The Washington times., 1922-10-07

The bankers, OF course, discussed
many other things but in the West
these were largely ignored. The two
main lines of argument, as far az
the news reports gave them, were:
First, that cancellation of the loans
would save Europe's governments
from their present financial chaos;
second, that new loans would revive
Europe's business, and therefore
Americas trade with Europe.
How? The dispatches do not
state. Apparently the bankers did
not say. But, how?
Surely the people whose billions
were conscripted for the loans al
ready made and viii be required for
any loans to come, have a right TO
know. Yet they are not told.
Cover Deficits Abroad.
Would the cancellation cover the
government deficits abroad which in
marks. francs. crowns. rubles and
lire run up into the trillions every
year? No. Nobody contends that
they would.
Would the cancellation redeem the
paper money that now totals $780,.
countries outside OF Russia, besides
sia alone? No. Cancellation would
not have the slightest effect on this
currency.
Would the cancellation tighten the
load OF national debts as stated from
time to time in the European
budgets? No. Even here. no. For
the debts OF America are practically
ignored in the consideration and
discussion Of the budgets by Euro
pean finance ministers.
Would cancellation cause France
to cease rifling Gernany's pockets
and plundering Germany's property?
No. Frances first object is to de-
stroy Germany. 1t Is only an Incl
dent of her policy that she despoils
Germany of $500, ,000, 200 a year, in
addition to reparations. Cancella-
ton would have no relationship
whatever to Frances set policy and
fixed determination.
What Would Cancellation Dot
What, then, would cancellation do
to restore order today in Europe's
government finance? Practically
nothing-tust nothing. simply moth
ing. Cancellation is a proposition
entirely apart and aloof from the
causes and effects that make up Eu'
ropes financial chaos.
But how about more loans to Eu-
rope? Would they not be a good in.
vestment? Would they not revive
industry. promote foreign trade. en-
large the European market for
American goods. and so repay Amer
lea twofold? II. besides cancelinC
the governments debts, the Ameri-
can people should lend $4,000, 100000
or $4,000. .000, 900 more. wouldn't they
be doing the very best thing for
themselves?
That is the line OF questions and
arguments that is thrown out daily
from New York and is taken up in
Chicago, for instance, by many
financia orators. What does 1t come
TO? Just this:
Our total European trade last
year, coming and going, was about
SO 900 900, 900. What the net profits
amounted to, nobody knows. They
surely were not more than 30 per
cent. SO they may be estimated at
billion at most a billion a year
profit-for that we are asked to
cancer Sll,UVO ,ODV'VVV anu " i'iN
four or five billions more-in other
words. we are TO sacrifice total OF
sl5, 900 900 900 to 5000 600, 900 now.
on the chance of getting ii back in
the next fifteen or sixteen years
lust getting it back. And these
figures are made on the assumption
that Europe will do no profitable
business with us unless we put and
leave these fabulous sums in her
hands. In what way, then, would
cancellation OF the old loans redeem
the finances Of the European govern
ments? In no way.
No Benefits.
In what way, then. would the
extension OF new loans from Amer
lea benefit the American people?
In no way.
All this does not mean that
Europe should be financially boy
cotted 1t means simply that, in
their relations to Europe, Americans
| should proceed in husinesslike
| way. on the facts and the figures;
should demand the same businesslike
conditions that the Europeans de-
mand in dealing with one another.
a frank English finanCier wrote
| some time ago that since the war
Americans seem to be forgetting
that business is 1 siness. Right.
Apl non, i, tho tir,n 4,