The New York herald., 1922-05-12

uieHiOFdnuuIl, the reply says.
The memorandum of the Allies
demands UA-44 Russia suppress upon
her territory ~ attempts TO aid
revolutionary movements IN other
countries" If by this formula the
memorandum means TO prohibit the
activities of political parties or or
ganizations of workers the Russian
delegation cannot accept the prohi-
bition, at least in so far as the ac-
tivities in question do not transgress
the laws of the country.
In the same clause the memo
randum demands that Russia alb
stain from all action tending to dis
turb the political and territorial
status quo in other States. The
Russian delegation considers this
demand yelled attempt to make
Russia recognize treaties concluded
by other States. But that is a po-
litical question which Russia is
ready to discuss at the proper mo-
ment with the Powers involved.
Another political question intro
duced in the memorandum is that of
the relations between Rumania and
Russia, indicated in clause IS. AS
this question is part Of the totality
of questions, political, territorial and
otherwise, at issue between Russia
and Rumania ii cannot be examined
separately.
Discussing the financial clause, the
reply, after remarking that the United
81 ran fad <ra <>f -. <1.-
cessors, England and Spain, says:
The Governments of victorious
States did not hesitate during the
war. ami especially at the conclusion
CT the treaties of peace, to seize the
property OF subjects Of the van
quished States situated in their ter
ritory, even in foreign territory.
Conformably with these precedents
Russia cannot be obliged to assume
any responsibility whatever toward
foreign Powers and their citizens for
annulment of public debts and the
naturalization of private property.
Replying to Clause VII. of the
memorandum, the Russian says:
The pourparlers have been rem
dered more difficult still by the OBJ
stinacy of certain States in impos-
ing upon Russia, through Article
VII, obligations conflicting with
her social system and with Article
A Of the Cannes resolutions.
Clause VII. begins with a beauti-
full preamble, recognizing the SOW
ereign right of Russia to organize
within her own territory her regime
of property, her economic system
and her Government, but the text
Of the clause itself is in fragrant
contradiction with the preamble.
On this subject the Russian dele
cation must call attention to the
fact that in trial cases of this kind
specific disagreements will inevi-
tably end in bringing into opposi-
ton the two forms of property
whose antagonism is taking to-day
for the first time in history a real
and practical character. In such
circumstances there can be no
question of an impartial SUPER
arbiter, as according to the sense of
Clause VII. TIE role of superarbiter
would inevitably be filed by the
oAiitA ihNtit0lti PeiL ~ ,hiiSh VIVIAN
lead fatally to the intervention Of
foreigners in the internal affairs Of
Russia, and would be tantamount
to the abolition in practice of the
inviolabiIity recognized at the be-
ginning OF Clause VII. of the regime
Of property existing in Russia.
Furthermore, the Russian delega-
ton denies that Clause VII. has any
practical character. It's presence in
the memorandum can be explained
only as the result of a desire to sat-
isfy a certain resentment of class
or party, and not by any means as a
result of an adequate knowledge OF
the state of things in Russia. to say
nothing of the perpetual confiiits to
which it would give rise between the
claimants and the Russian Govern
ment and between the Russian Gov
eminent and the foreign Powers.
Clause VII, far from creating be-
tween the Soviet regime and the
capitalistic regime that mutual toll
erance which is the condition OF
fruitful collaboration. would only
tend to poison their relations. The
foreigners who went into Russia,
not in consequence of friendly
agreement with the Russian Gov
crnment in order to work under the
protection of Russian laws. but in
virtue OF the decisions Of a mixed
court of arbitration, would soon feel
a general hostility toward them.
The Russian Government on its
~ IA~- ~
owners of nationalized property to
apply their technical knowledge and
capital to the economic revival of
Russia for their own advantage. has
recognized in them in preferential
right in every case where their for
mer property is to be let as n con-
cession, whether under the form of
lease. a mixed company formed by
the state and the foreign capital. or
under any other form providing for
the participation OF foreigners.
The Russian delegation further
observes that interested States. in
reserving all their solicitude for n
restricted group of foreign capital
lists, and in manifesting an mex
plicabia intransigcant doctrine. have
sacrificed a great number of foreign
capitalists desiring to profit by the
facilities and guarantees offered to
them by the Russian Government
in order to return and work in Rus
STA. and they have sacrificed, as well.
the interests of multitude of small
holders of Russian bonds and small
foreign proprietors whose property
hns hoor1 mathematical L