Untitled

Hokitika Guardian, 4 March 1933, Page 4

Aft ion steadfastly refusing to participate in the cont’-ovePoy that arose in the United States during the election campaign, AT. Pierre LavaJ, formerly Prime Minister of France, recently gave to the Matin hjs opinion rf the interpretation to be placed on the Hoover moratorium of 1931. NT. Laval contends that the agreement he-*

tween Mr Hoover and himself during

his visit to Washington was intended and understood to cover the payment of war -debts to the United Sta'.e-j. by France, as well as the payment of reparations to France and her Allies by Germany. M. Laval took the text of the agreed communique, issued by him and Mr Hoover at the end of their conversations, as the basis 'of his argument. The passage on which 'the French case rests is as follows: “As regards mter-Govern-mental obligations we recognise that before the end of the- Hoover Moratorium there may be need for an arrangement covering the period of economic depression on the terms of which our two Governments make all reserves. The initiative in coming tosueh an agreement will have to be taken by the European Governments principally concerned within the scope of the agreement in force before July 1, .1981.” M. Laval said that the phrase, “inter-Govern mental obligations” could have only ore meaning; it must refer both to the obligations of Germany toward France, and to the obligati!ons of Ffran.ce toward the United States. These two sets of obligations were in fact bracketed by Mr Hoover in his memorandum; they must be taken together in any arrangement to bo concluded before the- expiry of the moratorium. Mr Hoover’s interpretation of the subject lias been expounded at length by the Washington correspondent of the Times, upon information attributed to the President himself. A salient passage in his article is a s'follows:—“Mr Hoover's contention; is said to have- fcefen that granting—ns he granted—that there might, and probably would have to be, some reconsideration of war debt payments to the United States, this should be accomplished not by an extension of. the general morn tori urn, but by separate negotiation with each individual debtor on the basis of the capacity of each to w during the period of depr-esrion. M. Laval is said to have been visibly disturbed by Mr Hoover’s insistence on the principle of capacity to pay in the making of readjustments or in the grant of delay in payments because -at that time France had 700,090.009 dolla-si o-old in the vaults of the- New York Federal Reserve Bank; unmistakable evidence of her capacity to pay in full and a clear indication that if the nrirc’He of negoriatiou upon which Mr Hoover insisted were adopter] France could rot olnim, or get, the remission of a" single dollar.”