Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1924-12-28

German seat on the league council
and an understanding, in view of the
narrow limitation of Germany's
| armed strength by the Versailles
| treaty, that Germany would not be
bound to assist in the disciplinary
action against naughty state pro-
scribed by article XVI of the league
covenant. Germany, moreover stated
the note, expected that, should she
| become a league member, she would
receive representation on the man
| dates commission and be made a
league mandatory; in other words,
would get back her lost colonies; but
as to whether this was put as a con-
| dftion of joining or merely as a state
| ment of what ought to be, my in
| formation is not clear.
The replies to the German note
have not been published, but we
know that the important ones, the
French and British, assented to the
| proposal Of permanent German rep
| resentation on the council and ap-
parently they expressed provisional
dissent from the proposal of a privi-
legged German position in respect of
| article XVI Of the covenant, leaving
| the way open for discussion thereof.
On December 10 the German gov
eminent dispatched a note to the
all the governments represented on
the council to which note was APP
| pended a copy of the identical note
of September 80. The new note re-
| afHrms warm German interest in the
| question of joining the league, but
| argues at length the justice and
necessity that Germany should, in
| case of joining, be exempted from
participation in the Sanctions" of
article XVI of the covenant.
| The German argument is power
| full one; the military weakness of
Germany, her exposed position, her
powerfully armed neighbors, etc. The
note cleverly intimates that league
proposals looking to 'paciflcation Of
the world contemplate, in general, an
armed strength for each member
state corresponding to its size, its
population and the hazards of it's po-
sitions: wherefrom the deduction is
pleasantly obvious.
| But the submftta1 of the new note
| particularly in respect of the mo-
| ment chosen for that submittaD is
widely regarded as propaganda, in
| face of the disclosures by the inter-
allied military commission of control
| in Germany, showing German sins of
| omission and commission in re the
| disarmament clauses of the Versailles
| treaty.
Apparently it's object is to divert
attention from those sins by the
claim that Germany is militarily too
weak to undertake military obliga-
tions as league member.
| On December "a the French foreign
office issued a communique, as fol-
lows: Information gathered in Ger
many sufflces to show the impos-
sibility of evacuation of Cologne on
January 10. New discoveries of hid
den arms by the intera1lied commits
sion of control can only have the eff
feet of strengthening the attitude
adopted by the French government.
1t will be recalled that the Yer
sailles treaty prescribed that Cologne
should be evacuated five years after
the going into effect of the treaty
de, on January 10, 1920, provided
that Germany's obligations up to that
date should have been fulfilled.
That result is that the British, who
seem to be in full accord with the
French as to the Importance Of the
interallied commissions disclosures
will continue to occupy the Cologne
lbridgehead after the coming January
Ito. One awaits impatiently publica-
ton of the full report of the commits
sion.
The most important OF the com
missions findings made public to date
is to the effect that, whereas. tbs