Evening Star Newspaper, January 22, 1933, Page 21

DEBT DISPUTE CLEARED BY BORAH-JOHNSON ROW ¥all of Laval and Tardieu Opened Door to MacDonald’s Victory in Repara- tions Fight at Lausanne. By FRANK H. SIMONDS. S a consequence of the recent Borah-Johnson clash in the Senate the great controversy over the French debt is begin- ning to be cleared up measur- ably. Thus the remarks of former Pre- mier Laval provoked by the American debate have contributed much to ex- plaining circumstances _hitherto un- known to the American public. And upan these circumstances, obviously, the French default was based and French refusal to pay is likely to be continu- ingly founded. out of the fog of public statements certain facts do emerge clearly. It is plain that at no time was there on the part of Laval or the American Presi- dent any discussion of cancellation of war debts or abolition of reparations. The former remained resolved to make Germany pay, the latter to compel pay- ments by the allied debtors. On the other hand, each was agreed upon the possibility of an extension of the mora- torium both as it applied to allied debts and German reparations. It is clear—and reading of the joint communique of Hoover and Laval proves this—that the upshot of the Washing- ton discussion was an agreement be- tween the two statesmen that the French Premier should go home and arrange for some temporary further lightening of the burden on Germany and the American President would match this by recommendation for an extension of the moratorium on debts. Laval, then, had no promise of cancel- lation or reduction of debts, but only of a further suspension provided the economic _depression continued _and German difficulties were not abolished. Laval Soon Overthrown, But this Hoover-Laval understanding was almost immediately thrust aside by & series of events beyond the vision of the conferees. In the first place Laval was soon overthrown and Tardieu took his place. This represented a change in leadership but not in party control. But in the Spring Tardieu and the Right, to which Laval also belonged, were defeated in the general election mand a Left cabinet headed by Herriot | game into power. With the coming of Herriot the Brit- Ish intervened decisively. Ramsey Mac- Ponald and his associates of the Na- tional cabinet were not favorable to the Hoover-Laval conception for a pro- Jongation of the Hoover moratorium. ©On the contrary they supported the British thesis—first expressed in the Balfour note—that war debts and repa- Trations should be abolished. And they prgued that the time had come for the purgical operation. British support of this idea of all- pround cancellation was fortified by events in Germany, where the fall of | Bruening had taken place and there | was every evidence of the possibility of B Hitler dictatorship. It was clear that Germany was resolved to pay no more and that the attempt to obtain even as- | sent to a further moratorium leaving | the obligation unchanged might have | disastrous results in German internal | Ppolitics. Thus MacDonald, as leader in the | Lausanne Conference, after many post- ponements at last summoned for mid- summer, boldly advocated a general wiping out of reparations and promised & remission of debis in so far as these were owed to Britain. Of course, he could give no sure pledge for America. Nevertheless, he did persuade Herriot that if the French premier would con- gent to the practical abolition of repar- ations, Britain would stand fast with France on the Americar question. In fact, MacDonald did more. For over a year French public opinion, gravely disturbed by German events, had been increasingly favorable to a restoration of the entente cordiale with England. Tardieu had tried to bring it about when he went to Lon- don in April, but had failed. Now it was clear that the only chance Herriot had of cbtaining French assent to a Lausanne agreement to abolish repar- ations was to bring home a new pledge of Franco-British friendship. And that he obtained in the shape of the famous eonsultation pact made at Lausanne. But although Herriot could and did follow MacDonald in the matter of reparations, he could not engage France to renounce reparations without some mssurance of American concessions in the matter of debts. Therefore the Whole Lausanne agreement had to be made conditional upon American ac- tion. German reparations were to be abolished—literally disposed of by a single bond issue—but only if and yhen America agreed to similar re- moval of debts. Far From Hoover-Laval Idea. It is evident at once how far this #vas from any such program as Hoover and Laval had envisaged. They had only foreseen the necessity for an ex- tention of the moratorium. Moreover the American Congress, which in as- senting to the Hoover moratorium had | leclared against cancellation or reduc- tion of debts, had not ruled out any further holiday on payments. More- over it is certain that the Lausanne program had been opposed by Laval and there are suggestions that it had en viewed with alarm by the Amer-| an President. Now, however, instead of asking Washington for an extension of the Hooyer moratorium in conformity with the Hoover-Laval agreement, the French were forced to ask a practical cancella- tion of the war debts to balance repara- tions cuts. In this situation the British were“bound to act first under MacDon- ald’s undertakings with Herriot. But both the American President and the American Congress were