Imperial Conference.

Hokitika Guardian, 18 July 1921, Page 2

Imperial Conference.

IUBTRALIAN AND N.Z. CARLE ASSOCIATION

AN IMPORTANT SUMMARY

LONDON, July 10

The Australian Press Association reports. The Association is authoritatively assured that, dispassionately view ing the Imperial Conference in retrospect, one realises it undesignedly, but inevitably, fell into thre<. divisions, never hostile, but mutually helpful, even when apparently antagonistic.. The first division included the British Ministeis who adopted a receptive, rather than a prescriptive, attitude, being anxious to learn the Dominions views, rather than impose their own, but nevertheless they were insistent in requiring renewal of ’the Japanese treaty. They have persisted in representing Britain as unable any longer to bear the whole burden of the defence expenditure of the Empire in which all Dominions must share in future. The second division comprised Mr Meighen (Canada), and General Smuts (South Africa). The formed differed from the British ministers regarding both the Japanese Troatfv and also defence. In the third division were Mr Hughes and Mr Massey. Th 0 former approved of the Treaty, provided it was rendered in offensive to the United States. Mr Massey whole heartedly supported a renewal. Both regarded naval defence as a matter of life and death to Australia and New Zealand.

Mr Meighen’s reasons for opposing the renewal of the Japanese Treaty wore threefold. Firstly lie pointed out the conditions which necessitated the Treaty in 1911 are now non-existent. Secondly the renewal would bt? regarded with disfavour by the United States. Thirdly the formation of such alliances was antagonistic to the spirit of post war times. Failing to secure the denunciation of the Treaty he would have hav c proposed the insertion of a clause exempting Canada from it until the Dominion’s parliament approved. General Smuts concurred in the principle of Mr Meighen’s argument. If assured that a renewal would bo im_ penally necessary, he would support a renewal. a

Mr Meighen also was opposed to the Conference dealing with naval defence. He pointed out that the Canadian Government and Parliament have refused to deal at all with Lord Jellicoe’s report two sessions ago. This was / because naval defence involved questions of foreign policy and constitutional control, affecting Admiralty authority on the one hand and Dominion authority on the other.

Mr Meighen advocated a suspension of action until the Conference decided the precise mechanism under who the Dominions would give effect to theii views on foreign affairs.

General Smuts arrived at a similar conclusion by a different line of reasoning. He was emphatically" opposed to any new defence commitments as l>emg a contravention of the spirit of the League of Nations. One member of the Conference described General Smuts as going even further than Mr Meighen in his opposition to the defence plans. General Smuts “out-heroded Herod.”

INDIA’S STATUS. The Conference committee considered the status of the Indians in the Dominions.' Mr Churchill presided. Messrs Montague, Hughes. Massey, and Eallantyn (for Canada) spoke.

Mr Meighen wa a.bsent. receiving the freedom of the city of London. Other speakeirS were Messrs Cutch. Sastri General Smuts. Messrs Smartt, and Mentz.

There was a lengthy discussion, mostly in relation to the position of Indians in South Africa. The question was eventually referred to the Conference as a whole.

The immigration question was not raised. No reference was made to a “White Australia,” or to the rights of Indians to enter.

The Imperial Conference met in the afternoon.

Be air comunication, it considered reports from experts and heard some. Some were inclined to believe the matter premature. A majority favoured a practical test over an extending period Mr Hughes remarked that the air piT>posals were.receiving the same instructions as the earliest train services, hut

were overcome. The naval question is still being considered.