MR WATT’S MISSION

Hokitika Guardian, 24 June 1920, Page 4

MR WATT’S MISSION

WHY HE RESIGNED. REPLY TO MR HUGHES. LONDON, June 18. Mr Watt informed the Australian Press Association that ho had not leeeived the exact text of Mr Hughes’s statement from Sydney, and the cable messages in the British newspapers near ly all varied in some particular. “As Mr Hughes says my resignation was unjustified,” he addod, “I wish to make a brief reply. At the commencement of my work in Lombn I was seriously embarrassed ;n my negotiations in wool matters and vhoso related to finance by Mr Hughes’s interference. Undeterred by the difficulties thus created I pushed en, hutsoon it became plain to the British authorities and myself that, as Mr Hughes was cabling direct to the British Government propositions different from those submitted by mo, such important negotiations could not bo simultaneously conducted by telegram with Mr Hughes in Australia and with myself in person. I informed Mr Hughes that 1 could not proceed further with my mission until my position was defined. The reply was not satisfactory, and Mr Hughes further indicated that Cabinet generally did not agree with my atti. tude. Therefore,' after mature consideration, I felt that the only course open to me w r as to resign. “During extensive eablegraphic correspondence other matters arise illustrating a divergence of opinion between my colleagues and myself, to ono of which Mr Hughe s alluded, j I was advised by the Government that I had been appointed Plenipotentiary for Australia in connection with the Spa Conference, but not to agree to any alterations in certain matters without Mr Hughes’s authority. I replied that I could not assume the garb of Plenipotentiary with the powers of a telegraph messenger. Briefly, I found myself in this position. In matters which arose in iiscussion with British Ministers, and which were not on the catalogue of my riiission. I was not permitted to do any thing. Respecting the problems which I w r ns sent from Australia to settle, I was to act under directions frdm Melbourne. That status I could not accept, at is was that of an official, not ns a Minister of State. In my cables I made it plain than on questions of finance requiring special knowledge and swift decision I could not work on a chain twelve thousand miles long. There are many things I may say when I return to Australia, hut I do not desire at present to indulge in a Press controversy with my late colleagues. If Mr Hughes considers these remarks inaccurate or unfair I invite him to lay all tlie cables before Parliament.”—Aus.N.Z. Cable Assn.