Εικόνες σελίδας
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση





Almost fevered perturbation evinced in London over the possibility of France's making an agreement with the U. S. without bothering her head about a mere matter of $3,000,000,000 that she owes to Britain.

Hardly had the "faithful Commons" flocked back last week to the House from listening to the King's speech in the Lords, when up bobbed ex-Premier George to reiterate the title of his last book, Where are we going? He wanted to know if Britain was represented in the negotiating between France and the U. S. for the funding of the former's $4,000,000,000 War debt (TIME. Dec. 15). "I should like to know from the Government," he said, "what they propose to do. It is a very practical question for this reason at this moment. There are negotiations going on at this hour between France, and, I am not sure, Italy, and the United States at Washington with regard to the French debt. Where are we? Are we represented there? Are we taking any part in the negotiations?"

The following day the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Winston S. Churchill, treated the new Parliament to its first dose of Churchillian oratory. Mr. Churchill knew perfectly well where he was going. "I have," he said, "to attend a meeting of allied Finance Ministers in Paris in January next, and it will be the wish of everyone that that meeting should be animated by a spirit of comradeship, that it should not be marked by hagglings, bargainings, recriminations or reproaches."

As was natural, before descending upon the French debt to the U. S., Mr. Churchill ventured a few words about the Anglo-American debt settlement. In his opinion, it was settled once and for all. There was positively no inference that Britain would at any time demand a modification of its terms. Indeed, if the contrary obtained, then the Chancellor's conclusions were rendered wholly nugatory. As he saw it, the debt settlement "has placed us in an extraordinarily strong position. We take our seat at the council board of the allied and associated Powers under obligations to no one. We have no need to seek indulgence in any quarter." (Cheers.)

Concerning the settlement of the French War debt, Mr. Churchill stated in plain terms the attitude of His Majesty's Government. "We consider it essential," he stated, "that any payments made by our debtors in Europe to their creditors in the United States should be accompanied simultaneously and pari

passu [with equal pace] by proportionate payments to Britain." (Cheers.)

In France and the U. S., the British attitude was misunderstood. It was not a question of objection to the terms of any future debt agreement between France and America, but a simple dec

MR. GEORGE "Where are we? Are we represented there?"

laration that Britain's debts on the Continent must be repaid on the same terms and at the same time.

The reason for this is quite clear. Britain intends to collect from Germany and the debtor Allies a sum sufficient to liquidate her debt to the U. S. which she has steadfastly declared she contracted for her Allies. Beyond this she is not interested in reparations.

The attitude of France is that, until Britain is enabled to state definitely the sum she expects France to repay, nothing can be done concerning the British debt. With regard to both the U. S. and Britain, France is 'twixt the devil and the deep sea. In order to pay anybody, she must first collect from Germany and her debtor Allies. Thus, if she makes an agreement to repay her War debts, and then Germany pays nothing, France will be left with a huge bill to pay and nothing with which to meet it. To avoid this situation is a cardinal point of her policy.

[blocks in formation]

international debt of this kind must rest finally on moral consent. Every attempt should be made to base it on willing moral consent. That can be done only if it is based on a simple rule of justice which all the world accepts. That rule in this case is the principle of equality."

In January, the Finance Ministers of the Allied Powers are to decide how the proceeds from the Experts' Plan are to be divided. When the money starts to trickle in, as it should and doubtless will, the world will be in a better position to conclude debt-paying agreements.



U. S. Share

A firm note was despatched from the British Foreign Office to the U. S. Government. The note was not published, but was said to contain objections to letting the U. S. share in the proceeds from the Experts' Plan*.

The British contention seemingly was that, as the U. S. was not a signatory of the Versailles Treaty, she has no legal right to share in reparations paid by Germany. Even the fact that the Treaty of Berlin (the separate treaty of peace concluded by the U. S. and Germany) expressly reserves to the U. S. those rights which would have been hers had she signed the Versailles instrument in no way altered the circumstances, as it was pointed out that Washington had never secured the consent of the Allies to the Berlin Treaty.

The opinions of France, Belgium and Italy were that the U. S. had no legal claim but had a claim in equity. But Britain could not concede even that point.

