Caillaux's Return

As M. Caillaux, jaunty debt negotiator, landed at Havre, he twirled his cane in airy greeting to noted Poet-Playwright Maurice Rostand, who was waiting on the pier. Pressed for a statement, he declared: "We parted from the American delegates on the most cordial and sympathetic terms. . . . We shall resume our negotiations in good time." Implored to say something serious he took refuge in the ultimate cliche: "All I can say is that American women are charming!"

Quickly he stepped aboard a train for Paris. Arrived there, he exchanged osculations with Premier Painleve, who met him at the station. He still remained publicly non-committal--not without reason. Within a few days he knew that he must present his report to the Cabinet Council, decide whether to praise or damn his handiwork before the Chamber and prepare to justify his negotiations before the national convention of the Radical Party at Nice. He had need to listen and to reflect. Meanwhile, three interesting statements were made by others.

M. Lamoureaux, budget reporter for the Chamber of Deputies, and a member of M. Caillaux's Commission, declared:

"It is to be hoped that the negotiations will be resumed, but it would be better for the Americans to come to Paris. It isn't the rule for a debtor to run after a creditor, purse in hand, while the latter dodges.

"The arrangement actually made is in suspense. Personally, I shall oppose it. It exaggerates France's capacity to pay. Anyway, we shall see in five years."

M. Berenger, also a member of the French debt commission, declared, per contra, that he would support the ratification of M. Caillaux's tentative agreement.

Since these two diverse views indicated something like a split in the Caillaux Commission, the dictum of M. Henri Franklin-Bouillon, Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Chamber, upon the whole matter was marked well. Said he: "It was absurd to send a whole committee to America. One man could have done better. . . . I shall vote against this temporary agreement because it is a mere effort to gain time . . . . Parliament problems which can be put off, and if a five year limit is set on the debt question you can be sure Parliament will take four years and three-quarters to do anything about it. . . . Great dangers lie in deferring the debt settlement."