, 1922-05-19
The Natural Effect

TT REPUTATION is considerable at all there is
Il no limit to the extent to which it can be carried.
The utter inability of the Soviet leaders of Russia to
understand the viewpoint of other nations is indicated
in that portion of the Russian reply in which il is
stated that the Reputation of the debts contracted by
the former government, under the car, cannot preju-
dice the attitude of Soviet Russia toward those who
would come with their capital and their technical
knowledge to help in Russia's revival. The repudia-
ton of long recognized debts under a government
that was also long recognized, can have no other
effect than to create prejudice against the govern
ment that refuses to acknowledge the validity Of its
obligations
Let us suppose for a moment that the situation
were reversed and that Russia and Russian citizens
were the creditors and the United States and its citi-
gems were debtors. Let us suppose that popular gov
eminent in the United States-cnpitalistic govern
ment, as Mr.. Lenin calls it-be overthrown and a
monarchy established. Let US suppose that the new
monarchical government r~epudiates all the debts due
from America to Russia and Russian citizens. Under
those circumstances, Mr.. Lenin being a capitalist and
a creditor, would he for one moment trust the new
government of the United States and extend It fur
Their credits at the risk of his personal loss or loss to
his government? The question answers itself.
If the former government OF Russia had been a
transient government, set DIP by revolutionists, there
might be some basis for the Reputation on restora-
ton of n permanent government; but such WAS not the
cnse. The Russian monarchy had been recognized by
all the nations for many generations. Russia had
borrowed money and repaid it; she had made war and
treaties of peace; she had received ambassadors from
Nc nation nor any individual who dealt with Russia
had been put on notice of likelihood of reputation Of
debts, rs would be the case il the regime had been
new and unsettled.
Moreover, the United States received title to Alaska
from the former government of Russia on payment of
a price that is seen today to be ridiculously small as
compared with the actual value of that territory under
present knowledge of its resources. If Mr.. Lenin and
his associates can repudiate the other acts of the
former government of Russia, why cannot they also
r~epudiate the cession of Alaska to the United States
and demand restoration of their former possession?
The obligations Lenin and his gang of bandits ere
ate are less binding upon the Russian people than
were the obligations created by the cars government,
for the present regime has been only a short time in
control, it gained control by force, and it maintains
that control by force and fear. If Lenin should be
granted the biTion-dollar loan he asks. and bonds
were issued by his government as evidence Of the
obligation, those bonds would be promptly r%epudiated
by any subsequent government that might be set up
either by the people or by a group of dictators such
as those now in power.
A mere review of the facts Of the situation is al
that is necessary to demonstrate the faEity of the
Lenine contention as to the effect of reputation of
the old Russian debts. Lenin would not loan a dollar
to a repudiating government; neither can he borrow
a dollar so long as he advocates reputation himself.