WAR OBLIGATIONS

New Zealand Times, Volume L, Issue 11662, 29 October 1923, Page 8

WAR OBLIGATIONS

GERMANY MUST PAY. Australian and N.Z. Cable Association LONDON, October 26. _ A flood of light on General Smuts’s reference to negotiations on foot for the holding of a conference of the Powers regarding reparations is thrown by tho publication of important telegrams which passed a few days ago between Lord Curzon and Mr Hughes The British Foreign Secretary asks :i the United States still adheren to Mr Hughes’s declarations last Decembei, when it was suggested that an international conference should be held to assess Germany’s capacity to pay, and to consider an appropriate financial plan to ensure such payments. .Mr Hughes replies in the affirmative, and emphasises that the United States does not desire to see Germany relieved oi responsibility for the war, or of her just obligations. Ho considers that the conference should, bo advisory, as the Governments are naturally unVilling to bind themselves in advance. Tho United Suites reserves its decision in regard to participation in the proposed inquiry unless tho European Powers are unanimous regarding the holding of the conference. DESIRE FOR SUGGESTION. Lord Curzon, as a preliminary, refers to tho ineffectual proposals of tho British Government to tho Allies for a solution of the icparatirns question 11c believes that if no co-nmoii action is taken, not merely Germany, hut Europe, api-ears to be drifting to economic disaster. He therefore appeals for tho co-operation of the hinted States Government, which Britain believer) to bo an essential condition of any roil advance towards a settlement. Lord Curzon points out that America's disinterest is greater than that of European Powers. She is vitally concerned with the solution of the European problem, if only becuu.se it involves the question of the inter-Allied debts. Britain has always heartily approved Air Hughes’s declaration of December, but Franco disapproved of it. lan cl Curzon welcomes the recent statement of President Coclidge that the American Government adheres to tlio December declaration. He asks whether, in tho event of holding nil inquiry, Britain and the majority of the Aliie.s could still hope for American co-operation, even though complete unanimity v. as not forthcoming at this *wd.

Alternatively, ho asks, if America would co-opci ate, assuming tho pro-

posed inquiry was entrusted to tho Reparation Commission. Lord Curzon concludes with the statement that the Government is speaking in the name of the whole of the British Empire, as represented in the Imperial Conference, and expresses a desire to receive any American suggestion .

CONGRESS CONSENT NECESSARY. Mr Hughes, in his reply, insists that there should be no grounds for the impression that- if a London Conference is called it -will aim at relieving Germany of her obligations, or that resistance to the fulfilment of her obligations -will be in any way supported. He refutes Lord Curzon’s argument that the United States is interested because a question of the inter-Allied debt is involved, as he contends that the practicability of the methods to secure reparations and the Allied payment of debts to the United States constitute a distinct obligation. The United States cannot appoint a member of the Reparations Commission without the consent of Congress, but no doubt a competent American would be willing to participate in the economic inquiry. The reply reiterates the desire of the United States to lend) assistance towards the re-establishing of peace and economic restoration. WORLD WELFARE PRESS’ OPINIONS. NEW YORK, October 26. Press comment generally enthusiastically supports Mr Hughes’s reply to Lord Curzon. The “New York World” even sees a promise in Mr Hughes’s words that the United States may join a European conference, even if France does not accept it. “The World” is furthermore inclined to think that Frqnce will yield, and that Congress, various members of which have been calling for an economic conference, will join itself with the public in supporting the American Government in such a 6tep. The “New York Times” says: “We must have faith in ourselves if we are not to disappoint the faith that the world has in us. It is not simply a matter of reparations; it is the welfare- of the world. Mr Hughes lays down fixed conditions under which we can help.” OCCUPATION OF RUHR QUESTION OF LEGALITY. LONDON, October 26. Viscount Curzon, in submitting, to the Unionist Conference at Plymouth a motion that the peace and prosperity of Britain can be based only upon an intimate and cordial understanding with France and the other Allies, emphatically denied that it was hostile to the Government. If tho Government were right, that the French occupation of the Ruhr was illegal, they should have said so first. He held no brief for France, and he did not want Britain to be tied to France’s coat-tails; but he wanted a rapprochement. If Britain and France got together again, it would he possible to hold an Allied conference to deal with the international situation. Mr Victor Fisher, in seconding the motion, demanded a free vote, in order that the Government should be under no delusions regarding the party’s feeling. Sir Ronald McNeill intervened, and appealed that the motion should not be taken to a division.