Republican farmer., 1919-05-30

"Complaint is made in the German note that Germany Is required to sur render her merchant tonnage, eN- istlng or in course of construction and that a prior claim is made upon her shipbuilding capacity for a limited term of years. No mention. however. is made of the fact that a considera ble portion of the smaller tonnage of Germany is left 60 her unimpaired: and it seems to have entirely escaped the notice of her spokesman that the sacrifice of her larger shipping is the inevitable and necessary 1udgme ent rropossd upon her for tho submarine war imposed during the last two years.
 For the twelve and three-fourths tons of shipping sunk. 1t is proposed 10 transfer 100000 tons of German shipping. In other words the ship ping proposed to take from Germany constitutes less than one-third of what she destroyed
 Great stress Is laid in proposal that on the eastern si6S Germany shall he deprived of the regions specially devoted to the production of wheat and potatoes This Is true. But the note fails altogether to observe that there is nothing in the peace treaty to prevent either tho continued pro-
  areas in question. or their importa- ton into Germany. On the contrary, the free admission of these products of the eastern districts is provided for during a period of three years. More over it is fortunate for Germany that those regions have lost none of the productfveness owing to the rage of the war. They have escaped 'the shocking fate which was dealt out by the German armies to the correspond ing territories in Belgium and France on the west and Poland, Russia. Ru- mania and Serbia on the east There appears to be no reason why her pro- duce should not continue to find market
 ''Countries which do not produce phosphates arc compelled to import them in common with many other products from the outside; and the only difference in the two situations will arise from the relative degree of wealth or impoverishment in the country's concern
 The German note makes special complaint of the deprivation of coal and asserts that nearly one-third of the production of the existing coal mines will be lost But it omits to notice that one-fourth of the pre- war consumption of German coal was in the territories which 1t is now pro posed to transfer. Further it fails to take into account the production of Ignite, s0.o0O, 900 tons of which were produced annually in Germany before the war. and none of which Is de- rived from the transferred territory. either is any reference made to the fnct that the output of coal in the non-transferred districts was rapidly tpnrcaafn0 hafnrp and that there is no reason to doubt that un- der proper management there will be an increasing amount in the future.
 '-But should not the coal situation be viewed from a different and wider standpoint? It cannot be forgotten that among the most wanton acts per- petrated by the German armies dur ing the war was the almost complete destruction by her of the coal supply of Northern France. An entire in- dustry was obIiterated with a calcu- lation and a savagery which it will take many years to repair. The result has been a grave and prolonged short age of coal fin Western Europe. There can be no reason in equity why the pfrect of this shortage should be borne exclusively by the Allied na- tions who were its victims or Ehy Germany. who deliberately mae- ier- self responsible for the defs---ecy should not. to the full limit c. aer capacity. make it good.
 "Stress is also laid upon the h~-d ships alleged to be inflicted upor Germany by the necessity of import ing iron ores and zinc. It is not -:n- derstood why Germany should bt suppoeed to suffer from conditions which other countries contentedly submit. It would appear to be q Fundamental fallacy that the politica control of a country is essential fr order to procure a reasonable share of fts products Such proposa nnds no foundation in economic law