for the benefit of the refugees as a body, on well-to-do refugees, with a specified minimum of   
capital. It has also levied a graduated income tax on refugees in remunerative emoloyment with   
                     a minimum income.                      
 
                                                            
 
 
 These examples are sufficient to show that the question will at least merit examination by   
the International Authority. The financial contribution will be small, but in so far as the   
principle encourages self-respect and a common bond of union among refugees, it is salutary. It   
lso of value as tending to mitigate the prejudices of nation
 
                                                            
 
 
  For Jewish refugees from Nazi oppression there is another poossible source of finance   
derived from the refugees themselves. This is capital in Germany arising from the confiscation   
and realisation of property belonging to refugees. The Nazis purport to credit the proceeds,   
after various deductions, to a fund earmarked for the benefit of Jews. If there is anything left   
in this fund after the war, it should be made availabe for the benefit of this class of refugees.   
There is, of course, the wider ouestion whether Germany should not be required to make good the   
value of the property confiscated from refugees. But this seems to be a particular instance of   
uestion of reparations, to be decided according to general p
 
          Financial Assistance from Public Funds.           
 
                                                            
 
 
 I have already mentioned the principle accepted at the Evian Conference that the Governments   
of the countries of refuge and settlement of refugees from Greater Germany should not assume any   
obligations for the financing of involuntary emigration. With few exceptions this principle was   
observed previous to the war, the whole financial burden being left to private resources. Even   
before September 1939 the strain, however, was proving very severe, and after the outbreak of   
hostilities the system of voiuntary relief broke down in several countries. It would not have   
survived so long had it not been for very liberal assistsnee by private organisations in America,   
and especially the Joint Distribution Committee. The Belgian, Netherlands and Swiss Governments   
had to give indirect assistance from State funds, and the French Government were considering   
similar aid just before the German invasion. Subsequently, the Vichy Government has maintained   
many unable to support themselves in refugee camps. From the beginning of the war the British   
Government undertook to share authorised expenses equally with the voluntary organisations, and   
later it increased its contribution to 100% of maintenance as assessed by the Assistance Board,   
and to 75% of other authorised expenses. The above relates to a single pre-war group of refugees,   
which, since it is composed largely of Jewish victims of persecution has been assisted on a very   
liberal scale by the Jewish community. It is clear, therefore, both from experience before and   
during the war, and from the accounts given above of potential private resources, that these   
will be quite inadequate to finance the long-term programme, while they will not cover the fringe   
of the problem as a whole. Moreover, it will take some time to mobilise such private resources   
as are available, and meanwhile, the need for relief will be immediate. It is therefore inevitable   
that the great bulk of the finance required should be provided out of public funds. There are   
ible sources: first, State revenues; and second, internation