GENOA CONFERENCE

Hokitika Guardian, 12 May 1922, Page 3

GENOA CONFERENCE

AUSTRALIAN AND N.Z. CABLE ASSOCIATION. RUSSIANS DISSATISFIED. r . GENOA, May 1. The preamble of the Russian reply, as communicated to Signor Schanzer, emphasises ft Russian request for the recognition of guarantees agaihst outside intervention over the Russian Sns. The reply contends that the ies have hot touched these vital the payment of the debts. The Russians agree to negotiate regarding the memorandum, but they point out the document does not' offe.r an equitable solution of the Russian problem, but is even a step backwards from the memorandum of the London experts, and it deviates from the Cannes resolutions. The reply declared .the obstinate resistance of the First Sub-Commission to any proposal except the recognition of Russian debts was due to reactionary » interests, which would seek in a defeat " of Soviet Russia a triumph of capitalistic individualism. The Russians reassert they do not desire to wreck the Conference. THE VATICAN’S RUSSIAN memorandum. The Vatican’s Memorandum in regard to religious toleration in Russia was discussed. M. Barthou moved its reference to the sub-commission. Mr Lloyd George said that there was no stronger supporter of religious freedom than himself. The subject ha been n matter of conflict everywhere. He suggested an inquiry to ascertain the real position in Russia, M. Jttspat* pressed the Holy See’s request; Mr George replied that ho could not see ivhat actioil could be taken, without its infringing Russia’s right He agreed the Vatican’s Note should he referred to the sntHcommissioil. The Pope, lie said, had beeti a good friend to the conference, hut he (Lloyd George was quite certain the Pope would not press the memorial to a point which might endanger. the peace of Eastern Europe.

THE RUSSIAN REPLY.

TO ALLIED MEMORANDUM

(Received this day at 8.30 a. in.) PARIS, May 11 Teliitchdrin interviewed, regarding the Russian reply, said we have now gotie as far as possible in the direction of confessions. The expression of opinibli which came from Russia, was too imperative for us to go beyond a certain limit. The unmistakable opinion was constantly expressed by our workers oft the question of nationalisation without compensation. The publication of the London memorandum provoked considerable reeling in Russia. The Government was inundated wtib resolutions from local Soviets, Workers Assembles and army regiments. The army was a strong political force. It must not be forgotten that the period of intervention and invasion bad the - result of attaching the peasants and workers closer to the present regime, which had become for them a symbol of complete, national independence.

STILL HELD HACK. (Received this day at 9.50 a.m.) LONDON. May 11

The Australian Press Association’s Genoa correspondent sta'es the Russian reply is further delayed, until the nfteinoon, it is believed ns an outcome of Tchitcherin’s interview with Schanzer. AVlien he submitted the reply, Schan.Ker declared the reply was unlikely to be acceptable. It is understood Tchitcherin is further considering.

Italian papers publish what appears like a preamble, wherein the Russians point out the main point of reconstruction of new Russia has been subordinated to dealing with past matters, wherein a certain group of foreign nations have not any interests. The Allies made such a wide inemrsion into old matters that they produced lively controversies among themselves. -Many incidents have occurred in the last lewdays, notably the oil question, which showed purely material interests were interlaced with purely political considerations. ,