The Daily News. FRIDAY, JANUARY 31, 1919. THE INDEMNITIES' QUESTION.

Taranaki Daily News, 31 January 1919, Page 4

The Daily News. FRIDAY, JANUARY 31, 1919. THE INDEMNITIES' QUESTION.

In his opening address at the Peace Conference, the French President (M. Poineave) said: "We are relieved fro™ imperialistic conquest, find now meet io deal out justice in matters of territory, finance, and economically in such a way as wi'i not encourage a recurrence 01' such a crime." That statement is one that concisely summed up the position, for if the Conference fails to im.uea It-mis of peace as will justly meet the losses suffered by the Allies it will fail to fulfil its mission. A recent cable contained a statement by t,ho Morning Post's special Paris correspondent to the effect that divergencies of opinion at the Conference now centre on the feeding of Germany and the question of indemnity. The correspondent added that President Wilson had always favored payment by Germany for damages caused by the war, but was not willing to acquiesce in an indemnity in addition. He further stated that the English delegates more or less agreed with President Wilson on this point, but thnt France had drawn up a careful account of her losses from every source and would shortlypresent the bill. In one respect there is a difference between the position of Britain and that of France, for Germany declared war on France and therefore is clearly liable to pay the French bill, but Britain declared war on Germany so that it is a mere question of sentiment'whether or not Britain demands an indemnity. Tn the past, Britain has been animated by peculiar notions of chivalry in treating with her eonouered foes, and having gained her end has shouldered the financial burden. In this instance, however, it is not Britain alone that is concerned in the exaction of a just indemnity, but the whole of the Empire has to be considered, and it must he remembered that such financial aid as Britain gave to the Dominions was by way of loan, the repayment of which is naturally anticipated. In this connection Mr Hughes, itio Commonwealth Premier, ha 3 spoken very decisively. Australia's war debt, lie said, was a most frightful handicap, r.nd Germany must pay indemnities to the utmost of her ability, Australia sharing proportionately to the part she played in the war."On another occasion he stated. "We must demaud such terms of peace as will' be compatible with our sacrifices. The terms must he just to ourselves as well as to the enemy It was not only the Kaiser, but all Germany, that was guilty, for, if the Kaiser led them, the people were quite willing to. he led. If Germany stood

where we stand to-day, w should have had e*aeted from us to the ulterrnosl farthing, and she would h.'ne torn our Empire asunder." The position of the other Dominions 011 this indemnity is identical witli flint of .Australia. Moreover, it in face of the Dominions' claims for indemnities the British delegate.? do not support the exaction, a very undesirable position will arise, for while- as a logical sequence to that attitude the Motherland may offer to expunge the war loans of the Dominions, tin latter conld hardly be expected to .allow such a sacrifice to bp-

made. It has to be borne in mind that the fourteen points laid down by President Wilson have no bearing on the peace terms. They were promulgated with a view to v. possible conference during' the war so as to gnd the struggle by agreement, but Germany declined to take advantage of the opportunity, went on with tiie war and was defeated, so there is not the slightest pretext for claiming that the absence of mention of indemnities in the fourteen points has any bearing on the peace terms now being considered. lierr Ebert has stated that Germany will sign a peace based on the fourteen points, but will not agree to a peace including any further demands, but as Germany had practically to agree to an unconditional surrender she will have to accept such terms as the Conference decides to impose. It is somewhat .significant that the fourth commission appointed by the Conference was charged with the duty of inquiring into the amount of reparation which the enemy ought to pay, or what the enemy is capable of paying, and the method and time of payment. Reparation does not, presumably, include the cost of the war. yet there can be no just settlement which does not provide for reimbursement by Germany "to the utmost of her ability." President Wilson appears to be more concerned with putting Germany on her feet than with doing justice to the Allies. America came so late into the war that she hardly realises the burden it has been to the Allies, but President Wilson should bear in mind that America has loaned large sums towards the Allies' war expenditure, and though he knows the repayment is perfectly secure, yet the fact that money had to be borrowed to prosecute the war to a victorious conclusion should be a sufficient reason for taking the view that all this borrowed money should be paid by Germany with a substantial addition towards a refund of expenditure out of revenue. It is contrary to all sense of right and justice that the nations which were forced into the most criminal war of all time should be forced for many years to come to bear the financial burden and the authors of the war absolved from liability. The doctrine that the losers pay is one that should be insisted upon. Germany can pay —in money or in kind —and from her should be exacted indemnities sufficient to relieve the Allies from their financial burdens.