NEWS OF THE WEEK.

/j1HE White Book on the Reparations and Ruhr -Icrisis which was issued last Sunday evening is one of the gravest documents in our history. Nothing comparable with it has been published since the issue of the evidence that bore on the origins of the War. We desire to congratulate the Government on the courage of their latest Note to France and to thank them for it. The plain speaking has startled, not to say horrified, some people, but in our judgment it was necessary. Nothing else would have served. It was time that there should be a break with the practice of disguising our feelings, of saying much less than we meant, of waiting for something to turn up, and of hoping that the world would discern the truth although we did not take the trouble to tell it. Several times in history Great Britain has been required by events to take sides between right and wrong. There is now another of those occasions, and it is not the least of them. Europe has to be saved— and saved quickly. No man can foresee exactly the consequences of a failure to do this, but they would in any case be terrible.

Before we come to the all-important British Note of August 11th we must glance briefly at the other documents in the White Book. The substance of them is already known, but in so serious a matter it is desirable to give the whole sequence of events. The correspondence begins with the German Memorandum of June 7th, reiterating the offer to accept the decision of an impartial international body as to the capacity of Germany to pay and the methods of payment. Germany, it will be remembered, offered the guarantees of the German railways, an annuity of £25,000,000, and Customs' duties on certain imports. The next document is the British questionnaire to France dated June lath. The principal questions, of course, were as to the exact meaning which France attached to the demand that passive resistance in the Ruhr should cease and as to the concessions which France might make if passive resistance did cease. Then follow the Belgian and French answers to the questionnaire, which throw very little new light on the subject. It may be noted that though the French Note in reply to the questionnaire is dated June 14th, it was not handed to the Foreign Office until July 6th.

The next document is the British Memorandum of July 20th to the Allied Ambassadors, which was accompanied by the Draft Note to Germany. The Memorandum suggested that in return for the abandonment of passive resistance by Germany the civil administration of the Ruhr should be resumed and that the occupied areas should be steadily evacuated ; that a body of impartial experts should be appointed to advise on Germany's capacity to pay and on the guarantees that should be required ; and that the occupation of all German territory outside the limits laid down in the Treaty of Versailles should come to an end directly the German guarantees had been put into operation. The Draft Note to Germany repeated those points, insisted upon the stabilization of the mark and the balancing of the Budget and emphasized the need for some international control of German finances. The French reply to this document, as we need hardly recall, made no reference at all to the Draft Note to Germany. It simply dismissed summarily any idea of fixing a fresh amount for Germany to pay.

We may pass over the Belgian Note, which in effect says " ditto " to France, as well as the friendly Italian and Japanese Notes, and come now to the new, grave and very outspoken British argument in its final form., The Government, after expressing their deep disappointment at the French attitude, point out that they are still determined, as they always have been, that Germany should pay reparations up to the maximum of her capacity. But as the capacity of Germany is in doubt, it ought to be determined by impartial inquiry. " It cannot be ascertained by casting up the amounts which Germany's creditors would like to receive." To ask for more than Germany could possibly pay would only destroy the assets of Germany. " To force liquidation is not the most profitable way of making recovery from a debtor." It is admitted that Germany can make substantial payments if only a surplus is made available through the 'restoration of her public finance and the payments are not reduced by passing through the foreign exchanges under their present conditions. " External debts cannot be paid by the collection of depreciating paper marks.".

The British Government regard the methods adopted by the French and Belgian Governments as " doomed to failure." Moreover, the Government feel that the present situation involves " great and growing danger " to the peace of the world. They regard the fixing of Germany's liability as a matter of extreme urgency. When steps have been taken to ascertain the real value of German assets and to secure their realization without further depreciation the British Government will be ready to deal as generously as possible with the debts due to Great Britain from her Allies. They cannot, however, having regard to the heavy losses already suffered (ships at the bottom of the sea are mentioned as being as true examples of devastation as are the wasted areas of France) and the heavy burden of taxation, admit that their Allies are justified in claiming a further modification of the agreed percentages of reparation payments. Nevertheless, they will ask for no more from their Allies than will, together with reparation payments from Germany, meet the British debt to America.

As regards the question whether the Treaty of Versailles justifies France in occupying the Ruhr the British Government say that they have never concealed their view that no justification can be found in the Treaty. The French Government, it is pointed out, have accused Great Britain of inconsistency, since on two former occasions the British Government joined in the presentation of an ultimatum threatening such occupation and in 1920 they actually participated in the occupation of Dusseldorf and two other towns. The British answer is that the action taken or threatened had nothing to do with the reparation clauses of the Treaty. The Allies jointly decided to threaten Germany for her failure to perform her Treaty obligations, some of which had no connexion whatever with reparations. This is the weakest part of the Note. The fact is that we consented to things which we disliked in the hope of placating France.

