DE VALERA'S WANTS

Rotorua Morning Post, Volume 2, Issue 367, 31 October 1932, Page 5

DE VALERA'S WANTS

(Press. Assn.

MADE DEMANDS WHICH BRITAIN COULD NOT GRANT OVER-TAXATION alleged

— By Telegraph — Copyi'.ght),

Rec. Oct. 30, 7.30 p.m. London, October 3d... • The White paper, dealing with the rocen| Anglo-Irisji conference, revealed that Mr. de Vaiera.claimed that the Free State was entitled to a share of the United Kingdom's road funci. The British Government agreed, hut a dispute [has' arisen ip regard to the apportionment, which the Free State claims has been unfair and should be retrospectively revived. The Treasury regarded this as inadmissable and both sides agreed to sub-mit to the arbitration of Sir Henry Strakoseh. The Free .State claimed compensation in respect of loss eonsequent upon Great Britain's abandonment of the gold standard. Britain replied the abandonment caused no loss to the Free State, but rather a gain. In any ease the matter was a domestie one and no claim could be admitted. The Free State claimed reeoupment for over-taxation and a share of the assets of the f ormer United Kingdom. It is understood that the amount involved is £400,000,000. Britain's reply was that it was impossible to establish any cleai* proof that Ir eland was overtaxed up to the present. The Free State sought to avoid payment of pensions of Royal Irish Constabulary, civil servants and judges employed in Ireland before the creation of the Free State and argued that the Royal Irish Constabulary was settled by the Financial Agreements of 1923 and 1926. The Free State took over the functions of the police together with other Governmental positions, consequently the cost of pensions, was a norma! part there of which any Government would be expected to bear. As regards civil and judicial pensions, the general opinion was that the various departments were handed ovei' as a going concern with the assets and liabilities attached. The Free State claimed a share of the assets of the Post Office Savings Bank held against instalment accounts in the Free State. The British reply was that it was not possible to agree to transfer any part of the balance without the consent of the depositors or legal representatives. As regards annuities, the White paper discloses nothing new, except the msistence of the Free State. that the 1923 Financial Agreement was not submitted to ratification. The British reply was that according to recognised practices among nations, the agreements of 1923 and 1926 were binding unless expressly stated to be subject to ratifieation, and no such statement was made in the agreement signed by the Ministers of each side.