July 9.
A good deal of news has recently been received about political events in Germany, but it is to be apprehended that except to those who have followed closely the present political conditions in that country it cannot have been of a very illuminating description. The fact, however, is that the events chronicled in the telegrams have been of a nature to shake the constitution to its foundations, and while happily the danger is for the time being past, a glaring weakness of the present German political system has been revealed. Unless it is possible to bring about a change in this political system, it is undoubted that a similar danger will have to be faced when next the question which has been agitating the nation again comes up, as come up it certainly will. It is not! an easy subject for the outsider to understand, being so intensely, complicated in its elements by the different laws in force in the separate states constituting the German Reich. It may, however, be stated roughly in the following terms. As in other: monarchical countries in the past, state property—the actual possession of the state, however come by—has generally been vested in the monarch, and in the ease of Germany this property was very considerable. The Government in Germany proved a perfectly good claim to it, and proceeded to convert it to the use of the state. But besides: such property so vested, the ex-rulers of Germany had private estates—land which had descended to them from their forebears —and this the socialist element in the country wished also to be brought to the use of the state. The greater part of the trouble of these past few weeks has been because of this.
There can be no contention that the act of the Government putting to the use of the country the property which had merely been vested in previous rulers was in any sense an illegal expropriation. When, however, the private property of the ex-rulers, the ex-Kaiser and others, came to be dealt with, the condition was very different, for such action raised the whole question of the immunity of anybody's personal effects from the operation of a socialistic measure as, for instance, a capital levy. This contention immediately presented itself to the Government and it was seen that the social or communist desire for an.ex propriation of the private pro: perty.of ex-rulers raised a cons stitutional question, and unde the present laws of the Rel this called for a referendum wherein a two-thirds' majority; would be necessary to secure it adoption. Had it been merely question for one or other of states forming the Reich and n¢ for the Reich itself there is little doubt as to what would hat, been the-result, For instane the reaction from Junker rul has proved so strong that Prus sia is to-day very largely 80) dalist, and it is easy to unde stand that none of the property} of the ex-rulers there would hav. been left intact. On the other hand Bavaria has had a very different reaction. There, a Red movement was instituted in the days following the war, and there was something akin to reign of terror in Munich. Thi" overthrow of this regime was not accomplished without con 4 siderable trouble and hardship to the people, and the unhap experiences then realized, com: bined with the Catholic an monarchical sentiments of th agrarian population of which 1 is largely composed, have eve since caused Bavaria to leat towards the principle of a mon: archy. Accordingly a referendum was taken in distinctly peculiar circumstances. The s0- dalists voted for confiscation wholeheartedly, and showed something like forty million votes in favour, To a very great ex: tent the others who were agains! the measure merely took up the attitude of abstaining from, voting, and the result was that, the majority was in the final count insufficient to bring about While we have referred to the socialist elements in the country as being the protagonists of the suggested confiscation, it would be wrong to allow tha.ssaurantio that they were alone in such a demand, Among others—the moderates as well—a strong feeling exists that the ex-rulers in question were largely responsible for Germany's present misfortunes. Many of the wealthy classes who during the war had subscribed largely to war loans have seen in the intervening years their fortunes go to waste through the depreciation almost to nil of these German govern ment stocks, and the sentiment, has been strong amon; people that the ex: suffer in equal measure at least. Accordingly when the referee: dum failed to achieve a result, the Government felt that it had,' to placate public feeling, and Accordingly introduced a measure which, while confiscating this property, would at the same time" give compensation to the owners. It failed to find favour with the parties of the Left and the Government fell, to be replaced, however, by' another Centrist Party now in course of formation, The need in Germany for the Government to be in the, hands of such a group is a weak) ness in its polities, The generaly tendency to-day throughout tht world is for political parties form themselves into two well defined groups of the Right ang) Left and to eliminate those inter. mediate sections of _opinior|$ which France has always -haé,. and which have since the war formed quite a formidable element in Germany. So far Germany has been unable to carryf/ out this idea, Although moving' steadily in that direction, and today nothing more than a Centrist, Government seems possible—the moderate men of both Left and Right are acting together for the common good. The formation of such another Government as this, however, means that the question of the expropriation of the ex; rulers' property has merely beer shelved,. and that the whole matter will have to be foughtd out at a future date.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.