I have a very good question here which I beg leave to read. It is addressed to Professor Salvemini. "Is it not true that the proceeds of the $100,000,000 loan referred to here today several times, floated in this country by the present Italian government, have served to reduce the debt of the Italian government to the Bank of Italy, and thus to strengthen the financial structure of the country as a whole by increasing the bank gold reserve?
Professor Salvemini: The Italian government had a debt with the Bank of Italy. It had to pay this debt, and it paid this debt with the Morgan loan. It doesn't strengthen the financial situation of a country to make debts and to pay them. It would be better not to make debts.
Mr. Crosgrave: In view of the overpopulation of Italy, why is it the Fascist government wants to maintain or increase the birth rate?
Professor Roselli: It is my humble opinion that all that is governmentally decided concerning any increase or decrease of birth rate will not be followed by the people whose leaders have pledged the State's interference in the number of inhabitants of a certain country.
Mr. Jones: Professor Salvemini said that in 1921 and 1922, Italy had so reconstructed its finances and its general economic situation that certain English and American bankers were at that time ready to advance sums to Italy. Will you please tell me who these bankers were?
Professor Salvemini: I have the official statement of the Minister for Treasury, Signor Peano. I was not the minister then. He made his statement in the Chamber in July, 1922. That is sufficient evidence for me.
Mr. Seligman: May I ask Professor Roselli whether his view is that the Italian people are permanently incapable of democratic self-government, or does he advocate the Fascist dictatorship merely as a temporary measure because of certain existing economic conditions in Italy?
Professor Roselli: In dealing with it, we have to be very sure that there are only two horns to a dilemma. I deny that the situation can be put in a way as simple as Mr. Seligman puts it, as a choice between Fascism and no Fascism. I would not for a moment advocate the eternal permanency of the Fascist rule as at present constituted in Italy. But the four years of Fascist rule in Italy have opened the eyes of all of us who want to keep them open to the constant changes within that organization.
Fascism was born, to mention only two things, practically in opposition to monarchy. And it was born practically in opposition to religion, or at least to organized religion as understood in Italy. Yet Fascism took later on, as cornerstones of the régime, both the Catholic Church and the Italian Monarchy. Therefore, Fascism, being able to change its views and adjust them to varying needs as long as there remains always this permanency of reverence for discipline, may modify itself in such a way as to remain in power for many years to come. If, on the contrary, it does
29
