HEAVY BURDEN

Southland Times, Issue 20772, 13 May 1929, Page 5

HEAVY BURDEN

BRITAIN’S WAR DEBTS

REVISION OF GERMAN REPARATIONS

OBJECTION TO PROPOSALS

(United Press Assn.—By Telegraph—Copyright.) Rugby, May 10.

The British Press, which is closely watching the proceedings of the reparations experts in Paris, unanimously approves of the firm tone of Mr Churchill’s statement in the House of Commons, that “the kind of proposals foreshadowed in the newspapers would be unacceptable, and his Majesty’s Government would in no circumstances entertain them.”

The proposals mentioned were to the effect that practically the whole cost of the revision of the German reparation payments should be borne by Great Britain by an alteration to Britain’s disadvantage of the percentages already definitely agreed to among the creditor Powers. The first publication of the suggestions to this effect was greeted with a spontaneous outburst of protest by the British Press, and this is based broadly upon the feeling that Britain has borne an excessively heavy share of the financial burdens entailed by’ the war. Great Britain made during the war advances to her Allies amounting to £1,600,000,000, and in order to finance her Allies she borrowed more than half that amount from the United States. Britain, in 1922, funded her debt to the United States on terms which provided for the full repayment in 62 years with back interest from June, 1919, capitalized at 4.1 per cent., and interest from the date of the funding at 3 per cent, for ten years and 31 per cent, thereafter. The amounts due to her were far in excess of her debt due to the United States, but the Balfour Note of August, 1922, summed up the British policy on the question in the following sentences: "The policy favoured by his Majesty's Government is that of surrendering its share of German reparations and writing off through one great transaction the whole body of interallied indebtedness, but if this is found impossible of accomplishment we wish it to be understood that we do not in any event desire to make a profit out of any less satisfactory arrangement. In no circumstances do we propose to ask more from our debtors than is necessary to pay to our creditors, and while we do not ask for more all will admit that we can hardly be content with less, for it should not be forgotten—though it sometimes is—that our liabilities were incurred for others, and not for ourselves. Half of the sums advanced to the Allies was provided not by means of foreign loans but by internal borrowing and war taxation.

“Unfortunately, a similar policy was beyond the power of the other European nations. An appeal was therefore made to the Government of the United States, and under the arrangement then arrived at the United States insisted in substance, if not in form, that though our Allies were to spend the money it was only on our security that America was prepared to lend it. This co-operative effort was of infinite value to the common cause, but it cannot be said that the role assigned to this country was one of special privilege or advantage. The sacrifices which this policy entails arc reflected in the fact that Britain is the most heavily taxed nation, and among all parties it is insisted that the cost of any further allevation allowed to Germany must not fall upon Britain alone, but must be shared proportionately by all the creditor nations.”— British Official Wireless. CLAIMS OF THE DOMINIONS. REPLY TO FOREIGN CRITICISM. (Rec. 5.5 p.m.) London, May 11. Controverting the unjustifiable foreign contention that the Balfour Note wiped out the dominions' claims to reparations, the diplomatic correspondent of the Daily Telegraph states that the Spa percentages specifically mentioned the Empire and the Balfour Note only Britain. Furthermore, the dominions were separately represented at the Dawes Conference of 1924-25; also in his memorandum of yesterday Mr Churchill explicitly reserved ths dominions’ rights.—. Australian Press Association. , SIR JOSIAH STAMP’S PLAN. (Rec. 11 p.m.) Paris, May 10. At a full meeting of the Committee of Experts on Reparations Sir Josiah Stamp reported progress. He explained that, he was endeavouring to incorporate Dr. Shacht’s conditions and reservations with the report on Mr. Owen Young’s reparations settlement with a view to producing a text acceptable to both creditor powers and the Germans. The next full meeting is not expected before Wednesday. The percentages plan appears to have been dropped.—Australian Press Association.