WAR DEBTS

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18624, 4 August 1922, Page 5

WAR DEBTS

GREAT BRITAIN’S NOTE. HOSTILITY IN PARIS. BITTER PRESS COMMENT. Frees Association —By Telegraph—Copyright PAMS, August 2. Great Britain’s Note in connection with war debts met with a hostile reception. Le Journal observes: “As Britain insists on our paying her, we will be able to repeat her gesture and point our finger in the direction of Berlin.” Lo Journal adds; “It is a matter for wonder bow Mr Uoyd George can in one breath press us for payment and yet declare that a moratorium is indispensable to Germany.”—A. and N.Z. Cable. M. POINCARE FORESTALLED BRITAIN STEALS HIS THUNDER LONDON CONFERENCE FUTILE. PARIS, August 2. (Received August 3, at 5.5 p.m.) Lo Temps bitterly suggests that the Note implies that Britain must be paid whatever happens. Britain is becoming a debt collector for America. Le Temps adds; “Britain has. not yet been devastated and stands to lose nothing. Germany has not been devastated and pays nothing and will enjoy a moratorium France alone will bear the brunt of the financial payments and the material losses.” The Journal des Debats accuses Great Britain of stealing M. Poincare’s thunder, and says: “Knowing that M. Poincare had a scheme to offer, she rushed in with a counter-proposal. It would have been better to await the London Conference before issuing the Note.” Liberte declares: “The Note renders the approaching Conference not only useless, but dangerous. Britain is bent on obtaining ml possible advantages for herself. France henceforth must fend for herself and display the firmest- nolicy towards Germany.”—A. and N.Z. Cable. CANCELLATION OF DEBTS. MSK OUTWEIGHS ADVANTAGES. LONDON, August 2. The Federation of British Industries, commenting on the Earl of Balfour’s Note, points out that the British taxpayers are now carrying a burden equivalent to one shilling on their income, and the tax is likely to rise to Is 6d as soon as the Sinking Fund payments begin in order to relieve the taxpayers of the Allied debtor countries from a liability which they cannot at present meet. In view of Britain’s trade depression—the severest in the country’s history—proposals involving further sacrifices by Britain should bo most closely scrutinised. The risk involved in cancelling any substantial portion of the debts owed to Britain outweighs the possible advantages. Neither the nation nor its industry can afford to gamble on the chance of a fine gesture evoking a corresponding philanthropy in other countries. —A. and N.Z. Cable. APPEAL TO AMERICA. DAILY EXPRESS CRITICISM.

LONDON, August 2. (Received August 3, at 6.5 p.m.) The Daily Express states: “The Earl of Balfour’s Note contains proposals which' are eminently right and likely to meet with the British taxpayers’ imqualified approval, but the form thereof is another matter. It is equivalent to appealing to American opinion to throw over their Government’s declared views regarding war debts. If it had succeeded it would have been an immense stroke and failure must have been proportionately great. It is already clear that it has failed.”—A. and N.Z. Cable. BRITISH PRESS COMMENT. CONFLICTING VIEWS. LONDON, August 3. (Received Aug. 3, at 8.40 p.m.) The Daily Chronicle says: “We expected that some French commentators would draw the moral from the Note that as Britain was not prepared to remit to. France more than three-fourth of the debt to Britain, France must get the outstanding fourth from Germany. What France can do is to ruin Germany, keep Europe in a turmoil, and accumulate materials for a future explosion. What Prance cannot do is to pay her debts by toe occupation of Germany territory. Imprisonment for debt, which is France’s way with Germany, may or may not be a just retribution for the debtor’s sins, but it is a way that never has brought much money to a creditor’s account. We believe that France will realise this truth and act thereon.” The Daily Telegraph says: “The result of the. Note is seen m M. Poincare’s ultimatum. The situation thus created is so delicate and difficult that either a solution must speedily be reached or the strain will become greater than can be regarded with equanimity. America’s attitude to Great Britain does not affect the Note, which demonstrates that Britain is ready to lead in a nractical renunciation.” The Telegraph points out that Britain’s obligations to America were incurred on behalf of the Allies because America would not lend except upon British security. Britain does not complain at having to repay, but says it cannot be right for one partner in a common enterprise to recover all she lent, while the other, recovering nothing, has to repay all she borrowed. The Note is logical and unanswerable. The Morning Post says: “America is opposed to the Earl of Balfour’s subtle proposals which are a psychological blunder of the first magnitude, and which have committed the British Government. It is notorious that the Government is divided regarding the subject. Sir Robert Horne (Chancellor of the Exchequer), the Treasury, the greatest experts in international affairs, and the City, of London were against the publication of the Note which was issued only after much hesitation. The document which was addressed only indirectly to America created the impression that Britain was about to default and was trying to escape, not by honestly, brutally, and bluntly declaring her inability to pay, but by an underhand method of specious communication with her unhappy debtors. The result is that the co-operation of the United States in the restoration of Europe has been indefinitely postponed. Moreover, Mr Lloyd George cannot protest if the poiln instate himself in the Ruhr Valley. Marshal Foch can polish off hia work with a clear conscience.” The Daily Herald says: "America cannot get money from Groat Britain without hitting her own industries. Already she has a vast amount of unemployment and overstocked warehouses. It has taken years to bring to Great Britain that measure of sense indicated in the Note. It will take America years to overtake it. Let us assume that we are going to pay. America will pay dearly for the payment.” 4 The Daily News believes that “sooner or later, by her own impulse, never at our instigation, America will realise her opportunity for helping in a world settlement in this matter or indebtedness. We also believe that Great Britain will realise that, if her debtors can be brought to forgive in their turn, her forgiveness will be worth the sacrifice, whatever other obligations may rest upon her.” * The Westminster Gazette says: “The nrn Klem of the inter-AHiod d°Kts and their relation to the German indemnity is not a matter of ethical dialectics, but practical business. Our most urgent necessity is to persuade France so to regard it. The American’s feelings about the sanctity of his claims against Great Britain cannot

be compared with the Frenchman’s feelings about the sanctity of his claims against Germany. France cannot force payments from Germany without causing a European catastrophe damaging* to herself, and equally disastrous to Great Britain. Similarly we cannot force our claims against her or our other Allies. We hope the Government will think again, devoting more attention to the urgent necessities of the European situation and less to the exceedingly hypothetical effects of its logic upon American opinion.” GERMANY’S PRIVATE DEBTS FRANCE’S COERCIVE NOTE. ANXIETY IN BERLIN. PARIS, August 2. M. Poincare’s reply to Germany points out that the £2,000,000 must be paid before August 15, and that an assurance that it will be paid must be given_ by August 5. If this assurance is not given coercive measures will be taken. The reply has caused much anxiety in Berlin. Though the coercive measures are not stated, Berlin fears the expulsion of 8(0,000 Germans resident in Alsace and that their property will be confiscated; also,-that the personal belongings of 1000 of the richest families will be confiscated. ■—A. and N.Z. Cable. BELGIUM’S ATTITUDE. DIRECTLY OPPOSED TO FRANCE. LONDON, August 3. (Received August 3, at 7.55 p.m.) The Daily Telegraph’s Paris correspondent stresses the fact that though M. Poincare will leave on Sunday to meet Mr Lloyd George on Monday, he has hound himself in a certain eventuality to act individually against Germany. One reason for Franco’s obduracy regarding Germany’s adherence to the arrangement for the payment of private debts _is that the German Government in 1920 stipulated that German debtors payments would be reckoned on the pre-war value of-the mark, the difference in the actual sums paid in the depreciated currency when translated into foreign currency being guaranteed by the German Treasury. France regards this as unwarranted, resulting merely in an adverse effect on the Reich’s financial situation. Belgium’s attitude is directly opposed to that of France, which has caused grave disappointment in Paris. The French press’s attitude to the whole question is summarised in the Matin’s reference to M- Poincare’s action as “ Stopping a swindle."—A. and N.Z. Cable. PASSIVE RESISTANCE. GERMANY’S PROBABLE ACTION. LONDON, August 3. (Received August 3, at 7.55 p.m.) The Daily Chronicle’s Berlin correspondent understands that the Government will not answer M. Poincare’s Note, but will adopt a passive altitude toward any French action. It is believed in Berlin that M. Poincare intends to seize the Customs’, railways’, post and telegraphs’ taxation and revenue in the occupied area. GoVernment circles are greatly astonished at M. Poincare’s intention to put in the bailiffs 10 days before payment is due.— A. and N.Z. Cable. FURTHER SLUMP IN MARK. LONDON, August 2. France’s coercive Note caused a further slump on the German exchange, and the mark closed at about 3540.—A. and N.Z. Gable.