opposed to cancellation and Congress was adamant against reduction. Thus when the Brit- ish approached Washington and asked for a discussion frankly designed to abolish debts by a new Lausanne agree- ment, both Hoover and Congress re- fused. This occasioned the President, mindful of the Laval agreement, mani- fest embarrassment because what Britain first and France subsequently asked for was an extension of the mora- :?flum as a lead to the larger opera- ons. When Mr. Stimson, in a hurried note, refused to grant the final British de- mand for a discussion preceded by s postponement of the December 15 pay- ment, the British, who had not any such understanding as_the Hoover-Laval agreement, paid. But the French de- clined to pay, alleging that they had ob- tained in return for agreement to the Hoover moratorium a promise of an ex- tension of that suspension if they ac- ceded to a similar postponement of rep- | arations. Immediately the American public, hazy as to the Hoover-Laval agreement, condemned the French course, Public Opinion Confused. American opinion was confused. too, because there never had been any clear- | cut understanding of what lay behind | the original moratorium. Actually this was proposed by Hoover to save an | American investment of $2,500,000,000 in long and short term German paper. And it was supported by Britain which had a similar investment of upwards of $1,000,000,000. On the other hand it was opposed by France, which had no considerable investment in Germany but was vitally interested in reparations. | France naturally resisted the Hoover proposal until the permanence of her insurance under the Young Plan was settled. But Hoover having demanded of the | French that they consent to a suspen- | sion of German payments to themselves to accommodate the American and Brit- ish banking interests, the French in their turn felt warranted in demanding an American suspension of French pay- ments 18 months later. And when this was refused they became and remain sincerely indignant. If Laval had continued in power in France or if Tardieu and Laval had not been thrown out, MacDonald would not have imposed his program of cancella- ion at Lausanne. On the contrary, there would have been only an extension of the moratorium in reparations, as foreseen by Hoover and Laval in Wash- ington. Then the French would have approached Washington and recalled the Hoover-Laval agreement and asked an extension of the suspension of debt payments. Congress would have had to agree to this extension or openly repudi- ate the word of the President. Wished to Preserve Bargain. Herriot, in urging French payment, ‘was actuated chiefly by the wish to pre- serve his bargain with the British, who had agreed to stand with France and, in fact, to assume the burden of per- suading the United States to cancel the war debts, thus insuring the application of the Lausanne agreement. A reading of the text of his speech shows all the emphasis laid on the British detail. But the Tardieu-Laval group, solidly op- posed to Lausanne, defeated him with the aid of the Socialists. Now the situation is quite clear. The British remain bound by the Herriot- MacDonald agreement not to make any separate settlement with the United States. They also must bear the brunt of the attempt to bring the United States to practical cancellation of debts on the lines of the Lausanne agreement. If MacDonald cannot do this—and it is obviously impossible—then he will have to follow the French example and Britain will default in June. What he cannot do is to accept some settlement more advantageous to Britain than any offered France, because that would be to dishonor his agreement with Herriot. ©One sees that the root of popular irri- tation in this country lies in failure to grasp that the Hoover-Laval under- standing established a French claim to an extension of the Hoover moratorium in their own case if they granted it in the German, as they contingently did at Lausanne. And the further un- known circumstances was the course of MacDonald in Lausanne in offering British unity of action with France in the debt question if France accepted the | British thesis in the matter of repara- tions. This circumstance explains why Britain has and must continue to reject any private bargain with the United States in the matter of debts and must stand fast with the French. And it| shows with what statesmanship the | United States must proceed within the coming months in untangling its debt | relations with these key powers of Eu- rope. (Copyright, 1933.) Who Will Pay the Tax? (Continued From First Page.) | from the income tax and from general roperty taxes. The sales tax, it is eld by its advocates, can be collected silently and painlessly and therefore, as art of a general system, helps to make he whole scheme less obnoxious to the public. The requisites of a proper tax sys- tem include fiscal adequacy, economy of Rdministration, equity, elasticity to meet ghanging demands for revenue, diver- ity and flexibility. Under the heavy Eflrden& now existing upon Federal, tate and local governments, it is de- sirable that the tax system should be a5 broad and as diversified as possible. t is manifestly impossible to make an eccurate adjustment of the aggregate purden of Federal, State and local taxes gccording to the rule of ability to pay. [rhe indirect taxes, such as sales taxes,| mre effective from the Treasury's stand- | point, being easy to collect, and are re- rded