GERMANY ACCEPTS

New Zealand Times, Volume XLVII, Issue 10898, 12 May 1921, Page 5

GERMANY ACCEPTS

ALLIED ULTIMATUM 1 MOTION CARRIED BY DEJECTED REICHSTAG. THE BETTER WAY. By Telegraph—Press Assn.—Copyright. Australian and N.Z. Cable Association. (Received May 11, 8 p.m.) LONDON, May 11. In the Reichstag Herr Wirth, farmer Minister for Finance, announced, the acceptance of the Allies’ ultimatum. (Received May 11, 9.40 p.m.) LONDON, May 11. A message from Berlin via Paris reports that Herr Wirth, in a curt official motion for the complete and unreserved acceptance of the ultimatum, explained that in the event of the occupation of the Ruhr it would mean nun for the country; therefore it would he better to accept any alternative. The Reichstag presented a funereal appearance, Deputies being dejected and undemonstrative, except the PanGermans, who hissed Herr Wirth. The voting was 220 for the acceptance and 170 against. THE NEW CABINET HOW THE MOMENTOUS DECISION WAS REACHED. (Received Mav 11, 10.25 p.m.) LONDON, May 11. The “Daily Telegraph’s” Berlin correspondent states that Herr Wirth’ s new Ministry represents the Centre Party, Democrats and Majority Socialists. .Other reports state that the Majority Socialists predominate. Herr Bauer is V Ice-Chancellor. The “Morning Post’s” Berlin correspondent reports that protracted party discussions preceded Herr Wirth’s acceptance of the Chancellorship. A battle waged on a grand scale between the advocates of acceptance and rejection of the ultimatum at the People’s Party meeting, where Herr von Lersner, leader of the “rejectioniste,” won a sweeping victory, 30 out of 45 voting for Hie unconditional rejection. Ten, including von Streseman, signified their willingness to vote far acceptance conditionally upon Hie Allies furnishing satisfactory declarations that the Rhine Customs barrier would be suppressed; that the lately occupied area would bo evacuated; that the 50 per cent, duty would be withdrawn; and that authentic assuranoee regarding the future of Upper Silesia would be forthcoming. Tne Democrats, by the majority of one also defeated Hie acceptance of the motion. The correspondent adds: “These decisions do not mean a vote against the principle of acceptance, hut Hie shirking of the burden of responsibility and subsequent unpopularity in Hie electorates which an open acceptance vote would involve. The parties realised that the -Majority and Independent Socialists, plus the Oentare Party, already gave an assured majority for acceptance, thus leaving the Democrats free subsequently to blame their political adversaries. It is understood that the Democrats are not officially represented in the new 1 Ministry, but that they permitted Herr ; Groener and. Herr Gessler to retain ! temporarily the portfolios of Transi port and Defence respectively, the i Cabinet of four members j from the Centre Party, three Majority Socialists, and two Democrats. The “Frankfurter Zeitung,” commenting, says it is not cowardly to yield to necessity; on the contrary, reckless deeds are often due to lack or a certain kind of courage. Recklessness would bring Germany to certain disaster equivalent to suicide. If no more hope existed such action would be comprehensible. “But we still have hope, and so long as there is hope we should not shrink from the hardest work, aiming at making our lot in time happier.” The Reichstag voted on a clear-cut issue for or against the acceptance of the ultimatum. The corrected figures an-e: For acceptance 221; against 175. ALLIED COUNCILS AMERICA’S ACCEPTANCE OF INVITATION CONDEMNED. (Received May 11, 9.40 jp.m.) WASHINGTON Mot 11. Senator Robert Marion la FoUette, the Republican free-lanoe, attacked President Harding for accepting the invitation to allow Al American representative to sit in European councils. He moved a resolution: “That the Senate thinks it contrary to the United States’ ideas and principles to take part in any Allied councils and denounces the Versailles Treaty as a crime bora of blind revenge and insatiable greed and a betrayal of the promises of the United States.” The resolution further states that participation in the Supreme Council would he an endorsement of the Imperialistic policies members of the Supreme Council are pursuing in Europe, Africa and Asia, and the sanction or barbarous and uncivilised warfare wagfare waged against the people of Ireland. The injection of the Irish question reveals the motive of the resolution and has aroused resentment in official circles.