Great Falls tribune. [volume] (Great Falls, Mont.) 1921-current, 1922-05-03
WAR q AND OTHER


al effort to get on her feet in an
economic sense is based on her
recognition Of her duty to pay all
her pre-war bonds and make resti-
tuition Or recompense for all pri-
vate property of aliens c~onfiscated
or destroyed during the soviet re-
gime. That conceded by Russia,
the allies are willing to help her
with cash, machinery, goods and
other forms Of capital. Az a further
inducement for Russia to be good,
Lloyd George is willing, he says,
to scale down her war debts to the
allies. This makes a distinction
between Russian bonds given to
foreign nations for war material to
enable her to aid the allies, and
bonds she issued prior to the war
for money and material to build
the Siberian railway, and otherwise
finance the government of the car
in times Of peace. The French do
not altogether relish this distinction
which makes one bond less OF a
sacred obligation than another, al
though so far as Russia goes, the
distinction would work to her ad.
vantage. Most Of the Russian pre-.
war bonds are now held by the
French peasants who invested their
savings in them. Most of the Rus
sian war bonds issued for war ex-
penses in the great world war. are
held by the British government,
which advanced the cash or goods
to Russia. On the face of affairs
a distinction which make war bonds
a less sacred obligation than peace
bonds, is unselfish on the part OF
Great Britain. and favorable to
France, for the French pre-war
claims against Russia are to be
paid in full, while the British
claims against Russia for war cred
its given, are to be scaled down.
But the French do not like to ad-
NIT any such distinction between
bonds, because they hold them
selves large amounts of German in
demnity bonds which are war
claims, and they expect to hold still
more Of them.
A British banker of note recent.
ly made public his views about the
difference in war bonds and peace
bonds from a moral and economic
viewpoint. The distinction made
is interesting, because while the
British accept full moral response
bility for the bonds they gave US
and are preparing to pay US princi-
pal and interest on them, the view
point of the London banker Oar
clays') sheds some light on the
proposition made at times In France
and England by individuals and
newspapers, that all war debts
should be called off. This bankers
view is that an ordinary loan, the
proceeds of which 60 to develop
a nation and create new wealth in
it, provide their own means Of re-
payment by creating new wealth,
while a loan for war purposes is
devoted to destroying wealth and
not to creating new wealth and
therefore involves an additional
hardship in its repayment.
The argument has a certain de-
gree of logic back of it, but its
premises are deficient in truth and
Of course it conclusion deceptive.
Peacetime loans are not always de-
voted to new wealth production.
In fact they are very generally de-
voted, in part at least, to prepare
tons for wal and wealth destruc-
ton. Some part Of the French pre-
war loan to Russia was no doubt
spent in railroad construction, but
a good deal of it was spent in build
ing up a navy, fighting with Japan
for extension Of the Russian empire
in the far east and other war ex-
penses. Some part of it was spent
in extravaganza of the Russian
court, and graft among the govern
ment officials.
We cannot see much difference
in the moral obligation of a mar to
pay his note at the bank if he spent
the money on a spree. or spent it
building up his business, or feed
ing his family. The moral obliga-
ton to pay rests on the fact that
he got the money and signed a
written obligation to pay it back to
the lender, rather than on the wis
dom or foolishness with which he
spent it.