as a proper part of a well bal- nced tax system. In the revision of revenue laws the anufacturers’ sales tax will not only > considered from the standpoint of upplementing income tax revenues, but !Lso as a substitute for miscellaneous pxcise taxes imposed in the 1932 dct. esident Hoover and Secretary Mills ecommended that the excise taxes, vhich are relatively unproductive and transportation of oil by pipe line, the use of boats and increased postal rates. If Congress decides to explore fur- ther the field of special excise taxation it 1is desirable that the commodities se- lected should be of widespread con- sumption, should be consumers’ goods rather than auxiliary capital goods destined for further use in consump- tion, that they should not be such as are characteristically within the sub- sistence standard of living, and that they should be sufficiently varied and extensive to provide an adequate and dependable flow of revenue. It is de- sirable that the tax should be imposed as close as possible to the point of con- sumption or collected at a point of greatest concentration. The industries affected by the pres- ent excise taxes as a rule prefer a gen- eral manufacturers’ sales tax as being less discriminatory and less injurious to business as a whole. It will be diffis cult to find new industries upon which to apply special excise taxes which might be accepted without vigorous protest. 3 In the 1932 act the -graduated estate tax was increased from a maximum of 20 per cent to 45 per cent, the exemp- tion being reduced from $100,000 to $50,000. The maximum applies on es- tates above $10,000,000. From the Treasury's viewpoint this tax should not be increased again. The tax is a capital levy and the liquidation neces- THE SUNDAY STAR, WASHINGTON, EAMON DE VALERA. BY ALBIN E. JOHNSON. UBLIN. — Upon the results of | the general election next Tues- | day, which was forced upon | Eamon de Valera by Britain’s | pitiless economic warfare| against the Free State, will depend | whether Ireland is to become, almost | immediately, a completely independent | state, or is to remain indefinitely with- in the orbit of the British common- | wealth of nations. After a decade of so-called independ- ence Ireland today faces one of the| most complicated political situations in | her history. For the Irish voters the issue never has been clearer. The stakes never have been higher. They are patriotism and perhaps privation. versus partial political subserviency to King George and improved economic well being (to a limited extent). | Confronted with a relentless tariff | warfare, inaugurated by the British | government when he contested the an- land annuities and other pa Irish treaty, President de Valera has| been cornered within a year after he assumed direction of the government. His reply has been characteristic—a counter attack in which the Fianna Fail | stands to win all or lose much. With | Ireland’s best market and nearest cus- tomer literally “boycotting” Irish farm | produce through a prohibitive tariff, De | Valera could not continue for long fighting with one hand tied. Now he is asking carte blanche of the Irish | electorate to make Ireland completely | and absolutely independent, economi- cally as well as politically, of Great Britain and her commonwealth. Following an _exceptionally realistic | policy for a politician of his tempera- | ment, President de Valera staged a masterful bit of strategy when he dis- | solved the Dail (parliament) just as ex- | President Cosgrave and his political | allies were planning to take advantage | of the economic distress and form a | national coalition to oppose De Valera's Republicans. Such a combination might easily have upset the slim Fianna Fail majority of six in Parliament. Time Is Propituous. Added to this political menace was the growing revolt among the farmers, led by Frank MacDermott, an independ- ent deputy. De Valera had to act quickly. His majority, made possible by the support of seven Laborites, could not be expected to hold indefinitely. Furthermore, never was there a more propituous moment to appeal to the ro- mantic and temperamental Irish peas- ant and worker than the present. With Britain’s tariff war, imposed as a means of forcing the Irish to pay what they characterize as an “unfair tribute,” bringing considerable suffering upon the populace; with President de Valera be- ing pilloried by London—rightly or wrongly; with external economic pres- sure being brought to force a political issue and to drive the Republicans from office, the ordinary voter can see in the election only two sides—pro-British and anti-British. Ex-President Cosgrave, the Nation- alists, Independents and other factions which oppose De Valera’s Republicans are being charged with being pro- British and anti-Republican. No amount of election propaganda can convince the emotional farmers and peasants that a vote against De Valera is not a vote for King George. Cold reason does not count with Sinn Fein in an election—even if there is no food in the larder. That separation from the British commonwealth is the ultimate aim of the Republicans was admitted by both De Valera and his colleagues at Geneva recently. The defaulting on land annui- ties (an annual payment of between $15,000,000 and $20,000,000) was only one of the steps toward separation. Abolishment of the oath of allegiance to King George came easily; ousting of the governor general also was not difficult. Protesting of the