GREAT BRITAIN

EDINBURGH REVIEW. January.-Ships and Empire, by David Hannay.

NINETEENTH CENTURY AND AFTER. March.-Could the Fleet Have Forced the Straits? by Major Gen. Sir Charles Callwell.

QUARTERLY REVIEW. January.-The Freedom of the Seas, by J. Pawly

Bate.

ENGINEERING. March 21.-The War Development of the Torpedo-Boat Destroyer (five pages of illustrations). Naval Engineers.

March 28.-H. M. Seaplane Carrying Ship Argus (illus.)

CONTINENTAL

RIVISTA GENERALE DE MARINA. Spain.-Movement of Floating Mines in the North Atlantic and Arctic, by the Prince of Monaco.

DIPLOMATIC NOTES

FROM MARCH 20 TO APRIL 20

PREPARED BY

ALLAN WESTCOTT, Associate Professor, U. S. Naval Academy

PEACE TREATY READY FOR GERMANY

FOUR PREMIERS ACT ALONE.-On March 24 it was announced that the socalled "Council of Ten" of the Peace Conference had been discontinued except as a war council to consider immediate military questions, and that, in order to expedite work on the peace treaty, consultations would thereafter include only President Wilson and Premiers Lloyd George, Clemenceau, and Orlando.

FRENCH DEMAND SAAR COAL FIELDS.-On March 28 Premier Clemenceau further complicated the frontier problem by presenting a demand that France should be restored to the boundaries fixed by the Treaty of Paris, of May 30, 1814, together with the Saar Basin. In the Rhine Province, on the left bank of the Rhine, Premier Clemenceau also requested that while the Germans should have political autonomy, they should not be permitted to establish fortifications, occupy the territory with armed forces, nor control the railways.

After continued negotiations, it was announced by the middle of April that the Peace Treaty would dispose of the Saar question by giving the coal mines to France in fee simple, as a recompense for destroyed French mines, and by granting territorial control to France for 15 years, under supervision of an international commission of five members. At the end of 15 years the inhabitants would choose their allegiance by a plebiscite.

An Associated Press despatch from Berlin, April 14, declared the Ebert Government would "resolutely reject any proposal to tear the Saar territory from Germany by means of a general plebiscite."

GERMANY THREATENS PASSIVE RESISTANCE AND BOLSHEVISM.-Semiofficial announcement of the terms of the Peace Treaty in April stirred Germany to threats of refusal to sign and of a policy of passive resistance. On April 14 the Tageszeitung reported that the Berlin Cabinet, soon after the Hungarian Revolution, had considered an offer of alliance and an army of 500,000 men from Russia. But active resistance by Germany was regarded as out of the question.

Anticipating Germany's refusal to sign the treaty, the Peace Conference requested Marshal Foch to consider the measures to be employed in such a contingency. Continued blockade, cutting off of food supplies, and further occupation of German territory were suggested.

Semi-official French announcements of the conditions to be laid down in the treaty of peace are denounced by the German press.

66

Prince Lichnowsky, in an article in the Tageblatt, says that France forgets that, instead of leading to disarmament, an unjustly extorted peace will bring forth only fresh armaments, throwing into the shade all former armaments, because a mailed-fist peace can be maintained only by the mailed fist."

Declaring that a peace of violence must be absolutely rejected, he concludes:

"Nobody can recommence the war against us. Neither can we be starved out, without the common enemy, communism and terrorism, throwing all mankind back into its primitive state."

Vorwärts says:

"No German Government can sign such terms. The entente statesmen must themselves settle with the inhabitants of the Sarre Valley, who are thoroughly German, and they may find that the sums proposed as indemnity cannot be extracted, even if the last sheet is taken from our beds."

The Lokal-Anzeiger says:

"No more shameless mockery of President Wilson's fourteen points' can be imagined than the proposed solution of the eastern question.”N. Y. Times, 16/4.

ITALY PRESSES FIUME ISSUE.-As early as March 21 it was reported that the Italian delegation had threatened to withdraw from the Peace Conference unless Fiume were assigned to Italy contemporaneously with the conclusion of peace. This threat may have had some influence upon the decision of the associated powers to incorporate the terms to all belligerents in a single treaty.

The Adriatic question was not finally taken up, however, until April 18-19, when Baron Sonnino, who signed the Treaty of London upon the fulfilment of which Italy insisted, presented the Italian claims. Following a decision of the Council of Premiers against Italy, the Italian delegates withdrew from the Peace Conference. President Wilson issued a statement justifying his position on the question.

LEAGUE OF NATIONS COVENANT COMPLETED

MONROE DOCTRINE AMENDMENT ADOPTED.-After long debate, and in response to insistent pressure from the United States, the following amendment recognizing the Monroe Doctrine was inserted in the League of Nations Covenant on April 10:

Article X.-A-Nothing in this covenant shall be deemed to affect the validity of international engagements, such as treaties of arbitration or regional understandings like the Monroe Doctrine, for 'securing the maintenance of peace.

RACE EQUALITY AMENDMENT DEFEATED.-An amendment to the League Covenant presented by the Japanese members of the drafting committee. and providing recognition of the principle of racial equality, was defeated in the committee, II members voting in favor and 6 against it, whereas unanimous consent was required. The Japanese reserved the right to raise the question again in plenary sessions of the Conference.

