New-York tribune., 1921-02-01
Bankers Differ
IN Opinion, on,
Allies : Terms
Some Financial Experts In
cline TO View That They
Are Impractical and De-
feat Their Own Purpose
Export Tax Condemned
Ciause Limiting Placing Of
germa'l Credits Believed
Io Be Mere Formality

Men of high standing in Amepican
ilhance Iace expressed varying opinions yes
terday relative to the agreement Of the
supreme ~Council on German ref,ara-
tlons, but some leaders of Wall Street
opinion asserted that the terms offered
were impractical and would defeat their
purpose.
a. Barton Hepburn. chairman of the
advisory council Of the Chase National
Bank, declared the indemnity to be ex-
acted from Germany was entirely too
severe and would have the effect of
turning neutral sentiment toward Ger
many and away from the Allies.
The amount of indemnity to be ex-
acted from Germany" Mr.. Hepburn
said, would be reasonable but for the
II per cent tax ON foreign sales. This
lmpost makes the indemnity unfair. un-
just and ungenerous and places the
FGermans at q disadvantage in COM
peting for world trade
Germany must manufacture and sell
abroad to pay any indemnity, but the
tax on exports shows disposition on
the part of the Allies to. keep control
OF Germany by military force for forty
1.-TWO years. Germany should be given
the oppor ealnity to work out her diff
culties without danger from invaders.
The indemnity as now fixed cannot be
the basis for any loan in this market to
Germany. Our own government should
see to it that the amount of the in
demnity is fixed at a definite sum"
Terms Economically Impossible
France Snd the other Allies must
get it out of their headsn observed a
prominent banker, that they can
squeeze blood out of turnip. 1t is
all very we'll to talk Big figures, but
it is another matter to collect IT is
economically impossible, although, pos
sibly politically desirable, to force Ger
many to sign on the terms offered"
Another banker, partner in great
international banking firm, referred to
the reparations agreement as deter
mined upon at the Paris conference as
done" He added that it was not sur
prising, however, in view of the state
>of European politics.
A prominent fnancier attributed the
huge size of the repa,ations payment
to three things. First, he said, is the
sny wh ssr may "a reaten Franss ey he
second is the French desire Of re-
venge, and the third French economic
ignorance.
"The sooner France is told to lay
aside her imperialistlc amhitions,p he
said, "the quicker real basis of rea-
1t is unfortunate that the United States
is standing on the side lines looking
on. We have a tremendous stake in
the paper we hold of the Allies, and
we should use our position to force" q
reasonable settlement Of this great
question:,
Bankers Divided in Views
The divergence of opinion in bank
ing quarters relative to the reparations
agreement found reflection in one
large banking institution where a
meeting of the officers was held. The
! reparations question came up for dis
cussion, and the officers were about
evenly divided in theig views.
With regard to the action of the Su-
preme Council, which would make it
impossible for Germany tot seek to
place credits in the United States with
out frst obtaining consent of the
PROPER Allied authorities, the common
banking view was CnaC TINS would pc
only formality, and nothing would be
done to stop German external financing
where it would aid Germany, directly
or indirectly, in paying it's reparation
dues.
! In the opinion Of leading interna-
| tional banker who has had much to do
with Allied finance in recent years
| especially during the war, such Ger
man indemnity bonds IS might be is
sued to the different Allied nations, in
accordance with the reparations agree
lnent, would not likely he a factor in