annual “tribute” is yet to come to an issue. Britain's “retaliation”—] levying from 30 to 40 per cent ad valorem duties on Irish imports, supposedly to make good the defaulted payments, seems to have been a stupid move. At any rate it has played into De Valera’s hands. An indication what this eco- nomic strangulation means to the Free State can be gained when one considers that between 80 and 90 per cent of Ireland’s exports ordinarily go to Eng- land. Also Ireland, in recent years, has been England’s best customer, buy- ing ':on than even India or the United Stal Harsh Blow Startling. The effect of the “duties” levied under the special duties act, has been | January the number grew to 102,227 | on cattle and foodstuffs by granting a as the vear ended. Confronted with these factors the opposition led by ex-President Cos- | grave is blaming the De Valeristas for | 2ll the trcuble. The Republicans are blaming King George. Even as things stood it is doubtful if De Valera would have willingly con- sented o an election at this time had his hand not been forced. The govern- ment was meeting the British duties bounty of 12'. per eent to exporters. But even that was insufficient. The common people, however, were not dis- contented. They are better fed now than ever. Farm produce, unable to| find export markets, floods the home market at prices lower than recorded in years. The common voter cannot work up much sympathy for the suf- fering shopkeepers or for the “big| farmers” who are the real victims. At the present time the full effect of the drain on the treasury as a result of the artificial bounties has not' been felt. Sooner or later De Valera would have had to resort to heavier taxation to balance his budget and meet new ex- penditures. That would have been difficult_with as precarious a majority as he had under the dissolved Dial. If he comes back with a clear majority of Republicans he can put on the screws of new taxation with a reasonable chance of success. Also fortune may | be with him since Sir Neville Chamber- | lain, chancellor of the British exchequer | admits that only one-third of the miss- | ing annuities have been collected thus far through the retaliatory tariffis—and this at the direct expense of the Brit- | ish taxpayers and food consumers. Tyranny Pictured. It is on the above platform that the | Republicans have gone before the coun- try. The Irish peasants, temperamental | and emotional as always, are being told | that tyrannical Britain is seeking to strangle the Free State economically just at the moment when full political freedom has been almost won; the very | existence of the Irish republic is at| stake. De Valera has forced his oppo- sition into the field as a pro-British | marty, fairly or unfairly. | Faced with the alternative of voting | Too Much in the Future BY BRUCE BARTOR a story about Calvin Coolidge. For years he has been a member of the board of trustees, serving with such distinguished colleagues as Chief Justice Rugg of the Massachusetts Supreme Court and ! LMOST every time I go back to my old college I pick up the late Dwight Morrow. At one meeting a considerable argument took place be- tween Mr. Morrow and the Chief Justice and, since it had to do with some legal complication, the other members were content to sit back and let these two great lawyers have it out. At length, finding agreement impossible, they turned to Mr. Coclidge. “Who raises this question?” he asked, when they had laid the case before him. “Well,” they explained, “no one raises it just at this time. We are discussing it because it the future.” “Time enough to discuss it when it comes up,” said Mr. Coolidge. D. C, Ireland’s Future at Stake Elections on Tuesday Will Have Far-Reaching Influence on Future of the Island. JANUARY 22, WILLIAM T. COSGRAVE. oro-British or anti-British, it is not| hard to predict what the South Irish peasants and farm workers will do. They are stanch Republicans, come | what may. And since they are likely | to have to draw in their belts anyway, they reason it is better to starve as free- | men than as British economic vassals. | The woman vote also’ will be a factor. Ordinarily Irish women are not inter- | ested in politics, but De Valera’s ro-| mantic personality appeals to them. Much as Herbert Hoover won the Amer- ican women's vote in 1928 on the myth that he “saved starving Belgian babies,” so will De Valera profit by the feminine vote of South Ireland and even the cities. | When the De Valeraistas won control | of the government a year ago, they did | so on a platform which promised abol: ishment of the hated oath to King' George. They also were pledged to pro- | itest the land annuities, a payment | which, according to British admissions, | means as much to the Irish taxpayer as reparations meant to the German peo- ple. In the election Tuesday De Valera is asking the voters to authorize him to throw off the last vestige of British domination—economic as well as po- litical. | To do this, however, he will have to impose heavy taxation burdens on the nation while he seeks new markets for Ireland’s produce. If he receives a clear-cut majority he can carry through | such a progrim, even though the price will be heavy. To some extent the real issues are clouded. Every one who speaks against the Republicans is damned as pro- | British, even the patriotic and far-see- | ing Lord Mayor of Dublin, Alfred | Byrne, who is leading the Common- | wealth group. For an Irishman to vote for Cosgrave will be tantamount to | facing the charge of voting for Buck- | ingham Palace—a jibe few Irishmen will stand | An important factor in the election may be the Republican army, which | has been allowed to perfect its organi- | zation under De Valera's regime. This politico-military organization is behind the anti-British boycott. Its members are allowed to carry arms openly, a fact which tempts them to induige in may come up at some time in |“If Britain persists in her economic | | posits at Great Bear Lake, in Canada’s | The two learned lawyers looked slightly abashed. There was a moment’s pause, and the meeting proceeded to other business. The simplest rules of successful living are the hardest to learn. We say to ourselves: the day’s work, to kee; “The important thing is to do the eye on the ball, to meet the im- mediate problem as well as we can, leaving the future to take care of itself.” We repeat these wise words, but we do not let them guide us. Most of us insist on experiencing our problenis and wor- 1933—PART TWO. intimidation. Opposing the I. R. A. is the 1 new Comrades’ Association, composed of | 50,000 Irishmen, who bore arms under | the Sinn Fein banner and who are now determined to safeguard free speech and personal liberty. If the Republic- ans attempt dirty work on election day some ugly incidents are apt to arise. Conservatives in Minority. If ex-President Cosgrave persists in his platform of “honorable peace” with Great Britain and resumption of nor- mal trade relations he undoubtedly will draw a large conservative vote. But| conservatives are in the minority. On the other hand De Valera's romantic | appeal against the “British tyrant. who seeks to strangle the infant Free State.” may bring a Republican landslide. de- | spite Cosgrave's prediction of “bolshe- | vism,” which he says will follow. The | Fianna Fail only needs to hold its own | and absorb a few seats, which the | Labor party is certain to lose, to obtain the needed majority. Odds are even | that De Valera will be the first political | leader to go to tge country since the | world crisis began and be returned to office. If the British have been seeking to drive the Irish Republicans from power | by pushing the Free State to the verge | of economic collapse through depriving J it of 90 percent of its farm produce markets, the move may easily become | 2 boomerang. As a result of inability | tc export foodstuffs the Irish common | people are better fed now than ever before. They are living on the fat of the land—those who have money to | buy at the reduced prices. Albeit the | poultry and cattle industry is facing | extinction. | The British boycott movement also is resulting in establishment of new | industries in Ireland, especially brew- | ing and milling. Squads of Republican | Guards everywhere are serving notice | o shopkeepers and inn-keepers to buy | | their stocks elsewhere than from Eng- | land in the future. : To_quote Senator Joseph Connolly strangulation there is only one course | left tg; follow, ie. to make the Imhi Free State completely independent of‘, the empire, economically as well as| ticall; | PO se Who know say that that is De | Valera's ultimate aim. Canadian-Mined Radium Soon to Be on Market \ OTTAWA, Ontario.—Several grams of radium, which have been extracted | from pitchblende taken from the de- northwest territories, will be made | available by chemists of the Federal] Department of Mines early in 1933. Under a new process of extraction| developed by Canadian chemists, the| pitchblende is concentrated to one part of radium in 100,000, the best record | made by any country by a very high margin. This concentrate is virtually free from all other impurities save, barium and represents 95 per cent of | the radium in its original ore. After the Canadian concentrate has passed | through the refinery the radium will be | 96 to 98 per cent pure. | By the new Canadian process the| tifle involved in the production of the radium containing 96 to 98 per cent| will be three months instead of six months, as in the case of other proc- esses. W. A. Gordon, Canada’s minister of scussin process, stated: new field and fortunately for humanity, the Canadian process, we believe, will permit as great if not a greater per- centage of recovery involving a shorter time and less complicated operations |y, than any of the known methods. have every confidence that Canada will be able to supply not only our domestic needs of radium for therapeutic, scien- tific and industrial purposes, but will be able to enter world markets.” (Copyright, 1933.) Italy Warned Against Boost in Tax Rates ROME.—The pressure of Italian tax- ation has now reached the point where any increase would injure economic ac- tivity without yielding the sums required to balance the budget and the Govern- ment must turn to borrowing for that purpose, the court of audit asserts in its report to Parliament on the fiscal year 1930-31. This decision was reached after the h guaranties. ARGENTINA AIRS VIEWS ON MONROE DOCTRINE Declaration That It Is Not Regional Agreement Crystallizes Latin Amer- ican View of Document. BY GASTON NERVAL. N authorizing the Government to formally join the League of Na- tions, the Argentine Chamber of Deputies has unmistakably stated | the position of the largest Spanish- American republic toward the Monroe Doctrine. In communicating the adhesion of Argentina to the League's secretariat, the chamber’s resolution reads: “The executive power will point out that the Argentine Republic regards the Monroe Doctrine, mentioned in Article XXI of the League pact, as a unilateral politi- cal declaration which in its time per- formed a notable service to the cause of American emancipation, but holds that it does not constitute a regional agreement, as stated in the aforemen- tioned article.” Ever since corollaries were added to the Monroe Doctrine and the original | pronouncement of President Monroe | suffered peculiar transformations, that| it may justify the intervention of the United_States in the Caribbean coun- tries, Latin Americans have held grudge against the doctrine as prac- | ticed and understood #t present. They have felt susptrion and resent- ment toward this modern Monroe Doc trine, so different, in letter, and spirit, from' the original declaration of 1823, that James Monroe, should he come to | life. would be unable to recognize to- | day. | | Brought Strong Protest. Thus, when the founders of the League of Nations, in order tol strengthen President Wilson's position | at home, upheld the Monroe Doctrine as a ‘“regional understanding” which | could not be affected by the League’s| covenant, a wave of Latin American | protest ensued. | Article XXI of the League's cove- | nant states: “Nothing in this covenant | shall be deemed to affect the validity of international agreements, such as treaties of arbitration or regional un- derstandings like the Monroe Doctrine, for securing the maintenance cf peace.” | Honduras, Costa Rica, Haiti and EI Salvador, at one time or another, asked the League’s Council to clarify the | meaning and scope of that.interpreta- tion. As early as April 28, 1919, at the plenary session of the Peace Confer- | ence, the delegate of Honduras declared that the Monroe Doctrine had “never | been inscribed in an international | document” or ‘“expressly accepted by the nations of the Old and the New | World.” Subsequently, the other countries mentioned made similar representations against the League’s reference to the Monroe Doctrine as a “regional under- standing” which would imply the acquiescence of all the Latin American governments. In this and, generally speaking, in all the phases of Latin American op- position to the Monroe Doctrine, Ar- gentine writers and statesmen have distinguished themselves. Because of her own material supremacy in Span- | ish-America, Argentina has always felt | tempted to undertake the lead in a Latin American move condemning all traces of foreign interference. And she has often, without reluctance, suc- cumbed to the temptation. Objected to Clause. On February 28, 1928, Senor Cantillo. Argentine delegate on the Committee on_Arbitration and Security, protested formally against the inclusion of the Monroe Doctrine in the covenant. Said e: “It is my duty to make objection, in the name of historical accuracy, to the wording of Article XXI. The Monroe Doctrine mentioned in the article is a political declaration of the United States. It would be untrue, it is in fact untrue, to give as Article XXI gives, even by way of an example, the name of regional agreement to a unilateral political declaration which has never. | as far as I am aware, been explicitly approved by other American States.” As for the Argentine press, it has always been very outspoken in its con- demnation of Article XXI. La Prenza, one of the two great Buenos Aires dailies, stated long ago: “There is no interpretation that can convert a unilateral declaration into a regional understanding, a vague expres- sion with which the League of Nations qualified the dangerous uncertainties of the Monroe Doctrine.” And La Nacion, the other Ar- gentine newspaper with world-wide | been—as it could not be—consecrated by the League. The nations which en- ter the Geneva institution will pre- serve their perfect right to deny to this doctrine any scope beyond that of a mere political declaration.” In instructing the Buenos Aires gov- emnment to make specific reservations in regard to Article XXI, the Argentine Chamber of Deputies, then, has only expressed a view.long prevailing in Argentine, and it may be said, in Latin An;:m political quarters. sides, even if the Argentine - test goes further than the objecms of Honduras, Salvador, faiti and Ge=io. Rica, it is not entirely original. L than a year and a half ago, the gov- ernment of Mexico, in accepting the League's invitation to become its fifty- fifth member, stated unequivocally: “Mexico considers it necessary to make it known, in accepting, that Mexico never has admitted the regional understandings mentioned in Article XXI of the League pact.” Lacked Opportunity. Mexico had not had an opportunity, before, to voice her disapprobation of Article XXI, because—being at that time under the rule of a revolutionary government not recognized by _the United States—she was barred in 1919 from the list of founder members of the League. But, late in 1931, when, after long negotiations, the Mexican government agreed to accept an invitation to join the League if this would come accom- paried by an “amende hcnorable” for the original discourtesy, Foreign Min- ister Estrada of Mexico seized the op- portunity to repudiate the continental cnaracter given the Mcnroee Doctrine by Article XXI. Latin American editorial writers re- joiced at the announcement of Mexico's adinission into the League, by unani- mous vote, after her frank denuncia- tion of Article XXI. They remarked that Mexico had not been originally in- vited, in 1919, out of the League's def- erence for the United States, which had at that time no diplomatic relations with Mexico. And that Mexico's ad- mission, now, in spite of her reserva- tion, was an acknowledgment of the error previously committed in qualify- ing the Monroe Doctrine as a regional understanding. The error is made more apparent by the fact that officials of the United States Government have been the first to deny the doctrine that character of regional understanding. The United States Senate, discussing the draft of the treaty of Versailles, suggested the following reservation upholding the Monroe Doctrine in the face of any pos- sible conflict with the covenant of the League: “The United States will not submit | to arbitration or to inquiry by the As- | sembly of by the Council of the League of Nations, provided for in said treaty of peace, any questions which in the Jjudgment of the United States depend upon or relate to its long-established policy commonly known as the Monroe Doctrine: said doctrine is to be inter- preted by the United States alone and is hereby declared to be wholly cutside the jurisdiction of said League of Na- tions and entirely unaffected by any provision contained in the said treaty of peace.” Held National Policy. Similar reservations had been placed | on record, before, by the United States, when approving the Hague Conventions cf 1899 and 1907. The Monroe Doc- trine has always been considered by the Washington Government a na- tional policy, entirely of its own. the interpretation and application of which depend exclusively upon the judgment of the Washirgton authorities. In commenting upon the Mexican reservation to Article XXI, in Septem- ber, 1931. the State Department was | most emphatic in_stressing, once more, | that the Monroe Doctrine was a policy | of the United States, “not a treaty or agreement with any other governmen and may be changed only by action o this country.” That is just what Latin Americans argue in repudiating Article XXI of the League Covenant. How can be labeled a “regional understanding” s policy in the application of which the | United States has been sole arbiter and executor, sometimes even against the wishes and interests of certain Latin American nations? The only “regional understanding"— as between the United States and the rest of the American republics—seems to be, precisely, about the unilateral, one-sided nature of the Monroe Doc= trine. That is, about the doctrine not being a ‘“regional understanding.” That the authors of tne League cove= nant. originally, had no intention of misstating the place occupled by the Monroe Doctrine in the realm of inter- | national affairs, is clearly shown by the | drafts prepared by Taft, Wilson and Sir Robert Cecil in reference to the doc- trine’s relation to the covenant. Those | drafts recognized the policy embodied |in the Monroe Doctrine as being com- patible with the League covenant, but | did not_even mention the doctrine by name. It wis only after several indica- | tions had come from the other side of | the Atlantic that opposition te an en- | tanglement with the League was grow- !ing in the United States, that the “regional understanding” phrase was inserted is Article XXI, merely as a sop to the United States Senate. What controversies two misplaced words in an international document can provoke! And how many more these | two could engender in the near future, if the Japenese spokesmen. who have | 50 cleverly been using Western prece- | dents as alibis, would call their recently ‘gr?fl:‘uneT "A.slxd t:: glunroc Doctrine” |@ regional understanding protected by [Anicle XX1! it id (Copyright. 1933.) Japan About to Boycott League; Conciliation (Continued From First Page.) veloped under the recently overthrown Edcuard Herriot, but is hampered by the war debt controversy, by fears for the French colony of Indo-China, which the French fleet is unable to defend, n.?dl ‘;l;o by the Franco-Japanese treaty of 3 On the other hand, Prance, though devoted to the League of Nations sys- tem, may desire to demonstrate that the e guaranties, as now comsti- tuted, are insufficient with a view to about ultimately additional It is learned that the French gov- ernment recently consulted jurists re- garding the status of its 1907 treaty with Japan and received the reply that, whatever this treaty may mean, the League covenant takes precedence thereof. This has enabled the present premier, Joseph Paul-Boncour, to make the declaration that the “covenant, while a covens ! is nothing but a covenant.” Cabinet Still Divided. It is undeistood, nevertheless, that the Prench cabinet is still divided be- tween those who, like Albert Sarraut, of colonies, seem to favor Japan and those who, like Plerre Cot, undersecretary for foreign affairs, tend Appears Exhausted | previous situation nor recognition of | Manchukuo can offer a solution. | Japan objected to inviting the United | States and Russia. It also objected to | mention of the League covenant, the Kellogg pact and the nine-power treaty. It wants to dilute mention of the Lytton ceport and withhold objection to the recognition of Manchukuo. Essential points of the Committee of Nineteen's Compromise proposal are rejected. The Committee of Nineteen asked Japan if. in case the United States and Russia were not invited, it would accept the rest of the solution. Japan countered by asking whether, if Russia and the United States were invited, the committee would accept the other Japanese amendments. Japan's reply to. the proposals have been rejected by the committee. Thus matters stand today. (Copyright. 