In Washington, Secretary of State Charles E. Hughes tugged his beard, sat down and wrote a firm rejoinder to the British objections. This note was not published either, but the Secretary of State was understood to have maintained the claim of the U. S. to share in the Experts' Plan payments. According to The Times of London, however, a compromise was offered. The U. S. Government was understood to be willing to place ex-enemy sequestered property in "the common reparations pool."

In British semi-official quarters, it was observed that the U. S., unlike the

The claim of the U. S. against Germany for the cost of maintaining the Army of Occupation was exempted from the British objection.

Foreign News-[Continued]

Allies, had never had its claims reviewed by the Reparations Commissions. The U. S. not having been a party to the Treaty of Versailles, it was naturally not possible to submit the claims of her citizens to that body. It was hoped, however, that the U. S. would consent to submit them.

From Austen Chamberlain, Britain's Foreign Secretary, the next step was awaited.


Council Meeting

After a full week of arduous labor in the famed Doria Palace at Rome, the Council of the League of Nations wound up its session; and its members scattered to the four winds.

The work effected:

Arms Parley. A decision by the U. S. Government to attend the League's conference on the control of arms and munitions of war* was read to the Council and received with outspoken satisfaction. It was then decided to call the conference for May 4, 1925.

Protocol Delay. Foreign Secretary Austen Chamberlain, chief British delegate, stated that his Government, which has just come into office, had not yet had time to consider the protocol or to confer with the Dominions over what was to be their common attitude toward it. He accordingly asked for an adjournment, which was to be an adjournment and nothing more than an adjournment-the Geneva protocol was not to be considered dead. The delay requested was unanimously voted by the Council. The whole protocol question (TIME, Oct. 13) was thereby shelved until the March meeting of the Council.

Palestine. Discussion of the Mandates Commission's report revealed the fact that Sir Herbert Samuel, British High Commissioner for Palestine, while attempting to establish a Jewish National home, had neglected his paramount duty of developing the territory in the interests of the inhabitants. Cognizance of the fact was taken that Sir Herbert's duties as home-builder and Arab-protector were contradictory. Mr. Chamberlain warmly defended the High Commissioner; and, at the end, the report was referred to the Governments concerned. No League action was to be taken in connection with an

*This Conference is in no wise connected with the International Disarmament Conference that is to spring either from acceptance of the League's protocol or from an invitation of the President of the U. S.

Arab appeal against the civil administration of Palestine.

Saar Basin. A protest by Germany charging that France compelled German children to attend French schools in the Saar area in an effort to bias them politically was discussed by the Council. Eventually, a plebescite is to decide whether the Saar Basin (rich coal area) is to belong permanently to France or Germany; hence the German fears.

Charity. On an Italian motion, the appointment of a committee to study the question of founding a fund, to which Governments would be obliged to contribute, to be used for relief in cases of national disasters, such as earthquakes, etc., was authorized. The British delegate demurred, said that the British found it more practical to appeal to individual generosity in such


Law. The Council appointed George W. Wickersham, onetime Attorney General of the U. S. and present member of the Manhattan law firm of Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft, to be a member of the international committee for the codification of international law. Other members were appointed from Sweden, Italy, Japan, Britain, France, the Netherlands, Belgium, China, Germany, Portugal, Poland, Czecho-Slovakia, San Salvador and Argentina. Dr. K. H. L. Hammerskjold, onetime Swedish Premier, was named as Chairman.

Education. Acceptance was voted of the French Government's offer to found at Paris an International Institute for Intellectual Coöperation.

Egypt. Contrary to expectations (TIME, Dec. 1 et seq.), the recent Egyptian imbroglio was not discussed. Egyptians in Rome, however, tried successfully to get their case before the Council.

The Council then disbanded to meet again in March in the "Capital of the League of Nations"-Geneva, where henceforth all Council meetings are to be held.

Opium Impasse

While the Council of the League discussed matters at Rome, the Opium Conference tried to discuss opium at Geneva.

Discussion, wearying and pointless, centred about the U. S. proposal for a central body to control production of the drug and a plan to decrease importations by 10% annually. Mrs. Hamilton Wright of the U. S. delegation brought up a new proposal to send expert committees into opium-producing

countries to determine what crops could be profitably grown instead of opium. Nobody could agree with anybody; all presented compromise plans; none accepted them, and there the matter rested.

After U. S. Bishop Charles H. Brent had withdrawn from the Conference, disgusted, and one of the Indian delegates had been withdrawn, Japanese Delegate M. Sugimura declared he could stand no more of it, withdrew from the subcommittee. The Conference went on bravely, agreed to take up the American proposal first of all at a meeting in January, adjourned.


(British Commonwealth of Nations)

Parliament Opened

In the inner courtyard of Buckingham Palace eight beautiful horses champed impatiently at their bits. The royal state coach-the magnificent guilded vehicle, built in 1761, with its red plush lining and its three genii of England, Scotland and Ireland supporting the imperial crown and holding the sword of state, the sceptre and the emblems of knighthood-stood under the portecochère. Postilions were mounted, and the twelve powdered footmen, dressed in the royal livery, were at their posts.

A sudden bustle, the opening of doors, the trampling of many feet, and down the red-carpeted stairs came King George and Queen Mary. After they had entered the coach and the door had been ceremoniously closed, order was quietly passed along to the postilions and "the most superb carriage ever built" rolled on to the Houses of Parliament in Westminster.

In the outer courtyard of the Palace a detachment of the Royal Household Cavalry (the Blues) were sitting at attention in their saddles and as the first pair of horses appeared through the entrance which connects the outer with the inner courtyard, a rasping order brought flashing swords to a royal salute. Somewhere in the background the drums of the Grenadier Guards rolled and the band broke into the national anthem. The massive main iron gates were thrown open and through them slowly passed the state coach, six footmen walking on either side. In the rear the Captain of the Household Cavalry led his troop and the small procession passed out into the Mall beyond the Victorial Monument amid deafening cheers from a million uncovered heads and the flutterings of handkerchiefs from the hands of the heads that were covered. On either side soldiers of the five Guards Regiments (Coldstream, Grenadier, Irish, Scots, Welsh), standing rigidly with presented arms, lined the streets from the Palace, along the

Foreign News-[Continued]

Mall to the Admiralty Arch, down Whitehall, to Westminster.

Opposite York House, his London mansion, waited the Prince of Wales in his carriage, which fell in behind the Blues. Slowly, laboriously and with great dignity, the procession moved on.

Arriving at the House of Lords, the King and Queen alighted from the coach and entered the ancient edifice wherein the lords hold sway. Their Majesties retired to don the royal robes of state, after which they were conducted to the throne in dignified silence, surrounded on every side by berobed and beermined dukes, marquesses, earls, viscounts, and barons and their bejeweled consorts.* Meantime, Black Rod† had been sent to fetch His Majesty's faithful Commons and in due time they appeared to hear the King say why for he had summoned his sixth Parliament.

King's Speech

The King's Speech was long, very long, and, allegedly, very dull. Written, as usual, by the Cabinet, it was a simple declaration of the Conservative Government's policy. Only the shortest reference to the Egyptian crisis (TIME, Dec. 1 et seq.) was made. Opposition was voiced to the Anglo-Russian Treaty (TIME, Aug. 18); but favor was shown to a continuance of diplomatic relations. The League of Nations came in for a fair show of praise. Intention was announced of resuming work on the Singapore Naval Base (TIME, Nov. 10).

The only surprise was the announce

*Among the American peeresses present: Countess Beatty, Duchess of Marlborough, Viscountess Astor, Countess of Galloway, Countess of Carnarvon.

The Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, socalled because he carries a rod of office which is of ebony surmounted by a gold lion, is an official of the House of Lords. His principal function is to act as personal attendant on the Sovereign and in this capacity he always is sent to summon the Speaker and the Commons to the Lords. If the King is present in the Upper House, Black Rod "commands," if not, Black Rod merely "desires" their presence-usually, in the last case, to hear Royal Assent given to a bill by a commission of the Lords.


The ceremony of summoning the Commons is of deep historic significance. As soon the attendants of the House of Commons are aware that Black Rod is approaching, they shut the door in his face. Black Rod then strikes three times on the door. "Who is there?" demands a voice from within the "Black Rod," is the reply. Commons. He is then permitted to enter the House, when he advances to the Speaker and says: "Mr. Speaker, the King commands this honorable House to attend His Majesty in the House of Lords." The Commons then scramble off in the wake of Black Rod who is immediately followed by the Speaker and Cabinet Ministers.

The significance of this ridiculous formality: in 1642 when Charles I tried to arrest Hampden, Pym, Holles, Hesilrig and Strode for treasonable correspondence with the Scots, Charles in with person 500 troops behind him marched to the Commons, but the five members were not present and Charles had to retire. Indignant at the breach of privilege the House has ever since closed its doors to the King's representative in affirmation of its right of free speech.

ment that the Prince of Wales would visit Argentina in 1925, after having visited South Africa. Even this was only half a surprise for it was known beforehand that the Prince was sometime to visit South America. British businessmen exulted over the visit which, said they, would surely act as a stimulus to trade. Mention of raising the British Legation at Buenos Aires to the rank of an Embassy was also made.


Arriving at the age of 65, too old to be an active admiral, Viscount Jellicoe of Scapa, onetime Admiral of the Fleet, has retired, as was announced by the Admiralty last week.

Admiral Jellicoe commanded the War until after the Battle of Jutland in 1916, when he was succeeded by Admiral Beatty. He then became First Sea Lord at the Admiralty and Chief of the Naval Staff. In 1920, he was appointed Governor General and Commander-in-Chief of New Zealand, a position which he relinquished last August.


Over London dropped with the suddenness of a theatre curtain a dense, dirty, yellow, cold, clammy, blanket of fog. For 24 hours the street lamps shed their ineffectual light, people walked cautiously, busses crashed into one another, policemen controlled traffic with rockets, etc.

The density varied, as it always does in London, depending upon the locality. In places people could see 15 feet ahead; in others, men and women moved forward using their hands as antennae, like insects. Comparatively few accidents were reported; the major inconvenience, it seemed, was postponement of the annual Oxford and Cambridge soccer match.


El Rey Alfonso

Over various cities in Spain appeared airplanes-not an unusual event, that. Some of the machines, however, had painted on their lower wings the word "Liberty"; others were labeled, with big letters, "Republic of Spain." These planes had been sent from "somewhere in France" by Vicente Blasco Ibanez, author, auto-advertiser, professed enemy of the King of Spain. They had come to Spain to drop their cargoes of Ibanez manifestos, the original of which was published a few weeks ago in Paris (TIME, Oct. 20, Dec. 1).

As far as could be ascertained, the

pamphlets were seized before they were distributed. From the Directorate went forth a protest to France against Ibanez's activities in that land. Preparations were taken to prevent repetition.

At Madrid, two days later, a cinema proprietor was imprudent enough to show a film based on one of Ibanez's novels. As the title flashed onto the screen, the audience hissed and booed, shouted long and hoarsely Viva el Rey; then, they insisted upon the national anthem being played; and, as the martial chords were let loose from the orchestra, the people sang almost passionately the Marcha Real:

Viva, viva, magnanimo el Rey Alfonso!
Alfonso trece, el Rey Alfonso trece!
Ciña a sus sienes oliva y laurel
La mano fervida del pueblo fiel.

After that spontaneous outburst the management was left with no alternative but to substitute another film.

The demonstration was decidedly a protest against the campaign which Author Ibanez has been waging against the King on foreign soil. But it was something more. It was tacitly a popu lar manifestation, evinced by a small and, persumably, representative section of the people, in favor of the Monarchy as an institution; for, in Spain, the real master is the Monarchy, quite irrespective of the King's personality. In Egypt, King Fuad is the monarch; and Great Britain is the master. In Russia, the proletariat is sovereign; but the Moscow oligarchy is the keeper of the sovereignty. In Italy, Vitorio Emanuele is King; and Benito Mussolini is master. So Spain, too, has her monarchs and masters. King Alfonso is the real master; Primo Rivera is an accident which was the result of a revolt (TIME, Sept. 24, 1923). He was not strong enough to fight the Monarchy, even had he wished to. For the moment, he had obtained the master hand. Alfonso was forced to recognize him or start a civil war. Of the two alternatives, the King chose the former. He took a leaf of the book of the King of Italy and recognized the new régime as an opportunity to end the Moroccan campaign and to purge the country's politics of corruption without the hindrance of parliamentary incompetence. That the experiment has not been entirely successful it is safe to say. The hostility toward the Directorate is unmistakable; and its lease of power is certainly expiring. But that the King's prestige has in any way suffered is an illusion which has been created by revolutionary propagandists on foreign soil. It is significant enough that Alfonso has told Primo that the Dictatorship must go and that Primo is preparing all too slowly for his exit. The monarch says "Go!" The master goes; he is not

[ocr errors]

Foreign Affairs-[Continued]

strong enough to fight the Monarchy. Who is the real master? Evidently, Alfonso.

On a cold November day in 1885, King Alfonso XII breathed his last as the oppressive gloom of winter settled over Madrid. His royal spouse, the Habsburg Maria Christina, became Regent for her five-year-old daughter María-de-las Mercedes. In Spain, the

season of the people's discontent was upon them. Progressive ideas were seething in reactionary cauldrons. Under a Queen such as little María, who was sure to be dominated all her life by her mother's ideas, Spain could only expect to see the new wine of her progressive aspirations poured down the neck of the grandee's old bottles-with the disastrous results depicted in the Bible.


But on the 17th day of May in the year 1886, the sun rose to kiss the orange trees; and men rose with the joyous feelings born of spring. much later in the day, an event which put the sun in an unnatural eclipse was announced: The Dowager Queen María had given birth to a son, six months after the death of her husband. longer was little María Queen; Alfonso XIII, a baby not yet in swaddling clothes, had in theory become King from the minute of his birth. Madrid was burned to a cinder in a great fire of enthusiasm; and the conflagration spread rapidly to the provinces.


At first, it was thought that the little King would not live-such a palefaced child was he, suffering from the effects of generations of inbreeding. On the perfectly plausible plea of sparing him undue fatigue, the royal child was relegated to the beautiful seclusion of luxuriant palace gardens. Rarely did he appear on the streets, never was he taught anything that might help him later on to understand his people. Under these circumstances, ominous reverberations of public discontent again began to shake the kingdom.

Sixteen years of titular kingships under a domineering regency was necessary before the boy-King was to assume control. Whatever hopes the people had placed in Alfonso XIII were instantly blighted. To the man-in-the-street he appeared to be the paragon of haughty despotism-a king caring only for the external magnificance of his court, depending only on the conservative grandees and the bigoted prelates for advice. His former popularity had vanished like snow upon the desert.

Moreover, sports were little understood in Spain, especially at this period of her history; and the fact that her monarch was devoted to polo, fond of riding, shooting, yachting, motoringbecause, in fact, he was an all-round sportsman-the people suspected that all

was not well with him. El juego sportivo-that was not for Spaniards. Indeed, the king's star was not in the ascendant.

About this time, talk of marriage was heard; and, not long after, Alfonso set out for a tour of the Courts. Although there was not a court at Paris, that Capital had always appealed to him as being filled to overflowing with the most voluptuous of damsels. So at Paris, on his return from visiting Uncle Fred (Archduke Friedrich) in Austria, President Loubet and his Ministers welcomed the King of Spain; and all he got out of the visit, besides a rousing reception, was a night at the Opéra when he narrowly escaped assassination at the hands of a Spaniard. Of all the Courts he had visited and all the princesses he had seen, none appealed to him as much as Victoria Eugénie, the blue-eyed, fairhaired Princess Ena of Battenberg. granddaughter of Queen Victoria. And so, at Biarritz, he became formally engaged to her; and, the next year (1906), the couple were married in Madrid. The ceremony was marred only by the dastardly attempt of an anarchist on the lives of the royal pair. Fortunately, they escaped all injury; unfortunately, several spectators and members of the wedding procession were killed or injured.

