Evening star., 1933-01-06
DEBT CUT PROMISE
NEVER MADE BY US.
HooVer-Laval Conference
Declared to Have Avoided
Any Agreements.
BY PAUL SCOTT MowRER.

BY Gable to The Star.
PARIS, France, January 6.-Did or
did not President Hoover and the then
French premier, Pierre Laval, agree dur
ing their conference in washington in
1891 that, if Europe settled the problem
OF reparations the United States would
reconsider the war debts owed by the
allies?
Contradictory statements In the Wash
ington Senate debates, as reported mere,
appear to be due to MISUNDERSTANDING.
According to persons who are famlllar
with both the Hoover-Laval conversa-
tions and the Lausanne negotiations,
the truth is as follows:
At no time did President Hoover and
Laval envisage a drastic reduction OF
either reparations or war debts The
French wanted to keep the Young plan
intact and the United States wanted to
maintain the war debt agreements. But
both President Hoover and Laval agreed
that. owing to the depression, 1t would
probably be necessary to prolong the
Hoover moratorium for several years on
both reparations and war debts.
The understanding reached was that
Europe should first arrange an extern
sion of the reparations moratorium ana
then the United States would arrange
a similar extension of the war debts
moratorium
Position of United States.
The position of the American Gov
eminent as privately expressed Just
nrior to the Lausanne Conference was:
/. That the suspension of payments
might have to be prolonged.
2. That the existing agreements
ought, nevertheless, to be maintained In
principle.
3. That reparations, no less than war
debts, represented just obligation, and
that, except temporarily, there was no
more reason to relieve Germany OF It's
obligations than to relieve the other
debtors.
4. That both war debts and repara-
tions might, in the long run, have to be
scaled down, but that this could be
done only after something like normal
conditions have been restored and the
capacity of payment could be estimated
with some semblance of long-term
equity.
The United States had reason to be-
neve that Edouard Herriot, former pre-
n1ier, shared these views. At Lausanne,
however, after resisting for a certain
length of time, he finally succumbed to
the British view, which favored COM
plete cancellation of both reparations
and war debts. What he got for this
was a Franco-British consultative
agreement, which France earnestly de-
sired.
Bold Step Advocated.
To his question, how France and
Great Britain could be sure that, If
reparations were Cancelled, the war
debts would also be Cancelled, Prime
Minister Ramsay Macdonald OF Great
Britain replied that the only way was
to take a bold step in the interest OF
the whole world and trust to the un-
derstanding and generosity of the
United States to do its part afterward.
Herriot, nevertheless, insisted on max
ing final ratification of the Lausanne
agreements dependent on a new war
debt settlement.
The United States, it is believed, was
privately quite plain in expressing its
disapproval of the Lausanne agree
ments; first. because they tended to
break down faith in contracts. and
second, because Great Britain and
France obviously planned to make vir-
tual cancellation of reparations diplo-
matte weapon to try to obtain the vir-
Lual CancellaJlOn Oh LIle WdL OCUto
It is significant that Laval never
ceased to criticize Herriots policy at
Lausanne. What Laval wanted France
to do at Lausanne was to arrange to
prolong the moratorium, which would
give plenty of time to make new and
final settlement on both war debts and
reparationS. but within the framework
Of the Young plan.
Laval Statement Expected.
It is possible that Laval will make a
public statement in the near future
telling the French public what 1t never
has been told heretofore, namely, that
the United States has never at any time
either urged or favored cancellation OF
reparationS any more than 1t has Ia
yored cancellation of the war debts.
This statement, if and when 1t Is
made, may have important political re-
percussions here. AS far as the present
issue between France and the united
States is concerned, the question seems
to be whether the fact, that the
Lausanne agreements followed other
lines than those discussed by Laval and
President Hoover. automatically relieved
the United States of all obligation to-
ward France, or whether the fact that
the Lausanne agreements include ex-
tension of the moratorium for Germany
obligates the United States to grant a
similar war debt moratorium extension
owing to the continuance Of the de-
preston and without prejudice to the
terms of a final settlement.
(Copyrieht, 1881