Politika
- Germany enters the League
- Can a parliamentary deputy be a municipal president?
Lloyd George interprets Germany’s reception at the League and contrasts Briand with Clemenceau. A separate polemic debates whether a parliamentary deputy may also head a municipality.
Image-checked selected first-page passages; partial reading, not the whole page or complete articles.
Translation
Germany enters the League
The unfeigned warmth of the welcome with which the assembled representatives of 55 states greeted the German delegates did much to repair the wrong done by the intrigues of March. The reception given to Mr Stresemann and his colleagues by the crowds that met them at the station, cheered them through flag-decorated streets and finally, in their enthusiasm, besieged the German hotel is also a good sign for peace. It shows how quickly and completely Europe is leaving the hatreds of war behind.
[…]
But Mr Briand was far more capable of bringing peace to Europe than Mr Clemenceau would have been. Both are ardent patriots. Yet they are men of fundamentally different temperaments. Mr Clemenceau is a man of hatred. Mr Briand is a man who loves. The first hates his enemies; the second loves his friends. Both love France, but the first shows it by relentlessly trampling her foes, while the second keeps her old allies and wins new friends. Mr Clemenceau has great good sense, but no sympathy. Mr Briand has both. Above all, he is a minister of conciliation.
Can a parliamentary deputy be a municipal president?
In his second article, Dr Mih. Ilić, professor of public law at the University of Belgrade, has in fact said nothing new beyond what he said in his first, only now with somewhat greater irritation. Indeed, in both his first and second articles, Dr Ilić acknowledged that the provision of Article 85 of the law on parliamentary elections had not been repealed, that it still exists today, and that it has even been applied in individual cases when circumstances required it—the cases of deputies Dobra Mitrović, Nik. Protić and others.
Context
Germany’s return to the diplomatic table
Germany’s admission to the League in September 1926 brought a former wartime enemy into the institution intended to maintain the peace. UN Geneva’s history places that admission within a period of international cooperation. Against this institutional change, the essay treats popular welcome as evidence that reconciliation could extend beyond official signatures. The crowds matter to its argument because they appear to make a diplomatic settlement socially acceptable.
Two competing ideas of patriotism
The contrast between Clemenceau and Briand is built around a shared premise: both love France. The essay then argues that protecting the country can mean either defeating enemies or preserving allies and acquiring friends. Its preference for Briand makes conciliation a patriotic policy, rather than a concession to Germany. This is the political force of the character portraits: they defend a different way of pursuing French strength after the war.
Who could hold national and municipal office?
The domestic dispute concerns whether one person could combine a parliamentary seat with leadership of a municipality. The reply focuses on the continued existence and application of Article 85, citing earlier deputies as precedents. Its underlying issue is the distribution of political authority between national representation and local administration: if the statutory restriction remained operative, personal influence or professional opinion alone could not dispose of it.
Original
Улазак Немачке у Лигу
Неизвештачена срдачност добродошлице којом су немачке делегате дочекали скупљени представници 55 држава, учинила је много да поправи недело мартовских интрига. Пријем г. Стреземана и његових колега од стране масе која га је срела на станици, поздрављала га кроз заставама окићене улице и најзад у свом одушевљењу опседала немачки хотел, такође је добар знак за мир. То показује како брзо и потпуно Европа оставља иза себе мржње рата.
[…]
Али г. Бриан је имао много више способности да донесе мир Европи него што би био г. Клемансо. Они су обојица жарке патриоте. Али они су људи у основи различног темперамента. Г. Клемансо је човек мржње. Г. Бриан је човек који воли. Први мрзи своје непријатеље, други воли своје пријатеље. Обојица воле Француску, али први то показује неумоливим гажењем њених душмана, а други јој задржава њене старе савезнике и придобија нове пријатеље. Г. Клемансо има велики здрав смисао, али нема симпатија. Г. Бриан има и једно и друго. Он је пре свега министар стишавања.
Може ли народни посланик бити председник општине?
У свом другом чланку г. др. Мих. Илић, професор јавног права на Универзитету у Београду, није стварно ништа ново рекао од онога, што је већ казао у свом првом чланку, сада само са нешто више раздражености. А у ствари и у првом и у другом свом чланку г. др. Илић је признао, да одредба чл. 85 закона о изборима народних посланика није укинута, него да и данас постоји и да је чак у појединим случајевима и примењивана, када је потреба њену примену захтевала (случајеви са послаником Добром Митровићем, Ник. Протићем итд.).