REPARATIONS.

Taranaki Daily News, 4 September 1922, Page 5

REPARATIONS.

VIEWS ON NEW PLAN, GERMANY DISSATISFIED. , CONDITIONS IMPOSSIBLE. By Telegraph.—Press Assn.—Copyright. Received Sept. 3, 11.5 p.m. Berlin, Sept. 1. Every section of the Press disparages the reparations’ decision. The highly-influen-tial Bourse Courier declares: “It destroys every allusion we ever held. Instead of granting a moratorium it imposes impossible conditions. The Deutsche, Dresdener, Diskons, and Darmstadter banks unequivo- ' cally refuse to discount bills, and it is equally impossible to deposit gold in a foreign bank.”—Aus.-N.Z. Cable Assn. The newspapers welcome the breathing space, but anticipate difficulties in meeting the Belgian demands. AP declare the Reichsbank will never allow its gold to be deposited in any foreign bank. SIX MONTHS’ GRACE. BELGIUM APPLAUDS DECISION. ' Received Sept. 3, 11.5 p.m. Brussels. Sept. 1. The Premier (M. Theunis), interviewed, said Belgium and the world might be congratulated on the reparations decision, which, though refusing a moratorium, gave Germany six months in which to find means not now available. It also removed irritating discussions on acceptable pledges.—Aus.-N.Z. Cable Assn. ATTITUDE OF FRANCE. PROTECTING HER INTERESTS. QUESTION OF GUARANTEES. Received Sept. 3, 5.5 pm. Paris, Sept. 1. _ Cabinet, on hearing that it was the Belgians who proposed the modification which the Reparations Commission eventually accepted, resolved that France must reserve to herself liberty of action until the stipulated guarantees contained in the agreement are forthcoming. Le Temps says France’s interests are safe. It was essential for her that a moratorium should not be granted. If those conditions had not been fulfilled, France would have seen even further delay in receiving a portion of German payments in cask, and since Belgium has accepted bonds, France’s rights are not infringed. REPARATION COMMISSION. POWERS UNDER THE TREATY. The Reparations Commission, with no better guidance than the direct conflict of views between France and Britain revealed in the breakdown of the London Conference, has been called upon to make the most important decision within its competency. Set up by the Allied Powers as the “exclusive agency for receiving, selling, holding and distributing the reparation payments to be made by Germany.” it fixed in Mareh, 1921, in exercise of the powers delegated to it, the total of Germany’s indemnity at £6.600,000.000. That total having been fixed, the Reparations Commission cannot cancel any part of it except with the specific authority of the several Governments represented upon the commission, bus at its discretion it can extend the date and modify the form of payments. The Versailles Treaty lays down that the commission shall not be bound by any particular code or rule of law, or by any particular rule of evidence or of procedure, but shall be guided by justice, equity and good faith; and further, it “shall in general have wide latitude as to its control and handling of the whole reparation problem.” The commission sitting at Paris comprises the delegates of Britain, France. Italy and Belgium. Japan and Yugo-Slavia have also delegates on the commission, but these may only participate in its proceed’ngs when Japanese or Yugo-Slav interests are concerned.

The question before the commission had to he decided by the vote of a majority if the moratorium under consideration is not projected beyond 1930 and is restricted to instalments falling due between May 1. 1921. and the end of 1926. On the following questions there must be unanimity:— (a) Questions involving the sovereigntv of any of the Allied and Associated Powers, or the cancellation of the whole or any part of the debt or obligations of Germany. (b) Questions of determining the amount and conditions of bonds or other obligations to be issued by the German Government and of fixing the time and manner for selling, negotiating or distributing such bonds. (c) Any postponement, total or partial. bevond the end of 1930 of the payment of instalments falling due between Mav 1. 1921. and the end of 1926, inclusive. fd) Any postponement, total or partial. of any instalment falling due after 1926 for a period exceeding three years. e) Questions of annlving in any particular case a method of measuring damages d’fferent from that which ha-s been previouslv applied in a similar case. (f) Questions op the interpretation nf the provisions of this part of the treaty. It is al°o provided that in case of anv [ difference of oninion among the dele- ! gates, which cannot he solved by reference to their Governments, upon the question whether a given case is one which requires a unanimous vote for its decision or not. such difference shall he referred to the immediate arbitration of some impartial per=on to he agreed upon hv their Governments, whose award the Allied and Associated Governments agree to accept. • Tn case of default by Germany, th® treatv provides that, the commission will forthwith give notice of such default to each of the interested Powers, I any may make such recommendations l as to the action to be taken as it, mav [think necessary. The measures which • the Allies have the right to take in i ease of voluntary default by Germanv, and which Germany has agreed not to regard as acts of war. mav include economic and financfhl prohibitions and reprisals and. “in general, such other measures as the respective Governments may determine to be necessary.”