[To the Editor of the SrEerarore.1 SIR,—The Spectator has taken
an independent line on the question of the invasion of the Ruhr, and I am encouraged to ask a plain question about that invasion.
The Article of the Treaty of Versailles which relates to the sanctions that may be resorted to, if and when the reparation payments due are not made, is admittedly utterly vague and ambiguous as to whether each Ally may act on its own, or all the Allied Powers jointly. There is, however, another Article which rules that in the event of any doubt or difference the question of the meaning of an Article is to be referred to arbitration.
The French, then, have not only had recourse to sanctions not permitted by the -Treaty, but also have refused to refer the question as to whether in any case they may act on their own to arbitration. Thus, in a high-handed and arbitrary way, they are treating the Agreement, to which they put their names at Versailles, as a " scrap of paper."
It seems idle to say that German deceit and failure to observe the Treaty justify the French in so treating it, because the measures to be adopted in that event are part and parcel of the Treaty. The French are getting a good deal of sympathy in this country because of what is thought the general justice of their cause, and if there were no Treaty of Versailles I should agree that they had a strong case morally for resisting German evasions. The Treaty, however, is there and the victorious Allies imposed it. Is it decently honourable to throw it over when it proves ineffectual am, Sir, &c., E. H. B.
Previous page
