INDEMNITIES.
ITO THE EDITOR or run " SpEETETOR,"3
Sin,—Your interpretation of the addendum of the Allied Governments fo President Wilson's fourteen points surely will not hold water, or, as an Indian barrister once pleaded, "at least not good water." With the greatest respect for the editor of a journal combining, as no other, wide learning with robust common-sense. I submit that the "amazing" thing ie, not that "the loophole for misunderstanding" should have been left, but that you should have contrived to get your heal through so exiguous on aperture.
Tho object of the reservation was by its terms declared to be to cause doubt to cease to exist as to what was implied by the provision that " invaded territories must be restored." By those words the Allied Governments declared they meant that compensation should be mado by Germany "for all damage done to the civilian population of the Allies and to their property by the aggression of Germany by land, by sea, and in the air." In other words, "restoration of the invaded terri- tories" meant rendering compensation for all damage suffere I by the civilian population and their property by Germany 9 aggression by land, by sea, and in the air. The words, without the expansive definition, might have been confined to the re- storing to its former condition of land devastated by Germans during her occupation. I submit that the Allies could only have been more explicit by substituting for the word "aggres• sion " some such words as " bombs, shells, bullets, explosives, gases, poisons, missiles, and all acts of incendiarism, demolis lion, devastation, wreckage, destruction, or injury of any kind." But "aggression" is, as you say, a wide word, and it serves admirably.
Now your interpretation of the Note is this :—The words "invaded territories must be restored" imply that compensa- tion will be made by Germany for all pecuniary loss suffered 1 the population of the Allies through the war. This is, indeed, an expansive explanation. It has lost all connexion with the original proposition. It involves discarding the-worth "by land, by sea, and in the air" as mere picturesque jargon. And surely the word "civilian" is fatal to your interpreta- tion. Why is compensation for the war expenses to be paid only to the civilian population? We ell share the payment of taxes, E0 the military population is just as heavy a loser; indeed, for heavier, for too many civilians have made fortunes out of the war, and too many soldiers have been killed or maimed for life. Tet the Note clearly states that compensa- tion is to be paid for damage done to or (if you will have it so) loss suffered by the civilian population only. So here is another word that must be thrown overboard, in order to salvo you• argument; and this time the word jettisoned is not merely picturesque description, it is positive misdescription. So in reading this explanation you would have us first ignore the words to be explained, and then strike out two vital parts of the explanation.
It is greatly to be deplored that the Allied Governments made this commitment, so contrary to justice and expediency. and to the strong feeling of their peoples, if it rules out a proper indemnification for the expenses of the war. But can they not demand the costs of the war as an implied corollary of victory, unnecessary to mention? As the lawyers say, costs follow the event. Or cannot the payment of the costs be made a condition precedent to Germany's admission to the League of Nations?
May I point out that the interpretation of the word "in- demnity" ns a punitive exaction is not to be found in any portable dictionary? Tho great Murray gives it, after all the current uses of the word, as rare and obsolete. The in is negative and not intensifying. The error has arisen front Germany's gross abuse of the principle of indemnity in 1871.-
I am, Sir, Le., Us-num. [Very able though our correspondent's examination of the internal evidence is, we fear that he only shifts the grouni of difficulty. All our correspondents who criticized the demand of the Government that Germany should pay the cost of the sine took it for granted that there was an understanding that President Wilson's fourteen points, plus the subsequent state- ments which he made to Congress, plus the reservations made by the Allies, should form the basis cf peace. That is to say, they regarded any financial exaction from Germany which had not been indicated when the armistice was signed as being ruled out. Arguing ourselves on this same assumption, we believed that the reservation of the Allies as to the nature of " restoration." was, in spite of its ambiguity, intended to cover such a demand as is being made for the cost of the war. Otherwise it would be difficult to explain or justify the claim which has been made by the Prime Minister for the cost of tho war. What our correspondent does is to ignore this assumption, and to- say that the cost of the war can be claimed "as an implied corollary." We should be very glad to think that the Government had such a corollary in view, for it is quite clear to us that Germany ought to pay as much of the cost of the war as her financial resources enable her to pay. A statement by some member of the Cabinet would be welcome. —En. Spec/atoll
Previous page