The next paragraph, discussing further the illegality of the occupation of the Ruhr, cannot be summarized without a loss of clearness and we must quote it textually : " In the view of His Majesty's Government it cannot legitimately be claimed that the measures which the Allies are, under paragraph 18 of annex II., authorized to take in certain emergencies, include the military occupation of territory. Such occupation forms the subject of the special provisions of Part XIV. of the Treaty, dealing with Guarantees. It is the right to occupy the left bank of the Rhine and the bridge heads, which has been given to the Allies ' as a guarantee for the execution of the Treaty.' Moreover, article 430 particularly stipulates that if the Reparation Commission finds that Germany refuses to observe the whole or part of her obligations under the Treaty with regard to reparations, the whole or part of the occupied territories, which may already have been evacuated, will be immediately reoccupied.' It would have been idle to stipulate expressly for such reoccupation in case of default on reparations if the Allies had already an unlimited right to occupy any German territory under another clause of the Treaty."

Another interesting paragraph is that which deals with the familiar French argument that France is only doing what Germany did in 1871. We must quote again : " The parallel which the French Government seek to draw with German action in 1871 can hardly be sustained. It is true that Germany refused to quit the French departments which she occupied with her forces until the indemnity of 5 milliards had been paid. But this occupation was expressly provided for by the Preliminaries of Peace of 1871. No similar authority can be cited in the case of the Ruhr, and the real analogy in the present case is the occupation of the left bank of the Rhine, as provided for by the Treaty, and from this no one has proposed to depart."

The British Government hope that these explanations will convince France and Belgium of the reasonableness of the British position, for they are " reluctant to contemplate the, possibility that separate action may be required."

In a Memorandum on inter-Allied debts which is attached to the Note it is emphasized that the British offer means that Great Britain, whose material war damages were not less than one-third of those suffered by France, is content to forgo her rights to reparation under all heads and to treat her own share of the German payment as though it were a reimbursement by her Allies of their debts to her. All this, however, is conditional

upon France accepting the British point of view. It

must be clearly understood by France that in the absence of a new agreement the French debt to Great Britain " cannot be honourably repudiated and that the present practice of adding interest to capital-cannot be indefinitely continued."

Last Sunday Dr. Cuno resigned the German Chancellorship and Dr. Stresemann, at President Ebert's request, formed a Cabinet. Dr. Cuno's resignation was the result of a resolution of no confidence in the Government passed by the Social Democratic Party. Without the support of this Party Dr. Cuno could not carry on. He fell amidst the rumblings of an approaching storm. Reports of strikes, food-riots, and meetings of protest were pouring in from most parts of Germany. On Tuesday Dr. Stresemann presented his Cabinet to the Reichstag. It contains several Socialists, amongst whom are Dr. Hilferding, the author of Das Finanzkapital, and Herr Sollmann, who was till lately the editor of the Cologne paper, the Rheinische Zeitung.

In his speech to the Reichstag Dr. Stresemann declared that the sense of the injustice done to Germany by France must be deep or the last British Note to France could never • have -been written. The new Government were quite willing that the question of the legality of the Ruhr occupation should be submitted to an international Arbitration Court.. Passive resistance could not cease so long as the present French policy continued, because orderly work and freedom were synonymous terms. Germany would abandon passive resistance when control was replaced in German hands, when Treaty conditions were restored on the Rhine, and when prisoners were released and fugitives repatriated. As regards home affairs, Dr. Stresemann exhorted the nation to make the gold loan a success so that inflation might be checked. He also described measures for sending food supplies to the large towns. The speech was very well received. But it is commonly suggested in France that British action is inciting the Germans to an even more determined resistance.

A remarkable White Paper was published on Wednesday night containing the Report of Sir Auckland Geddes on Ellis Island, the New York Immigration Station. He visited the station in response to numerous complaints of the conditions and the treatment received. He says that he was not favourably impressed by the plan of the. buildings ; he found insufficient ventilation, and he thought the sleeping rooms "unsuitable to house the numbers that in rush times spend the night in them." Persons of some refinement and intelligence might resent the locked door and the " cages." On the whole, however, he had come to the conclusion that these things were necessary, as it was essential to prevent immigrants from straying. His main criticism was that the buildings= were too small.

He goes on to say that the buildings were also dirty and pervaded by " a flat, stale smell." " The combined smell of old dirt and new immigrants is so nearly universal there that I should not be surprised if it were no longer noticed by the members of the staff. After leaving the island it took me thirty-six hours to get rid of the aroma, which flavoured everything I ate or drank." At the same time, Sir Auckland admits that the dirt is due largely to immigrants themselves, some of whom have no standards of cleanliness whatever. He pays a tribute to the manner in which the officialsmanoeuvre miserable mobs of immigrants through the necessary. examinations. Still, when all allowances have been made, detention on the Wand must be " a hateful experience for all of any sensibility." He remarks that for his part he would rather be detained in Sing-Sing Prison if he were awaiting deportation. A particular grievance among doubtful immigrants, he points out, is the delay in settling appeals which are referred to Washington. He calls the delay " diabolic " ; he thinks appeals could be settled on the spot, and he is not convinced that those who are detained are sufficiently consoled by cinema displays and addresses on the greatness of America.

The Riga correspondent of the Times reported in Tuesday's paper that M. Rakovsky, to whose appointment to London the British Government raised an objection, has denied that he ever used expressions of hatred towards Great Britain. Last week we quoted certain infamous remarks about Great Britain reported as having been uttered by him, which a correspondent of the Morning Post had extracted from Russian newspapers. That seemed good enough evidence. In any case, we do not agree with those who object to the Soviet Government being represented in London at all. All we say is that the British Government are bound to object to the appointment of a Russian who has used specially odious terms about this country. No doubt all adherents of the Soviet have said unpleasant things about Great Britain—it is a matter of degree—but we might sum up our feeling by saying that though we think it convenient to have a Russian representative here we should like him to be a person to whom the more mischievous sentiments could not be fairly attributed.

On Thursday, August 9th, the Free State Parliament was dissolved, having passed twenty-eight Bills in order to get the new State under way. A standing army has been created and the State has taken powers to itself to deal with any further Republican outbreaks. Mr. Cosgrave thanked the Senate for its helpfulness in all this legislation. On Saturday in this week the nominations will be made for the General Election, which will be held on August 27th. It is to be hoped that the followers of Mr. Cosgrave, who has displayed much courage as well as a good deal of wisdom in difficult circumstances, will sweep the board. If so, the Treaty ought to be safe. The Farmers' Party, of course, does not want to upset the Treaty, but the Republicans and most of the Labour candidates definitely want to do so.

On Wednesday Mr. De Valera, who had not made any public appearance for over a year, addressed a meeting at Ennis, Co. Clare. While he was speaking a small party of Free State troops appeared, fired some shots into the air to intimidate the crowd, and after a scuffle arrested Mr. De Valera. The Free State Government afterwards issued a statement that Mr. De Valera was trying to shelter himself behind a political campaign, but that he must now " take his place with his associates and dupes until he and others can be released without injury to the public safety." The action of the Free State Government is certainly a proof not only of courage but of determination. We hope this may mean the end of Mr. De Valera's activities and all the mischievous nonsense he has preached.

Although the Dock Strike is not ended the situation is improving every day. The strike was morally indefensible because the Executives of the Trade Unions had made a definite bargain on behalf of the men and it was that bargain which the men broke. Collective bargaining could not continue under such rebuffs, and all Trade Unions would be first discredited and then ruined. The leaders of the movement against the Trade Union officials have had a fairly easy soil to till as they could point to the hardships suffered by casual workers. A reduction of a shilling a shift does not mean much to a man who is regularly employed, but to one intermittently employed it may make all the difference.

The self-appointed leaders of the strike had, of course, no funds for strike pay, but some of the Boards of Guardians came to the rescue and maintained the strikers at the expense of the ratepayers. The Poplar Board achieved the distinction, if rumour be true, of paying the strikers more than they would have earned at work. Casual work at the docks ought to be further inquired into, and so ought also the alarming practice of financing strikes out of the rates. We are glad to know that the Ministry of Health is in communication with the Guardians on the subject. If no ratepayer in Poplar applies to the High Court for an injunction, we must look to the district auditor to surcharge on the Guardians the amount illegally expended. * * * * Polling for the by-election at South Portsmouth took place on Monday, and the result was declared that night. The figures were : Major H. R. Cayzer (C.) .. .. 11,884 Lt.-Gen. Sir H. Lawson (L.) .. 9,763 Conservative Majority .. 2,121 At the by-election in December, 1922, Colonel Leslie Wilson had a majority of 5,867 over his Independent opponent.

Last Sunday Mr. Sebastian Tiraboschi, the Argentine swimmer, swam from Calais to Dover in sixteen hours thirty-three minutes. He is the fourth man to swim the Channel, and he beat the time of all his predecessors. As the Channel has now been swum twice within a few days we must expect the swimmers to look for new seas to conquer or else to devise difficult variations of the Channel feat. But probably the newspapers will do this for them. Captain Webb's time in 1875 was twenty-one hours forty-five minutes. Mr. Tiraboschi crossed in two tides—which has never been done before. Moreover, he was the first to swim from France to England, all the others having started from the English side.

We publish this week an article by Dr. Stefansson about the attempt to rescue the four white men who for more than two years have been keeping possession of Wrangell Island. It appears from his article that the rescuers .have already started, as they were bound to do if they were not to run the risk of being too late. The necessary money has been guaranteed by a wellwisher whose generosity is larger than his banking account. In these circumstances it is hoped that subscriptions will still be sent to Mr. Griffith Brewer, whose address is the British Wright Company, 83 Chgncery. lane. The relief party will bring back a deeply interesting tale, though we sincerely hope that they will also bring back the explorers alive and well. Those who are unconvinced by Dr. Stefansson's agreeable doctrine about the friendliness of the Arctic Regions should at all events be foremost among those who wish to save the castaways.

Bank Rate, 4 per cent., changed from 8 per cent. July 5, 1928; 5 per cent. War Loan was on Thursday, 101k; Thursday week, 10011 ; a year ago, 100*.