EX-KAISER'S PROPERTY

Evening Post, Volume CXII, Issue 54, 1 September 1926, Page 16

EX-KAISER'S PROPERTY

REFERENDUM ON CONFISCATION

SANCTITY OF PRIVATE PROPERTY.

(From Our Own Correspondent.)

LONDON, 30th June.

As the result of the plebiscite on the plan to confiscate the property, valued many scores of millions of pounds, claimed by the ex-Kaiser, the German people have upheld the principle of the sanctity of private property. The number of registered voters in the Reich is at the present moment 39,690,559. Of these 14,4i1,590 voted "Yes," 584,723 voted "No," and 559,406 spoiled their papers. It was necessary for more than 19,000,000 to vote for the Confiscation Bill for it to become laiv.

A comparison of the numerical strength of the various political parties indicates that a substantial proportion among those who voted for the confiscation of the possessions of their ex-rulers are opposed to confiscation in other forms. A part of the Centre and a part of the Left, having to choose between a vote which might involve general confiscation, and a vote which, by diverting a great deal of wealth to ex-Kings and princes, would inflict more hardship upon the already impoverished middle classes, chose to risk general confiscation. For behind the particular question of the property of the ex-rulers of Germany inevitably lay the larger question of the sanctity of private property, as such. As the right of private property is preserved in the Constitution, any measure infringing that right would involve an alteration in the Constitution, for which an absolute majority of the electorate is required. Hence the terms of the referendum.

SOCIALISTS' PREDICTION. The parties of the Right are jubilant and express their great satisfaction that the German nation has not proved' itself to the world to be composed entirely of hordes of robbers and criminals. They are proclaiming with glee that the "Had" assault has been beaten off, and that Germany has been spared the worst disgrace. But they admit that a heavy weight has been moved from the breasts, in favour of a repeal of the provision of the Constitution which permits a plebiscite to be held. The Socialists draw attention to the fact that what the Monarchists describe as the marauding rabble are about one-half of that section of the nation which takes an active interest in politics. They announce that the parties on the Right will pay at the next election for having terrorised the country voters now and for having abused their influence and power in the attempt to protect the former ruler's money. AIM OF COMMUNISTS.

The Communist Party, of course, desires to abolish the right of private property; and it is instructive to note that the Socialist Party, although it is not in favour of wholesale abolition, supported the Communists for political reasons. A similar supple expediency is observable among the Socialists of other countries. Insofar as the Communists are concerned the effect of the referendum is to convince them that confiscation is now impossible. With that qualification, the question of the claims of the ex-rulers remains unaltered. There are now two courses open to the German Government. Either the ordinary Courts must be permitted to continue adjudicating upon those claims upon the same unsatisfactory basis! as before, or a new Bill defining the terms of settlement must be introduced. So far, the Courts have dealt generously with the Monarchist demands. It was largely for that reason the Communists, dragging with tliem the Socialists, forced their demand for a referendum on their Confiscation Bill. 85, 'Fleet -street: