FROM APRIL 23 TO MAY 23
EUROPEAN ELECTIONS
Extreme Parties Gain in Germany.—In the German Reichstag elections held on May 5 both the Nationalist and the Communist parties gained at the expense of the Socialist and other moderate parties. The Communists returned four times as many members as in the preceding parliament, but still remain a negligible minority. While the shifts of strength indicated general discontent, there was no clear-cut expression of unwillingness to accept the ‘‘Dawes Plan." Even the Nationalist leaders, following the elections, recognized the necessity of acceptance, and stipulated only insistence upon certain concessions. Herriot, the New French Premier, declared that German Republicans would find him easy to deal with, but not so a German Government of reactionary tendency.
The six principal parties, in order from conservative to radical, elected delegates as follows: Nationalists, 96; Freedom Party, 32; Centrists, 65; Democrats, 28; People’s Party, 44; Socialists, 100; Communists, 62.
Prospects indicated continuation of the Marx Coalition Government backed by the Center, People’s and Democratic parties, with cither Nationalist or Socialist support.
Radical Victory in France.—The French election of May 11 was a decisive and surprising victory of the bloc de gauche parties over the bloc nationale supporting Premier Poincare, involving a shift of about 100 votes, and indicated a swing of French sentiment toward a more conciliatory policy in international relations, especially in regard to the adoption of the “Dawes Plan.”
It was practically decided soon after the election that M. Poincare would resign the premiership on June 1 at the opening of Parliament, and would be succeeded by M. James Edouard Herriot, Radical Socialist Mayor of Lyons, and leader in the Bloc de gauche campaign. The makeup of the new cabinet was unsettled. A government of the Left under Herriot would command a majority of about fifty, with the help of the Communists, but without them only about twenty-five. On the other hand, a government formed by one the more moderate leaders, such as Briand or Painleve, would draw support from the Nationalists and have a working margin of perhaps 150. Hence it was prophesied that Herriot’s government would be short-lived.
The result of the election indicating parties by leaders, was as follows: Poincare (six parties), 282; Herriot (Radical Socialist), 130; Briand, 104; Painleve, 39; Communists, 29.
GERMAN REPARATIONS
Allies Favorable to "Dawes Plan.”—The replies of Italy, Belgium, Great Britain and France to the Reparations Commission note of April 17 recommending the “Dawes Plan," were in general favorable. Both the British and Italian replies favored adoption and immediate execution of the plan in its entirety. Premier Poincare’s note was more guarded, declaring that only when the Reparations Commission had indicated the matters within its jurisdiction and those to be settled directly by the Powers could judgment on the latter be made. In essence the difference between the British and the French attitudes was over penalties. France desired a definite program of penalties agreed upon in advance, including British agreement to co-operate in exploitation of the Ruhr in case of German default; and France also objected to evacuation of the Ruhr until Germany had “effectively put the plan into execution.”
Attitude of New French Ministry.—From New York Times.—Paris, May 20.—The new government which will take power in France the first of June will, it is intimated by Left bloc leaders, abandon the Poincare policy of military occupation of the Ruhr until France has received the total reparations due her. It will not, however, order immediate evacuation, but will probably evolve some formula saying the troops will be taken out when Germany has convinced France that she will carry out the provisions of the experts’ plan.
Even though this will postpone evacuation of the Ruhr, perhaps for many months, it will, if pursued, represent a radical departure from the Ruhr policy of the past. It was M. Poincare’s policy that troops would remain in the Ruhr as a permanent guarantee of German payments. The attitude of the leaders of the Left is that the troops are in the Ruhr to insure Franco-Belgian direct exploitation and that if that direct exploitation gives way to another system of collecting reparations, namely, the Dawes system, there will be no further need for troops, provided, first of all, that the Allies agree to stand with France in advising Germany to pay and, secondly, if Germany shall have given a good first performance.
Hungary to Settle American Debt.—From New York Times.— Washington, April 25.—The American Debt Commission today completed a settlement for funding the Hungarian debt to the United States and the President immediately sent it to Congress for ratification.
The agreement, which covers the first of the relief loans made by the United States, provides for repayment of the $1,939,753, principal and interest over a sixty-two-year period. A cash payment of $753 is arranged, and the remainder will be retired in annual instalments, with interest at three per cent over the first ten years, and three and one-half per cent thereafter.
Introduced into this funding settlement, the third to be consummated by the commission, is a provision designed to clear the way for flotation by Hungary of a national loan for reconstruction purposes. The agreement accords the Secretary of the Treasury the authority to release Hungarian national assets from the priority of a first lien by the United States, provided other nations holding Hungarian obligations agree to co-operate likewise.