About this time it was noticed that the King listened patiently to his Ministers, but did not always act upon their advice. He developed a most curious thirst for knowing all the facts of a case and, more extraordinary, he even insisted upon knowing both sides of a question. Never before had a King of Spain been so unreasonable. Matters went from bad to worse, in the opinion of certain politicians. The King actually insisted on visiting the remotest parts of his kingdom in order to understand specific problems at first hand. He let it be known that he had the people's interests at heart and with great courage he carried out his policy. His indifference to convention aroused the affection of all; for example, when Señor Canalejas was assassinated, he dashed from the Palace in a cab to the Home Office where the body had been taken; and on the day of the funeral he walked at the head of the mourners.

From the first day of the War, the King showed that he was whole-heartedly on the side of the Allies. Although he vigorously maintained, as Monarch, a proper attitude of neutrality, he personally went farther in assisting the Allies than did any other neutral sovereign. His first act was to assure France through his Government that there was no need to maintain a large Army on the Franco-Spanish frontier. The French relied upon his assurances and transferred no less than three army

corps from the Pyrenees to the battlefields of northern France. More signal proof of his attachment to the Allied cause were his efforts on the behalf of prisoners-of-war and his great services in ascertaining the fate of soldiers and civilians reported missing. He was, through his personal organization, enabled to help stricken relatives in every way possible by forwarding parcels and organizing charities. Another thing, not at all well known, was that the King offered to lead an Army himself in the Allied cause. The offer was refused as clearly impossible if Spain were to maintain a neutral attitude. And, in last proof of his devotion to the Allies, at a time when the fortunes of the Central Powers were at their highest and pro-German feeling in Madrid was openly evinced, Alfonso was quoted as saying: "In Madrid, only the canaille and myself are pro-Ally."

In the present year, the 39th of Alfonso's reign and age, this tall, slight man with the ready smile-gay, brave to the point of recklessness, with features in no wise handsome, but none the less attractive-is in reality a monarch beloved by his people. Much more than his embittered enemies may he be called a democrat of Spain. Hard-worker, severely earnest in fulfilling his responsibilities, unusually tactful and liberalminded, rapid and accurate in his decisions, he combines to a high degree of perfection those qualities of intellect for which he has earned recognition. If he has had his affaires-and he has-they have in no way diminished his ability to rule.


Premier Ill

For ten days Premier Edouard Herriot struggled against physical odds which in the end were too much for him.

Bright and early one morning la grippe took a firm hold on him, kept him in bed for several days. The malady was accompanied by a swelling of his right leg, which he was forbidden to move; but his general condition improved rapidly, mainly owing to his Herculean constitution.

The Premiership

The heads of political wiseacres were wagging over the approaching doom of Premier Herriot and the probable accession to the premiership of ex-Premier Aristide Briand, or the possible advent to that dignity of industrialist Louis Loucheur.

This reasoning was based in theory upon the fact that French Premiers rarely remain long in office. In fact,

Foreign News-[Continued]

three problems were stated as likely to cause the "chute":

1) Red agitation.

2) Alsace and Lorraine.

3) Anti-clericalism.

The first is a question of failing to deal drastically enough with the Communists. The Premier is criticized for organizing vast forces of police to curb the turbulent Bolshies and failing to achieve anything thereby. M. Briand, hoped the critics, would be more firm.

The other two questions are of a religious nature. A Chamber of Deputies Commission, formed to study means of transferring the administration of Alsace and Lorraine (TIME, Sept. 8) from Strasbourg to Paris and thereby ending the power of the clergy in matters of education, was rudely deserted by Alsace-Lorraine members because, as a spokesman put it, the other Deputies were so ignorant of conditions in those provinces and because they would listen neither to advice nor to reasoning. The action of the Alsace-Lorraine Deputies caused lively comment in the corridors of the Chamber; it was evident that they had many friends.

