REPARATIONS AND DEBTS

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21549, 22 January 1932, Page 7

REPARATIONS AND DEBTS

THE LAUSANNE CONFERENCE POSTPONEMENT ANNOUNCED (United Press Association.) (By Electric Telegraph—Copyright.) LONDON, January 20. It is authoritatively stated that it is impossible for the Reparations Conference to begin on January 25, owing to the necessity for M. Laval to await a vote of confidence on Thursday, before deciding who will participate. AGREEMENT ON PROCEDURE. THE GOVERNMENT’S HOPES. LONDON, January 21. (Received Jan. 22, at 0.15 a.m.) The Times says: “ The Foreign Office announces that in view of the fact that the Governments concerned at Lausanne have not yet come to an agreement the conference cannot begin on January 25. Further conversations are progressing and the Government hopes for a satisfactory agreement on procedure in a few days.” AMERICA NOT SURPRISED. REGRET IN OFFICIAL CIRCLES. WASHINGTON, January 21. (Received Jan. 21, at 10 p.m.) The announcement from London of the postponement of the Lausanne Conference was learned with regret in official circles hero, though it was not wholly unexpected. While those who are in close touch with the situation are not yet ready to subscribe to the pessimism reflected in the London despatches that the conference may not be held at all it -is admitted that a deadlock exists, particularly in view of Dr Browning's refusal to accept a year’s extension of the moratorium. The situation, as it has developed during the last 24 hours, is held to be confirmatory of the reasonableness of tin* United States’s attitude that reparations and war debts must be considered itpart, and that the European nations should first agree upon a reparations policy among themselves. The New York Times, in a leader to day, comments on M. Laval’s statement that “we shall not permit the right of reparations to be taken away ” as being without point, and says further: “ What good docs it do to insist on' a right which has been rendered obsolete by events?” Mr Silas Strawn, president of the United States Chamber of Commerce, in a radio address, said: “We cannot settle the problem of reparations among our allies, that is their job, but we can and do insist that reparations and inter-allied debts are separate and distinct subjects, and that when the ability of our debtors to pay us is up for discussion we shall bo interested.”

AMERICA’S FEAR. UNITED EUROPEAN MANOEUVRE. NEW YORK, January 20. (Received Jan. 21, at 10 p.m.) The New York Times’s Washington correspondent says: “The disclosure of Mr Stimson’s memorandum of December to the French Ambassador (M. Clandel) reveals that the United States has been concerned lest the European Powers should form a united front against America, confronting her with a demand for a reduction of Governmental debts in return for a scaling down of German reparations. The memorandum reiterated the United States’s known attitude in the question of war debts and reparations and intimated that a new moratorium would stand no chance of approval by the Congress, which looks with displeasure upon collective action by the debtor nations against the United States. The fear of the so-called united front manoeuvre, however, was dissipated when British press reports, apparently reflecting the MacDonald Government’s policy, intimated that England would frown upon any concerted debt move. That there would at the outset be sentiment in favour of reducing the terms of the British debts is seen in the attitude of Senator Reed, of Pennsylvania, who agrees that stricter terms were reached with Britain than with France and other countries.”