1933.) {2,292 Women Take Up Homesteads in Alberta OTTAWA, Ontario. — After demon- strating they can compete successfully in business affairs with men, the women of Canada are turning to new worldy to co%quer. In the province of Alberta, one of the Dominion's great wheat- producing areas, women in substantial numbers are taking up free homestead lands. ries at least three separate times. re difficult to administer, should be re- | ;Qaled, sary for the payment to the Govern- We endure them in prospect, torturing our imaginations striking. During the first 11 months dropped of 1952 Irish exports to Britain SR i the piods. from tases | Germany and Italy have been lyicz e The new excise taxes have not pro- | Ment tends to depress values of simi- fuced as much revenue as expected. ";{",g_"*";fid e o mouniies ever, without the same adverse public reaction which followed the suggestion Jor m further increase in income taxes. “I'he shrinkage in values of estates has, of course, greatly reduced the possibili- ties for revenue from this source. Pertinent to the whole situation with respect to & New Tevenue program are the protpued tax on beer, the possi- bility of an ultimate greater source of revenue following repeal of the eight- eenth amendment and the extent to which expenditures are reduced. With the present Congress showing no dispo- sition to a revenue bill, the prob- lem will passed on to the incoming administration as one of gits major perplexities. here is a shrinkage in the latest esti- | imates of the annual yield of the new ex- | rise taxes of $284,000,000 from the figure lised when the legislation was under | consideration. The commodities affected | by manufacturers’ excise taxes in the | 1932 law include automobiles, trucks, parts and accessories; lubricating oll, | gasoline, brewers’ wort, candy, chewing | gum, soft drinks, jewelry, toilet prepa- xations, furs, domestic and commercial consumption of electricity, radios, me- chanical refrigerators, sporting goods ®nd cameras. Other miscellaneous taxes in the 1932 act include new and gncreased stamp taxes, increased taxes ©on admissions, new taxes on telephone, telegraph, cable and radio messages, w=ccks, Jeases, and safe deposit boxes, by $45,000,000 (par exchange rate). Ireland’s imports (from ail _coun- tries) decreased about $25,000,000, or about 14 per cent, while exports to all countries decreased by 40 per cent. Irish farmers found themselves at the end of the year with 200,000 head of cattle, which should have been con- sumed in England, on their hands—a loss of around $25,000,000. Another count that the Republicans are bringing against Britain is the in- crease in unemployment. In the last 12 months unemployment has gained 241 per cent, act to employment exchange statistics. A couple of years ago when all the world was begining to feel the pinch, Ireland alone ap- peared immune and her idle army was negligible. From 30,103 workless Iast with questions: “What shall I do if this happens? and How shall I act if the case is like tltat? We endure them again when they come uj memories, living n us. And then we cherish them in eur em over and over in fruitless regret. Some one has said, and I have quoted it before, that regret can do the mind and body more harm than a pro- longed drunk. As for crossing bridges before we come to them, and worrying lest the bridges may collapse under us, that is the ‘To live the present is ath to peace. ?:tck way to death. medicine for the spirit; it is ngfellow, almost overwhelmed with grief, wrote: “I find no other wa; of keeping my nerves quiet than this—merely to do with all my might whatever I have to do, without think- ing of the future, I3 in which most people live.” (Copyright, 1933.) hard times, the yields f ing the fiscal year 1930-31 and the first half of 1931-32 were 36 per cent and 17 per cent, respectively, greater than the yleld during a relatively pros- perous year like 1926-27. In other words, the country is much her taxes out of much lower incomes. the sources of income the court reports, but the ditures—like those in _other countries—are exceedingly difficult to reduce. Substantial reduc- tion i= impossible, according ‘to the court, in a budget of which half the total outlay goes for service on the national debt, national defense and public works—in other words, faces budget pmh!el: very similar to those of the United Sates. (Copyright, 1933.) low, but there is reason to believe that neither has any particular interest to see the League covenant made really pact, treaty and through a conciliaf com mission, including the United States and Rt based on chapters 9 and 10- of the Lytton report, and .he prin- ciple, that neither a return to the Since July 2, 1931, when new tions governing the t] homestead lands owned d _adminls- tered by the government ol Alberta came into effect, a total of 2292 ‘women and 5,012 men have taken quar- ter-sections of 160 acres. When the Province of Alberta took over the pub- licily owned lands in the province from the federal government the regulations were cl to provide for a three years’ residence in Alberta before entry for homesteads could be made and also control of these lands the only women who were allowed to acquire such land were widows who were the heads of families. , (Copyright. 1933.)