The New Zealand Times. SATURDAY, JANUARY 29, 1921. PAYMENT

New Zealand Times, Volume XLVII, Issue 10811, 29 January 1921, Page 6

The New Zealand Times. SATURDAY, JANUARY 29, 1921. PAYMENT

The French have lost no time in asserting their determination, before the Inter-Allied Conference, that Germany shall pay. The Paris Press, taking Mr Lloyd George’s election pledges as a peg, Mings on it the expression of that determination. Paris; having a good memory, takes the opportunity of reminding the British Prime Minister of his own most emphatic words, • which were only the repetition of the words used throughout the war by himself and every (British statesman, of note. It is a broad hint”that words are not merely counlelrs. Lest the hint should be lost, the people of Paris keep on shouting Mr Lloyd George’s words as he passes along the streets to the Conference. As he listens to the reminder, the poor man. has his eyes on a newspaper whiGh says: “We respectfully remind the British Prime Minister of his election speech.” Paris, in fact, intends to let the Prime Minister know that it believed his very emphatic utterances, and that Prance, believing him also, shaped its policy upon them. The French utterance synchronising with the election speech was equally emphatic with a laudation of the “Entente Cordiale.” The French reminder of the joint determination is as polite as it is firm. Its Bpecial strength is its reference to the fact that the joint agreement was deliberate, well considered, and, above all things, binding. Paris says plainly that the agreement to make Germany pay was not that thing of special, deliberate, and articulate British abhorrence—“a mere scrap of paper.” British electors may have their memories blunted by the. arguments suitable to political coalitions, Paris thinks,' but the solemn covenants of nations remain, whatever happens. Coalitions spend so much time, energy, and temper in arguing over basic principles that their policies are necflfesarily colourless and futile. These policies often, vacillate, obviously, because the side that prevails to “get. a move on” has so little strength left after the secret contest, that the move quickly slackens, and eventually reverses its engines. That explanation, which all Britain is making every day to itself to account for its many disappointments, is useless outside the national boundaries. In the agreement with the other .nations to make Germany pay, and pay well, for the war, the honour of the. nation was pledged, not the honour of two parties coalescing under a pact which hobbled them both. The national honour is upheld by a single unit precluded for ever from pleading the defeot of a- constitution that makes it wobble and reverse. The unit is firmly fixed, and Paris is reminding the British Prime Minister very forcibly of the fact. The French are not satisfied with merely reminding. A mere reminder of this sort, without a practical plan for compelling the fulfilment of tho agreement “deliberately entered into, might easily degenerate into a mere wrangle, even if the other side were not able truthfully—as the British side in this case is not—to-shout “You’re another!” The French Finance Minister has not waited for the delegates to come to the Conference with no other resource than a helpless wail of “We are Up against it.” He has a definite plan for them to consider. Two things he' understands are necessary to Germany if she is to be able to pay. These are .the stabilise tion of the mark and the stabilisation of the Budget. “I*t us stabilise the. mark in some way,” virtually says M. Doumer, 4‘and compel Germany to stabilise her own Budget! If ehe refuses to co-operate, let us control her Budget.” The stabilisation of the mark is a difficulty, but as the instability of the mark is enabling Germany to dump goods everywhere at cutthroat prices, the difficulty ought to be quickly surmounted. As to the other stabilisation, Germany is perpetually flourishing an enormous deficit before the world, a deficit due to a policy ludicrously transparent, of a contrived paper bankruptcy. That preposterous flapping flag must be tom down. Here is a strong policy for a strong Conference. M. Doumer supports, on a basis of justice, when he claims that the taxation borne by Germans must not be less than the taxation borne by Frenchmen. Also is he just when he goes on to demand that the full and proper indemnity to he extracted from Germany must be secured by. a regular

system of taxation. As to the power of Germany to pay, there is not any doubt, and there never was any doubt, about the potential wealth of Germany to meet greater obligations than the worst that can be forced from her on account of the war. This wealth was not measured at the right time simply on account of British neglect to cooperate, and that fault has been extended by an elaborate British propaganda directed at freeing Germany from paying anything at all. As to the German .proposal of Herr Bergmann, M. Doumer simply ridicules it. And, obviously, the amount is too small —about a tenth of what it ought to he—and the greater proportion of it must be paid in marks, apparently to be taken at pre-war value. Justice requires full payment, full payment is quite possible, full payment must he exacted. That is the French case, which France evidently means to insist upon, and the Allies are hound by honourable agreement to maintain the claim.