The Washington herald., 1922-06-11

war costs included. But IL there
was a maximum beyond which pay
nent was II not impossible at least
improbable, then, provided also this
was not in excess of the
actual property damage. France and
Belgium had every. reason to stand
with America.
Sentiment Interfere-.
But again, national sentiment
prevented wise craftsmanship from
Like the British pub
lie the French and the Belgian had
been told Germany could pay for
Hence no government
could accept the enormous burden
of war costs and pensions and en-
pect to survive the wrath of its
home front. Thus il came about
that the United States stood alone
1t Paris in favor of a relatively low
Total of reparations sufficient to
,over reconstruction, but not war
'osts and pension charges
In the end we gave way, because
our position was quite difficult. We
were not urging any claim on our
own part for any damages. vet We
were assuming the right to fx the
sum due to the nations which had
actually suffered as we had not.
Finally, we were even then facing
the question of the payment by the
allies of the loans made by us and
u was quite clear as the debat.
progressed that we should pres
emily. as we are now. be faced BY
the proposal that il the allies mod
Grated their claims upon Germany
we must reduce ours upon them.
British Views Revised.
. After the Paris conference. with
pretty rapid step. Lloyd George and
the British nation generally, re-
vised their views upon the matter
II reEarations: IT became clear that
Germany would not under any cir
pay what had been as
sessed against her and that repa-
rattons was postponinG the return
Of the world to normal conditions.
British Unemployment mounted to
British factories and ship
ping were idle.
In the mere detail of coal the
German deliveries to France. Bel
gium and Italy precipitated paraly-
sis In the British coal Industry and
an attempt to reduce wages brought
a bout a coal strike of unprecedent-
ed severity. More and more as time
went on the British moved toward
an insistence upon a revision of the
terms of the treaty of Versailles. a
revision in exact accordance with
the position taken by the American
at Paris. II became
clear to almost every Briton that
what Britain required. was trade.
not reparations: that to accept pay
ment in goods of her huge claims
a eainst Germany meant to paralyze
her home industries. while similar
and Italy would exclude British
and thus similarly
injure British industry.
America Then Absent.
We had then. within a year after
Paris, a complete revulsion in Brit,
ish sentiment. But by this time
America had gone home and was
not available to support
the new British policy Of modera-
tion which had been the American
policy at Paris. II Is perhaps true
AHdN Hdu we Dccn DdTlltS 10
negotiations we should
have supported the newly found
British moderation and thus con-
tributed to help the situation. But
the fact remains that when we
were present. when We were advo-
eating a policy of moderation such
as Lloyd George later adopted. we
encountered decisive opposition
from the British delegation and as
a result failed in our undertaking
II time has so far left unsettled
the question of the league of ma
tions 1t certainly has vindiCated the
American stand in the matter of
reparations and II is grotesquely
inexact for George now to attempt
to saddle upon the United States
responsibility for a condition which
grows out Of his own failure to see
the truth in the spring Of 1919 with
disastrous to his own
country and perhaps to the whole
world
Misapprehension as to Fact.
Turning now to the question OF
reparotions. there Is a curious mis-
apprehension in this country as To
the essential fact. Again and again
encounter the statement that
reparations must be fixed at once. as
a first step toward world reorganiza-
tion. as condition antecedent to any
American participation in European
reconstruction. But reparations
totals have been fixed. The Paris
conference and the treaty Of ver-
sailles definitely vested with the
reparations commission which II
created the duty of fixing the total,
while Indicating that the sum must
mum.
BY the terms Of the treaty Ger
many was to pay $4,000. 900. 900 rep
Resented by quick assets. ships, roll
ing stock. bonds. etc. before May 1,
1921. She was at once to turn over
to the reparations commission bonds
with a face value of s26,000. 900. 600.
In a word, the treaty of Versailles
fixed as a minimum the sum Ger
many must pay as $4,000. 900. 900,
s2s.o00, 100000 by bonds and s5,OOO,-
100000 in quick assets.
Now Germany did not pay the s5,-
000.00O.000 she has up to date hard
ly paid 20 per cent of II! aand this
plus payments applied to the costs
of the armies of occupation. repre-
sents her total payment to date.
She has actually turned over to
the allies substantially enough to
pay the costs of collection and no
more. But meantime We have had
a long series of crises growing out
of the German refusal to pay and
the growing British insistence that
the sums be reduced not in the
interest of moderation or human
ity, but to save the British economic
situation.
Appeals to q. g.
year ago. AFTER long crisis,