MR HUGHES SAND MR WATT.

Hokitika Guardian, 30 June 1920, Page 2

MR HU GHES SAND MR WATT.

QUARREL MAY HAVE GRAVE POLITICAL RESULTS.

SYDNEY, June 15.

The sudden and unexpected resignation of Mr Watt from the Federal Ministry—which is the political sensation qf the day—is likely to have far-reach-ing and Important results. The public statement which Mr Hughes will make in the course of the next few days will probably show that the immediate cause of the Treasurer’s resignation has to do with the sale of the Commonwealth wool clip last year. The whole of the production of wool in .Australia was pooled in the last- year or two of the war, and, during thp absence of Mr Hughes at the Peace Conference was sold by Mr Watt (Acting Prime Minister) to the British Government. Mr Hughes, on returning to Australia, sharply criticised the terms of the sale; and since then, as it was seen that the sale was practically a gilt of some scores of millions qf pounds to thejßritisli Government, Mr Hughes ha s been bitterly outspokeii. On,• each occasion Mr AVatt hag madg him eat big words, and declare' that he (Mr AVatt) did what seemed best at the time, but there has been evidence of strain between the two of them recently.

But with that given in, there was closer co-operation and friendship between Mr Hughes and Mr AVatt than between Mr Hughes and another Minister. When Mr Hughes came back, he declared in the Melbourne Town Mali, wliep thjmking Mr Watt for having “played the game” while he was away, that Mr AVatt might have “ for what jt is worth ” his friendship for all time. Following on that, -Mr Hughes has undoubtedly been working in close consultation with Mr AVatt while practically ignoring other members of his Cabinet.

But it lias been obvious to tliose with a view behpid the scenes that the break-up of the National Cabinet was bound to come sooner or later. The two elements —Labour and Liberal-Conserva-tive—-in the Cabinet have never been really welded. The ‘ Big Four ” of the. Cabinet are Hughes, AA’att, Senator Millen, and Sir Joseph Cook—and the two latter 1 have never tried to disguise their hostility to' Mr Hughes. The Hughes-Watt friendship held the two parties together; and, since this has apparently ended in a reverberating smash, 'there' must be important developments. Mr Hughes will probably throw the blame for the trouble upon Mr AVatt', apd charge hipi ' with deserting his post at a most critical time; a in} Mr AA r att’s reply may give the signal for hostility bptween the Hughes followers apd tlip old Liberals.

Mr Hughes, in conversation with his friends, always insists that he is as good a Labour map aa ever he was, and that, if he is with the Liberals, lip is not of them, It is believed that he still hopes to lead Australian Labour —although Labour, officially at any rate, is bitterly antagonistic to him.