, 1925-01-01
By DAVID

Copyright, 1924. Consolidated Press
Associationl
wASHINGTON, Jan. The end
Of the year 1924 finds congress hard
ly started on It's work and the cxecu-
tive branch Of the government In
tho midst Of a serious diplomatic
controversy with France. On its
outcome may depend many eco
nomic factors in the year. 1925.
There seems no question now that
Europe hoped TO draw the United
States into a discussion OF tho en-
tire problem of war debts, but who
ever invented tho strategy by
which that was TO be accomplishe /
knows now that exactly the wrong
tactics have been used and that
when the finance ministers Of the
principal powers meet next week in
Paris. they viii find n %reticent, In
deed silent. representative from the
American government, Instead Of
the Informal negotiator who might
have helped to frame q formula.
The French have by their atti-
tude, as revealed by NJ. elemental.
finance minister. prevented Colonel
John A. Logan. tho Ameyican rep
resentative. from doing anything OK
cept listen to what is proposed by
the other powers, for he has no
authority TO discuss war debts.
Also the effect of the latest de-
velopments has been to stir up con
gress SO that France will have "a
difficult. If not impossible time. try
ing to float any more private loans
in the United States until she
shows clearly by acts and not words
that she intends to pay her debts
to America.
There is another phase Of the
situation which is as troublesome as
those announcements of the French
minister Of finance. which indicate u
possible reputation of debts. and
that is the regrettable position
adopted not only by France but by
Americas legal rights in %reparations
and war claims generally.
1t is significant that both the
British and French governments
refer to Americas equity in
PREPARATIONS payments but not to her
rights.
The French finance minister
claimed America forfeited her rights
to reparations by refusing to ratify
the Versailles treaty but that Amer.
lea deserves a share nevertheless
because she was associated in the
war with the allies.
This turn of affairs means that
the allies are trying to put the
whole argument on a basis of equity
and not right, for once they con
tend that equities alone are to be
considered. 1t would logically follow
that the United States should re-
gard the debts owed, 10 her by the
allies or an equitable basis"
1t all simply means an effort to
cut down the bill and get easier
terms of payment.
The American government thus
far has refused to concede that she
has lost any rights by failing to
ratify the Versailles treaty. Even
the Wilson administration. in its
closing days, while bitterly disap.
ROiiiitl tNtI ift ldlllIt VI Inc
treaty TO be ratified. sent many
notes insisting that America'e rights
were derived from the armistice and
participation in the a Since that
time, Secretary Hughes has gone a
step farther by getting the treaty
of Berlin ratified and under that
agreement he thinks the rights OF
the United States have been fully
protected.
This is the kind OF a question on
which the international court of
justice could function If the Ameri-
can government agreed to submit
1t for consideration. but the Ameri.
can viewpoint is quite likely to be
accepted in the end by France and
Great Britain IL It is insisted upon
by the United States. This hap
pened before with respect to rights
in the mandated regions, SO there
is no reason to expect its repetition.
The Significance Of the controversy
that 1t reveals the European method