Herriot vs. Poincare

A long verbal dual took place in the Chamber between M. Herriot, Radical Socialist leader, and Premier Poincare. M. Herriot, after roundly attacking the Premier's Ruhr policy, stated that if the Radicals should be successful in the May elections they would seek an equitable settlement on the reparations problem without resorting to coercion. He also complained of the lack of inter-Allied accord.

The Premier in his reply galloped over the entire course of the reparations negotiations and stated that he now placed hope in Committees of Experts (see REPARATIONS). "After this inquiry," said he, "the experts will indicate to the Reparation Commission the payments that they think Germany can make during the period of preparation for the larger payments. It is for the Reparation Commission then to make the decisions which will maintain the peace of the world; to fix the figures for the German annuities until 1926, and to examine the possibility of floating loans guaranteed by the products of the controlled guarantees."

On inter-Allied accord he said: "We have always desired and sought the inter-Allied accord which M. Herriot seeks. But it is not admissible that we should be compelled to do nothing unless we have the unanimous approval of the Allies. That would put us at the mercy of powers which are least interested in reparations. Such, at least, has been the claim of our English, if not our American friends."

The following motion was then passed by 415 to 151 votes: "The Chamber approves the declarations of the Government, and especially that relating to the occupation of the Ruhr, and declares its confidence in the Government to continue its action for the national safety."

M. Herriot moved the following amendment, which was defeated: "A union with the Allied and Associated Powers is recommended to the Government as the best guarantee for our country, for reparations and for security." The following day L'Intransigeant, a Paris journal which usually supports M. Poincare, said: "Yesterday's session in the Chamber was like an entr'acte to the great financial drama that is now playing in the political world. At other times a new intervention by Poincare apropos of the Ruhr would have impassioned his audience. But the Deputies yesterday had other things to think about. The exchange crisis, the aggravation in the cost of living, the threat of new taxation and the question of what the voters will think--there for them are the real questions. "Under these conditions the question of the Ruhr occupation appears to them to be nothing more than an academic debate, and that is undoubtedly why this question was handled with the greatest calm yesterday." The following summary of Premier Poincare's failures was also enumerated: The separatist movement he fostered has been denounced; the franc has depreciated 86% since he came into power; the cost of living has gone up by leaps and bounds; the Allied Commission in control of Germany no longer exists except in name; the Ruhr manoeuvers have served no end; no reparations seem likely to come in during the year; the Experts' Committee which the Premier at first fought stubbornly, is functioning and will unquestionably have a vital effect; Ramsay Macdonald is about to link up with Russia, which Poincare has been implored to do for months past; the U. S. has been alienated by ignoring the debt issue; French prestige in the Near East has lapsed to what it was in 1914, when Liman von Sanders ruled in Turkey; Italy and Spain have joined hands across France and the sea, necessitating extra naval expenditures; France, as a direct result of Poincare's policy, must submit to crushing taxes and sacrifices; War victims and inhabitants of the devastated areas have to go begging for millions which have been allotted to them.