CLASHES IN SAAR

Dominion, Volume 28, Issue 91, 11 January 1935, Page 9

CLASHES IN SAAR

Mounted Police Make Several Charges

MANY PEOPLE INJURED

By Telegraph.—Press Assu.—Copyright. (Received January 10, 7.45 p.m.)

Saarbrucken, January 9.

The Governing Commission was hurriedly convened due to disorders after the arrival of an American contingent of voters.

Nazi and Communist clashes and a Nazi demonstration in front of the Town Hall soon succeeded an uproarious welcome. The police endeavoured to silence crowds who were defying the regulations. Several mounted police charges took place, and many were injured before the demonstrators dispersed. The Saarbrucken correspondent of the “Daily Express,” a London cable states, says that when the Pullman car used for Continental journeys by King Edward and King George was sold by auction at Calais in 192(1 the purchaser was Herr Wols, Jewish director of a railway engineering works at Dillingen. Herr Wols is an anti-Hitlerite who recently dismissed a number of workmen. He says that Nazis, in revenge, raided the premises and smashed King Edward’s luxuriously furnished coach. Herr Wols intends to make souvenirs from the wreckage and present them to British officers in’ the Saar. FUTURE OF SAAR Plebiscite’ on Sunday ISSUE BEFORE PEOPLE Residents of tire Saar basin, a topographical depression between the northern part of Lorraine and Germany are, in the terms of the Treaty of Versailles, to be asked by plebiscite vote on Sunday to say whether or not they will remain as they are (under the jurisdiction of the League), return to Germany, or go over to France. Although the issue looms up as one of tremendous interest, the weight of opinion seems to be that there is no doubt as to the issue—tlie Saar will be returned to Germany. Even then Germany has to pay France in gold for the Saar’s coal and iron mines within a given time, which, it is thought, may make for complications a little later on —when France renders her account, I Some light is thrown on. the Saar problem in the book “The Saar

Struggle,” by Michael Florinsky (published by the Macmillan Company). The Saar territory is a purely artificial creation, says Dr. Florinsky, with no roots in the past. The makers of the Treaty of Versailles placed it under League jurisdiction for fifteen years and gave its mines to France in compensation for the damage done to the French coal mines by the German Army during the World War. The League of Nations set up a regime of benevolent despotism, headed by a governing commission of five members, of whom only one is a citizen of the Saar. Tlie Advisory Council of the Saarlanders usually rejects the ordinances of the governing commission, which nevertheless appear a few days later in the Official Journal of the territory.

The author finds the people of the Saar quiet, kind and patient. An aggressive champion of tlie annexation of the Saar by France told him as they motored through the smiling countryside that “a regime similar to the one the territory has accepted for fifteen years could not have been maintained under like conditions in a French mining district for even a few months.” But, then, in tlie Saar even the Communists arc said to attend mas?' every Sunday. Dr. Florinsky reminds us that some of tlie mines still follow the custom of having a prayer said before tlie men descend into Hie pit. One turns with particular interest to tlie chapter dealing with the coming plebiscite. The author gives a careful description of the battle lineup. On the one side there is (lie “German Front” (Deutsche Front), composed principally of those who profess to favour tlie unconditional return of the Saar to the Reich, irrespective On the other side, there is the “Liberty Front” or “United Front” (Einheitsfront), composed mostly of Socialists, Communists and dissident Roman Catholics, who are also for return to Germany but only after Hitter’. Meanwhile they want the territory to reinaii, under League government. The nucleus of the “Deutsche Front” was Hie local Nazi party. The author asserts, however, that a large num-

her of its members are opposed to Hitlerism and some of them have even expressed strong opinions on the subject. These members are of the view that the Reich must not be condemned on account of the Hitler regime, which may be only a passingwhim. The “Deutsche Front” claims to be endorsed by about 95 per cent of the entire voting population of the Saari There is also a small group of people whose final aim seems to be union with France fnrough the transition stage of the “status quo.” In the course of his investigations Dr. Florinsky has brought to light some revealing'' facts about the “Deutsche Front.” showing that some of its members joined it under duress and that in the polling booth they might express their real' opinion by voting against. Hitler. The Roman Catholic population in the territory is a determing factor, some 75 per- cent, being

Roman Catholics. The chances of Germany’s overwhelming sucsess in tlie Saar seem to.' have suffered a reverse on June 39, when two prominent Roman Catholics of the Reich found their death at the hands of Hitler’s men in the great Summer blood-bath. “If the Roman Catholic •clergy decides,” the author says, “to lend its support to the opponents of Germany the consequences may be quite unpredictable.” The Vatican has its observer on the spot and his conclusions may have a decisive influence.

The author shares the prevailing view- that without Hitler 95 to 99 per cent, of the Saar population would have voted for Germany. The Saar is German and the author could find no trace of the 150,000 Frenchmen in the territory about whom Clemenceau spoke at the peace conference. Speculating on the prospects of the plebiscite, Dr. Florinsky finds that France is completely ruled out and that the issue narrows down to the alternative of Germany or the League. Economic considerations may enter into the problem but will not be decisive. He thinks that but for some particularly disturbing events before the plebiscite. Germany will have a substantial majority, but "the possibility of surprises in the vote of January 13 should not lie'considered as completely eliminated.” But the Saar will not cease Io exist even if Germany obtains tlie majority vote. Tlie peace treaty provides that flic result serves merely as a guidance to„the League of Nations tw decide on tlie sovereignly under which the territory is to be placed. Since tlie voting will lie by communes or districts, some of those units may be detached from Germany even though the territory as a whole gives her a majority. And here the grave danger lies, in that case tlie situation might parallel that of Upper Silesia where a plebiscite resulted in a local war and a perennial problem. Besides, the two neighbours will he confronted with the problem of the Saar mines now in French hands, which Germany will have the right—in ease the territory wants to be reunited with her —to repurchase at a price payable in gold. But Germany supposedly has no gold.