A MATTER OF FORM

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 212, 2 June 1921, Page 6

A MATTER OF FORM

MORE ABOUT A PRECEDENT

NEW ZEALAND AND THE UNITED STATES

SIR FRANCIS BELL EXPLAINS

The recent communications between the New Zealand Government and the United Status Government, through the American Consul-General in Auckland, regarding the refusal of a meat export license to Armour and Company of Australasia were the subject of a statement by the Acting-Prime Minister and Attor-ney-Genera? (Sir Francis Bell) yesterday. It had been pointed out that these communications appeared) to establish a precedent of an interesting nature, since they did not pass Colonial Office, and Sir Francis Bell, speaking on Monday, had said that the ex-Solicitor-General had always advised against such procedure.

"Consuls of foreign nations in British territory,” said Sir Francis Bell yesterday, "have no diplomatic standing and no diplomatic position, and questions of public policy er of international relations of any kind are excluded from their functions. Consuls are appointed for trade purposes and to facilitate interchango of communications between nations in relation to trade and commerce. Governments recognise tho mutual advantage which consular. communications provide in that respect/ and, in relation to trade, direct communications do take place between the Governments and the consular authorities. . This course is more frequently followed in tho British Dominions abroad than in other parts of the world, for the reason that thereby the information required is more readily obtained and supplied. The British Consul in France, desiring to obtain information from the Government of France for purposes of British traders, can readily 'reply through the British Ambassador, at Paris, and that method of communication is as easy as direct communication from the British Consul to the Government" at Paris, and is the course adopted. No such ready means of communication by a foreign Consul to the New Zealand Government exists, and unless direct communication by Consuls on trade questions were permitted the alternative would bo that the foreign Consul should ask the Ambassador of his country in England to apply to the Secretary of State to ask the New Zealand Government, through th e Governor-Gen-eral, for the information required—a course which would obviously detract from the utility and objects of the consular service. It is admittedly necessary that such communications between Consuls of foreign nations and the Governments of British Dominions or dependencies should be in general limited strictly to matters of trade. “The above explanation should make clear that direct communication between foreign Consuls and the Govejnihent of New Zealand on matters affecting trade is not irregular or novel, and that such communication does not constitute any assertion of independent sovereignty. 1 “I see that it has been suggested that t th« communications which have lately' passed between the Consul-General for America and myself may be construed as the qua’si-establishment of direct diplomatic relations between the Government of the United States and the Government of New Zealand. I should be one of the last to admit the possibility of the creation of such diplomatic relations, because I follow Mr. Massey in his insistency on the duty of maintaining the integrity of the Empire and the recognition of the practical iibpoasibility of the creation of diplomatic relations with fqreign nations without a corresponding assertion of independent sovereignty. “The Consul-General for America, was, I think, within hi? consular rights in asking for information from the Government of New Zealand on a matter directly relating to'- trade affecting Americans or the investment of American capital, and the technical difficulty (if any) was created by the form adopt’ ed by the Consul-General in conveying directly to myself, las Acting-Prime Minister- of New Zealand, a- communication received by him from tho De partment of State, I recognised that difficulty when I received the telegram but decided that the difficulty was one of form, and not of substance. The technically correct answer to the Con-sul-General would have been that, while the Government of New Zealand would have been glad to supply him, as Consul for America, with information on the subject, it could not communicate, whether directly or indirectly through him, with the Government of the United States. Such a reply would, I assume, have led to the Consul-General sending a second telegram in an amended form to which, in accordance with regular methods, a reply could have been properly sent.

"I by no means disregard form in matters of the kind, as the danger of creating a precedent by ignoring form is always present, but it seemed to me that as the question was in itself one which might, without irregularity, be put by a foreign Consul to the Government of New Zealand I had better reply to it without asking for amendment of the method by which the question was conveyed.”