Evening star., 1924-08-17
BY FRANK H.rSIMONDS.

reached with the assent of Belgium and
Italy, the other main parties at interest
IN the matter of reparations, and with
the assistance and approval of the
United States, a chapter in the after
war history comes to an end. 1t is then
perhaps an appropriate moment to re-
view the long dispute and to explain
the ultimate agreements in the light of
the recent past, leaving until next week
the examination of the second phase of
the London conference, that which con-
Germs the allies and Germany
To begin at the beginning, the whole
question of reparations was bedevied
at Paris and in the treaty of Versailles
by the inSiStence of the British them
selves, under pressure from their COL
onies, to include in the bill to Germany
the costs Of war pensions and separa-
tion allowances paid the families of SOL
diers. The American representatives al
Paris opposed this British demand. pri-
marily on the ground that it was in die
rect violation of the arrnstice terms. by
which Germany agreed to pay the dam
age to civilian populations caused by
the invasion of her armies.
Held Demand Impossible.
Our representatives further opposed
this British demand not only wrong
In view of the armistice terms, but i'm
possible of realization, since they argued
pay more than the costs of the actual
physical reconstruction of devastated
areas, therefore to include pensions was
to swell the bill to impossible figures
In fact. as it turned out, the addition Of
this item trebled the bill which was ac-
tually presented to Germany, since the
costs of reconstruction were estimated
to be not more than $4,000. 900 900.
while the total bill was around $4,000
000 900
In the end British pressure and the
arguments presented to the late
President Wilson led him to consent
to the inclusion of the pension item;
Gen. Smuts of South Africa actually
prevailed upon the American Presi-
dent. BY this operation the British
share in reparations. which would not
have exceeded ( or per cent, was
raised to 30 per cent. But the Paris
conference did not and could not at
the moment fix the sum Germany was
to pay: instead it created a repara-
tions commission, which was to re-
port the bill within two years.
Factors in RepnrationS.
Now all the latter trouble over
reparations turns upon the two fac
tors, the original swelling of the bill,
through British effort, and the crea-
tion of the reDarations commission.
This commission was to consist of a
representative from each of the fol-
lowing countrfes~ - France, United
States. Belgium, Italy and Great Brit
ain. But when shipping, as contrast
ed with land questions, were up ia
pan would occupy the Belgian seat.
Moreover, and this detail is vital, in
case of any tie, the French whose
representative was also to preside
was to enjoy the right to cast the de
Gliding vote. Since the United States
promptly withdrew from the COM
mission and Belgium consistently
voted with France, this at once gave
the French representative the casting
vote even should the British and
Italian agree.
Up to May, 1921, the reparations
commission reached only two impor-
tant decisions, by the Spa agreement
the shares of the several powers in
the total of reparations was fixed as
follows: France. So per cent: Brit
ain, % per cent; Italy. 10 per cent;
Belgium, per cent, and the remain
ing per cent was distributed among
the several allied states. In addition,
the reparations commission at Lon
don, in May, 1921, fixed the German
liability at approximately $33,000,-
100000, and Germany, having pro-
tested, was compelled by means of an
ultimatum to accept the liability.
Fixed Terms of Payment.
Terms and conditions were then
fixed by the reparations commission
for German payments. which were
to be in cash and kind. But in
very short time Germany began to
fall behind and toward the end OF
1922 declared that she could not re-
sumo payments, which had been tenn
porarily suspended by form of
moratorium. She had also fallen be-
hind in coal and wood deliveries. In
this situation the reparations COM
mission voted, as was it's duty, on
the question as to whether German
default was voluntary or not-and
obviously If it were voluntary CO.
ercive measures would be taken.
Now a good deal of confusion has
arisen over this vote of the repara-
tions commission and many Ameri-
cans believe that in some way the
French dominated the reparations
commission, but in point of fact,
while France had the casting vote in
case of a tie. in this critical instance
Italy, as we'll as Belgium, voted with
France; thus three of the four men,
bers declared that Germany was in
voluntary default, which was recog
nized as the prelude to the exercise
of coercion.
British Offers Rejected.
At the close of 1922, when it was
plain that the coercion would take
the form of an occupation of the
Ruhr, the late Bonar Law rushed to
Paris and sought to prevent the step
by making various offers to the
French and the other allies in the
matter of cancellation of allied debts
But these offers were rejected out
of hand by all three countries and
the conference Of Paris broke up
amicably. but with the British and
their allies completely disagreed.
Bonar Law, on behalf of Britain. pro-
tested that the Ruhr occupation was
q. mistake in method and would not
produce reparations, but, so far from
questioning French and allied right
to act on the legal side, he, in effect,
wished them success, while declining
to permit British troops to share in
the actual occupation.
In January, 1923, then, we had the
occupation of the Ruhr, France and
Belgium sending troops, Italy par
ticipating in principle through the
presence Of certain technical men, her
interest being obviously to preserve
bar share in German coal deliveries.
Now 1t is manifest that SO far what
had happened had been supported by
three of the four parties at interest.
representing 20 per cent of the repara-
tfons claims as against 20 per cent
held by the British. Many months
after the occupation, when Stanley
Baldwin had succeeded Bonar Law as
premier, the British government did
raise the issue of the legality of the
Ruhr occupation under the treaty of
Versailles, but the French and Bel
gian 5urists challenged, the British in
depreciation and, since the French