GENEVA TO BE SEAT OF LEAGUE.-Geneva was selected as the permanent seat of the League of Nations by a vote of 12 to 6, France with two votes, and China, Czechoslovakia, Portugal, and Belgium voting in favor of Brussels. The choice was influenced by a speech from President Wilson favoring Geneva as more indubitably neutral than Brussels.

EX-KAISER TO BE PLACED ON TRIAL-On April 9 the Council of Four came to the decision that the former Kaiser should be indicted and brought to trial on charges of violation of international morality and violation of the sanctity of treaties. These offenses were considered political rather than legal; and in the Responsibility Commission, which investigated the question, Secretary Lansing objected to prosecution on the ground that the charges would not bear legal scrutiny and that a sovereign could not be held legally responsible for his actions. The indictment signed by the four premiers provided for trial by a special court for violations of international morality.

INDEMNITY QUESTION SETTLED

The following Associated Press despatch gives a summary of the indemnity provisions decided upon by the Peace Conference. It will be noted that the sum mentioned, $23,800,000,000, is a mininum, the indemnity commission having power to increase the amount “to the utmost of Germany's capacity to pay, within the limitation of her indebtedness." Some dissatisfaction was caused by the tentative allotment of the indemnity giving France about 55 per cent, Great Britain from 20 to 30 per cent, and only 25 to 15 per cent to the smaller Allied States. The press summary follows:

One hundred billion gold marks ($23,800,000,000), is the amount Germany must pay the allied and associated governments for losses and damage caused in the war, plus other billions to be determined by a special commission on which Germany is to be represented. The payment of 100,000,000,000 gold marks is to be divided into three distinct amounts as follows: First-Twenty billions within two years.

Second-Forty billions during thirty years beginning in 1921.

Third-Forty billions when a commission shall determine how it shall be done.

An authoritative statement was obtained to-day concerning the final terms of the settlements. This sums up the conditions as follows:

Germany is at the outset held generally responsible for losses and damages in accordance with President Wilson's fourteen points and the Allied response at the time the armistice was concluded. To determine the extent of the payment under this responsibility a commission is set up to take testimony, assemble data, and arrange all details of the payment from the enemy and distribution among the allied and associated powers. While the commission will administer the details of the payments, sufficient is known to permit the determination that an initial payment will be required of 20,000,000,000 gold marks, payable in two years without interest. It has also been determined that 40,000,000,000 gold marks shall be payable in bonds extending over a period of thirty years, beginning in 1921, with a sinking fund beginning in 1926.

These 40,000,000,000 marks draw 21⁄2 per cent interest from 1921 to 1926, and 5 per cent interest from 1926.

In addition to the foregoing payments, Germany will also be required to deliver additional bonds for 40,000,000,000 marks, when the commission determines that this shall be done. These three payments of twenty, forty, and forty billions bring the total to 100,000,000,000 gold marks.

Beyond this total, the commission is empowered to fix anything more that may be required to cover Germany's indebtedness.

"In other words," concluded the eminent American authority who framed the terms and furnished the foregoing summary, "a commission is set up with power to collect from Germany to the utmost of her capacity to pay, within the limitation of her indebtedness."

The allotment of the 100,000,000,000 marks among the allied and associated powers has not yet been finally decided, but a tentative arrangement makes the allotment of France about 55 per cent of the total, Great Britain's allotment between 20 and 30 per cent, and the allotment of the United States between 2 and 5 per cent.-N. Y. Times, 15/4.

DATE SET FOR GERMAN DELEGATES

On April 15 a formal invitation was issued by the Council of Four to the German Government to send its representatives to Versailles on April 25. It was stated that the German mission would probably number about 200 persons. The Paris Temps stated on April 16 that Germany would be allowed only until May 15 to decide whether or not she would sign the treaty.

FRANCE AND BRITAIN IN CLOSER AGREEMENT

It is learned that the new arrangement between France and Great Britain, which some describe as a defensive alliance, is stronger than the old entente cordiale in that it contains a definite agreement on Great Britain's part to use her military forces in defence of France should the latter be attacked by an enemy.

The provision for the employment of military forces was not contained in the agreement itself, but in a separate note signed by Sir Edward (now Viscount) Grey, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs-this note giving assurance that Great Britain would come to the assistance of France if necessary. A mere note, however, has no definite binding force, and the new undertaking on Great Britain's part is understood to be much more formal and final.

This arrangement between Great Britain and France is of interest in its bearing on the character of the undertaking sanctioned by President Wilson for American assistance to France in the event of German aggression.

How far the American assurances go is not yet disclosed, but the inference is drawn from the character of the British agreement that the President has met the French half way in their demand for special guarantees from Great Britain and America for the protection of the French frontiers from enemy attack.

American officials decline to say whether Mr. Wilson has actually given Premier Clemenceau a signed document containing assurances which, as has been stated in Paris despatches to The New York Times, engage the President of the United States to lay before Congress information of any enemy attack on France with the recommendation that such an attack be considered a casus belli by the United States.

French officials, however, continue to back up their statements that satisfactory guarantees have been given by President Wilson on behalf of the United States, and American officials have not withdrawn their admission that guarantees that satisfy French apprehensions have been furnished by the President.-N. Y. Times, 20/4.