Concerning anti-clericalism in general, a question over which the whole of France is split, matters became graver when the Commission on Foreign Affairs protested because it had not been consulted by the Chamber's Finance Commission about the suppression of credits for the Embassy at the Vatican. On the advice of M. Louis Loucheur, who favors France maintaining diplomatic relations with the Pope, the commission decided to close discussion, preferring to wait until the question should come before the Chamber when everybody would express himself publicly on his own responsibility.


Ambassador to U. S.

From the Wilhelmstrasse (German Foreign Office) came the news that Baron Ago von Maltzan was appointed German Ambassador to the U. S. in place of Dr. Otto Wiedfeldt who is retiring to resume important duties in the firm of Krupps.

Owing to the Cabinet crisis (see above), the new Ambassador is not expected to take up his duties until next February. After the announcement of his appointment, the Baron stated to U. S. journalists:

"When I arrive in your beautiful country, I shall not fail to tell your countrymen that, owing to America's cooperation, Germany, on the basis of the Dawes Plan, has started on the road to economic recovery and healthier conditions.

"I shall take up the task awaiting



The "ablest diplomat which Germany. has at her disposal"

me in the spirit of having for my aim the carrying out of the Dawes Plan."

Baron von Maltzan, an Under Secretary at the Foreign Ministry, is aged 47. Born at Mecklenburg, educated at the Universities of Bonn and Breslau, the Baron first thought of carving out a career for himself as a soldier of the Kaiser. On second thought, he decided to become a diplomat; and, after having risen to the heights of a first lieutenancy, he left the Army shortly before breaking into the third decade of his life.

As a diplomat, he saw service at Rio de Janeiro, Christiania, St. Petersburg (now Leningrad), Peking. At the latter place, he met Edith Gruson, daughter of a wealthy Magdeburg steel manufacturer, married her. They have one daughter. The Baroness is reputed to be one of Berlin's most popular hostesses and to be well known by the U. S. colony.

At Peking, the Baron stayed until the War broke out, when he returned to his Fatherland and "served faithfully." After the War, he was chosen by Chancellor Wirth and Foreign Minister Rathenau to accompany them to Genoa where, largely owing to his knowledge of Russia, he was most influential in negotiating the famous Russo-German Treaty of Rapallo in


Commenting upon his appointment, the Liberal Vossische Zeitung called him "the ablest diplomat which Germany has at her disposal." Said the Catholic Germania: "His familiarity with Germany's foreign policy renders

him eminently suited to the Washing ton post."


Cabinet Crisis

The Cabinet crisis (TIME, Oct. 13 et seq.) which precipitated the recent election (TIME, Dec. 15) again became


Chancellor Wilhelm Marx resigned. President Friedrich Ebert accepted the resignation; but it was not known whom he would ask to form a new government. It was generally assumed that his choice would be Foreign Minister Gustav Stresemann.

The situation was that the combined Centrists and Socialists were not strong enough to form a government without the aid of the German People's Party, led by Herr Stresemann. The latter supported the Monarchists; but their combined strength made them clearly dependent upon the Centrists of Dr. Marx for a majority. The Chancellor, however, declined to support any Monarchist combination. The deadlock was complete.

A most extraordinary comment on the situation came from Maximilian Harden, ardent Republican and fervent hater of the ex-Kaiser. Said he: "The writer is not Monarchist; but as a believer in democracy he must say that it is poor sportsmanship for a supposedly democratic nation to attempt to suppress the successful Party, however distasteful it may be. The Nationalists triumphed in May and again this month, despite all the organized powers of officials; and they are entitled to their share in the responsibilities of the new Government."



There is nothing more natural, especially in a backward country, than a desire of an ousted Premier to turn around and oust the fellow who ousted him.

In June, Bishop Fan Stylian Noli, Harvard graduate, ousted Premier Ahmed Zogu from the government of Albania. Ahmed, it was feared, was getting too efficient. Peace reigned until the other day, when Ahmed began to joust with the Premier-Bishop to see if he was to remain ousted or could oust the man who ousted him.

Meantime, the Albanian Legation at Rome said tersely: "Such news is groundless. Perfect tranquillity prevails throughout Albania."

But report continued to have it that the joust over the oust was a fact.

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »