debt cancellation scheme as unsound and not calculated to increase the export trade or benefit anyone in the United States except the holders of private European securities. After outlining the routine anti-can-cellation arguments, such as the burden on the American taxpayer of the seven billion dollars already cancelled, etc., Senator Borali declared that he was anxious to do anything to help to stabilise Europe. However, the result of the Hoover moratorium was disappointing, which was not the fault of the United States, but arose “by reason of the conduct of other nations, clearly revealing that they have no desire to see Germany relieved. Senator Borah declared that the funding of tho Allied debts following the war, in which great reductions were made, had completely failed in its avowed object, which was to produce economic stabilisation. He predicted that complete cancellation would not have the slightest effect on economic recovery “if the policies now obtaining in Europe and the programme now offered to the world from that Continent continue to obtain. He said that 1918 marked the starting of a great economic war, which was still continuing. He outlined in detail European war budgets and debt obligations, insisting that payment could be made by a curtailment of armaments. He concluded by characterising the reparation question as one that Europe must settle. “The key to- the European situation for good or bad is reparations,” he said. H Europe cannot solve the problem it is useless to talk to the American taxpayer about cancellation.”