WHY M. BLUM WAS NOT GRANTED POWERS

Taranaki Central Press, Volume IV, Issue 461, 1 July 1937, Page 5

WHY M. BLUM WAS NOT GRANTED POWERS

FEARS OF MISUSE OF LEGISLATION Enthusiastic Reception To Official Explanation CP r ess Associate on—Copyright.) Received July 1, 1 1.30 a.m. Paris, June 30. The Senate adopted the Finance Bill by 167 votes to 82, after the Finance Commission had unconditionally accepted it by 20 votes to three. Shouts of “Post It!" greeted the explanation by M. Abel Gardey, the Commission’s rapporteur, of why the Senate had refused the Socialist M. Blum full powers, but granted them to the Radical, M. Chautemps. “Post it” means that under the law of Affichage, the speech will be placarded on every town hall and public hoarding; but though a show of hands favoured this, M. Caillaux secured a suspension of the sitting to decide the question, the motion having so incensed the Socialists that M. Auriol, a former Finance Minister, and several colleagues, left the Chamber. M. Gardey’s speech amounted to the funeral oration of the Popular Front. He argued that M. Blum would have used the plenary powers for the coercion of nationalisation, instead of for national recovery. Later M. Gardey testified how touched he was by the compliment of the posting motion, but as it might create a fresh parliamentary conflicf-, he begged the Senate to cancel the decision, which, after consultation, was done.