THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS FRIDAY, MAY 10, 1929. REPARATION AGAIN.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 20251, 10 May 1929, Page 10

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS FRIDAY, MAY 10, 1929. REPARATION AGAIN.

The Committee of Experts on Reparation that has been sitting in Paris for many weeks was set up to work out a linal settlement of the problem. In the endeavour to reach that point there was, presumably, nothing bearing on the question outside the scope of its deliberations. Primarily it was supposed to determine the capital liability to rest on Germany—a point not decided even though the Dawes annuities have been coming in for several years—and any issues regarding the actual payment that might require settlement. Yet it was not specifically restricted to these two things. When, therefore, an American member suggested a compromise that would vary the shares of reparation payments the various nations should receive, he was not necessarily asking it to exceed its functions. If the committee had adopted his proposal unanimously it would not thereby have made the recommendations binding on anybody. So when the British members of the committee said they would riot accept Mr. Young's proposed redistribution of shares they were, without any doubt, merely anticipating what the British Government would have done if asked to accept and ratify such an arrangement. It is better, however, that no such proposal should como from tho committee, apparently approved by the British experts, only to be rejected subsequently by Great Britain on behalf of tho Empire. In the complex problem of debts and reparations Britain has made concession after concession. If British wishes, as exemplified by tho Balfour Note, could bo met, the gigantic figures at present involved in these two issues would speedily be reduced to workable proportions.

The Spa conference of 1920 has suddenly come back into view again by reason of the scheme Mr. Young placed before the committee. It was one of the early Allied meetings to discuss the reparation problem. In the main it established a scale of annual payments, estimated to be within German capacity, and established a system of transfer by which the money or its equivalents could be paid over without damaging German credit or disturbing the currency. As the setting up of the present committee implies, there was no determination of the gross amount ultimately payable. It now emerges that adoption of the Dawes plan did not, and could not, affect one of the fundamental things determined at Spa, in 1920, the share each of the Allied Governments should receive out of whatever Germany might be induced to pay. According to an official summary published while that conference was still in session the ratios were:—France, 52 per cent.; Britain, 22 per cent.; Italy, 10 per cent.; Belgium, 8 per cent. ; Japan and Portugal |of 1 per cent. The remaining per cent, was reserved for Yugoslavia, Greece, Rumania and other Powers not signatories of the agreement. Out of it 1 per cent, has apparently been allotted to give the British Empire 23 per cent. Of the chief parties it has recently been stated on good authority that Britain and Italy would be satisfied with no more than was sufficient to meet their debt obligations to other countries. France and Belgium wanted something more as compensation for war losses.

The principles of the Balfour Note, to which at least the present Government in Great Britain adheres, are simple. First there was the suggestion that war debts owed by the Allies to one another should be cancelled all round. On this point it is well to remember that if all obligations were fully met Britain would stand to receive much more than she was liable to pay. If there could be agreement on this issue, according to the British view, the adjustment of reparation payments could be easily made. Some of the parties concerned in the two questions, notably the United States, insist that they are wholly separate and distinct. Common sense and experience show they cannot possibly be treated in this way. This being so there is a logical simplicity about the British proposal. The Balfour Note concluded with the statement that Britain did not propose in any circumstances to accept from Allies and Germany combined more than was required to meet the obligations owing to her own creditors. She could not be expected to accept less. In actual fact Britain at present is receiving less, and the proposal to ease the reparation position by whittling down her share still further seems peculiarly inappropriate from the standpoint of common justice. French comment on the position contains a cynical reference to the present electoral position in Great Britain. Supposing that did have an effect, is it so remarkable? It is perfectly notorious that in France the official attitudo toward both debts and reparation has been shaped with a careful eye on the electorate. In the United States debt policy has always been affected by the possible reaction of public opinion—expressed in votes—toward what might seem over-prodigal concessions. Is a British Government alone to be selfless, indifferent to the consequences of adding further weight to the record burden the taxpayer is carrying? Apparently some members of the expert committee expect this. It will do no harm to the general situation to have it plainly shown there is a limit to concession and renunciation on Britain's part when reparation payments are being considered by experts or anyone else.;

THE TRANSPORT BOARD. Public interest in tho first meeting of the Cit,y Council was no doubt focussed upon the question of the city's representation on the Transport Board and especially the council's attitude toward Mr. Allum's offer to resign. There can be no question of tho propriety of Mr. Allum's actions in a somewhat invidious position. Having been denied re-election to the City Council, he promptly placed himself unreservedly in the hands of the council, and, pending its dcciiiion, redoubled his efforts to ensure the success of his board's loan proposals. A suggestion has been made, that he should have forwarded his resignation to the secretary of the board, but apart from the fact that this would have precipitated an expensive by-election, it would have been contrary to the provisions and the intention of the legislation. Rightly or wrongly, the Royal Commission recommended and Parliament agreed that the new regime should be conducted by a nominated board for the first two years, and certainly until the end of this month no member of the board should resign without reference to the body by which he was appointed. The right of the nominating bodies to review their representation after tho municipal elections was specially provided, but that right is in no way contingent on the re-election or otherwise of members of tho board to their parent councils. Indeed, the Act did not require the first members of the board to be members of any other local authority. The present position, therefore, is that not only the City Council but also tho two groups of suburban councils have tho right to review their representation, to remove any member and nominate his successor without reference in any way to the electors of the district. The view that Mr. Allurn should be incontinently dismissed from tho Transport Board rests upon a presumption that his defeat in the municipal election was duo to a public desire for his withdrawal from the Transport Board. But can the City Council seriously accept that conclusion, since it manifestly is without sufficient information to justify any logical interpretation of the voting? It might, with equal reason, decide that Mr. Allum's defeat was due to any of a dozen different reasons, not excluding partisan prejudice and public ignorance of the value of his services. The whole responsibility of deciding whether Mr. Allum or any of its other representatives should remain on the board rests entirely ori the City Council, and the only consideration that should influence it is its obligation to nominate men who, in its judgment, have the highest qualifications for the duties entrusted to members of the Transport Board.