LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.
FRANCE AND THE RUHR.
[To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.]
Sra,—It is not, after all, the French Press which has seized on Cl. 33 of the British Memorandum and explored it, but M. Poineare himself ; he has smashed our attempt to maintain our consistency in asserting the illegality of the occupation of the Ruhr. It seems clear that, however right we are now, we have been quite inconsistent and are accordingly put in the wrong to the satisfaction of the French nation.
As to whether we are right or wrong now, M. Poincare does not even notice the objections made by distinguished British lawyers to his reading of the words, "and in general such other measures as the respective Governments may determine to be necessary," in Para. 18. Our lawyers say that according to a well-known principle of law the" measures "must be of the nature of the " economic and financial prohibitions and reprisals" already indicated, and that forcible occupation of parts of Germany not mentioned in the treaty is absolutely barred. Is such a reading in accordance with the principles of French law ? M. Poincare says : " To give a restricted meaning to the clause the British Government bring neither proof nor presumption." He rejects our contention emphatically. Why have we laid stress on it if it cannot be maintained ?—I am, Sir, &c.,
E. H. B.
Previous page