American Commissioner for Hungary.—Following the refusal of Mr. W. P. G. Harding to accept the position, Mr. Jeremiah Smith, another American, was appointed Commissioner General of Hungarian finances under the League of Nations rehabilitation plan. Mr. Smith is a Boston lawyer who has served in several finance commissions abroad. He will administer the $50,000,000 loan to Hungary.
UNITED STATES AND LATIN AMERICA
Ship Search Treaty in Effect.—On May 22 President Coolidge issued a proclamation putting into immediate effect the treaty signed on January 23 between the United States and Great Britain to aid in the prevention of liquor smuggling into the United States. It was announced that another treaty had been signed with Sweden, similar to the treaties on ship search already negotiated with Great Britain and Germany. The essential provisions of the treaty with Great Britain are Articles I and II, as follows:
Article I.
The high contracting parties declare that it is their firm intention to uphold the principle that three marine miles extending from the coast line outward and measured from low-water mark constitute the proper limits of territorial waters.
Article II.
- His Britannic Majesty agrees that he will raise no objection to the boarding of private vessels under the British flag outside the limits of territorial waters by the authorities of the United States, its territories or possessions in order that inquiries may be addressed to those on board and an examination be made of the ship’s papers for the purpose of ascertaining whether the vessel or those on hoard are endeavoring to import or have imported alcoholic beverages into the United States, its territories or possessions in violation of the laws in force. When such inquiries and examination show a reasonable ground for suspicion, a search of the vessel may be instituted.
- If there is reasonable cause for belief that the vessel has committed or is committing or attempting to commit an offense against the laws of the United States, its territories or possessions prohibiting the importation of alcoholic beverages, the vessel may be seized and taken into a port of the United States, its territories or possessions for adjudication in accordance with such laws.
- The rights conferred by this article shall not be exercised at a greater distance from the coast of the United States, its territories or possessions than can be traversed in one hour by the vessel suspected of endeavoring to commit the offense. In cases, however, in which the liquor is intended to be conveyed to the United States, its territories or possessions by a vessel other than the one hoarded and searched, it shall be the speed of such other vessel, and not the speed of the vessel boarded, which shall determine the distance from the coast at which the right under this article can be exercised.
Other clauses of the treaty provide that the U. S. laws shall not be applicable to liquor on British ships listed as ship’s stores or cargo destined for ports foreign to the United States, and that liquor may be carried under seal through the Panama Canal.
No Modification of Japanese Exclusion Measure.—By overwhelming majorities, the United States House and Senate on May 15 approved the conference report on the Immigration Bill, disregarding the President’s request that operation of the Japanese exclusion clause should be deferred until March 1925, and setting the date instead as July 1 of this year.
President Will Call Arms Conference.—From New York Times.— Washington, May 23.—President Coolidge has virtually decided to call another conference of the Powers to consider further limitation of naval armament. Information to this effect has been received by the members of the naval committees of Congress.
Formal decision in the matter is withheld pending acceptance by Europe of the Dawes report dealing with German reparations, and action by Congress on the bill authorizing an expenditure of $120,000,000 for the construction of eight modern scout cruisers.
If Europe acts promptly on the Dawes report and Congress passes the Naval Building Bill at this session, as now seems probable, the President is expected at once to request the Powers to join in a conference, with a view to perfecting a treaty limiting the construction of all types and sizes of sub-surface and surface craft of ten thousand tons standard displacement or less. The treaty on the limitation of armament negotiated early in the Harding administration deals only with capital ships.
There is good authority for the statement that the President is committed to another armament conference.
In urging the passage of the bill providing for new cruisers, the administration is actuated by a desire to be placed in a position where it will have something to offer by way of concessions in the event that a conference is assembled.
Heretofore, the President, in discussing the question of further limitation of armament, has expressed the opinion that it was useless to consider seriously such a venture until Europe had in some manner solved the problem of German reparations. He is now said to entertain the view that general adherence by Europe to the Dawes plan would effect such a change in economic conditions, notably in Germany, that the time might soon be propitious to call another conference to supplement the Washington Treaty of 1921-22.
Honduras Factions Sign Agreement.—On May 3, at Amapala, aboard the U. S. Cruiser Milwaukee, a treaty of peace was signed by representatives of the three warring political factions in Honduras. The agreement was brought about by the United States representative Mr. Sumner Welles, who had been sent to Honduras by President Coolidge to attempt mediation. Delegates from Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, and Costa Rica, also took part in the conference.
The treaty provides that General Vincente Tosta shall become Provisional President, and shall call for a new presidential and congressional election, in the meantime according amnesty to all political offenders. The treaty, which is signed by the United States and Central American representatives, as well as those of the Honduras factions, is guaranteed by all the signatories. It is expected to end the civil war which has continued since the failure of any presidential candidate in the last election to secure a constitutional majority.