Untitled

Hokitika Guardian, 2 August 1924, Page 2

Tim; problem of the constitutional relationships of the Empire is consider-, iilily complicated by the correspondence Ik‘tweeii Canada and the British Government over the ratifieation by that dominion of the Treaty of Lausanne, writes “A,A .ft.” in the “Nation.” The standpoint of Canadian Ministers appears to lx* that if they are to lie asked to sign a treaty, or to acquiesce in ratification on their behalf, Canada must have l>cen represented, as at Paris in 1010. and at Washington, in lftll-22, by its own delegates. At Lausanne no dominion was so represented. or was invited by 'Great llritain to do so. The questions to be discussed were almost entirely European. though a more general problem is involved in the guarantee of the freedom of the Straits. The late Government considered the Marquis Curzoit nnd Sir Horace Rumbold adequate to represent the Empire. Canada, without demurring to this arrangement

at the time, entered a eg veal l , the nature of which the then Colonial Secretary (the Duke of Devonshire) may he pardoned for not fully comprehending. Ultimately, however, it was made perfectly clear that Canada did not feel called on to sign the Treaty, nor to recommend approval of it to (lie Canadian Parliament, nor to give formal assent to ratification. Canada, therefore, is apparently not to he bound by the Treaty of Lausanne at all. That ill itself is a small matter. But the constitntioual ipiestion raised by Canada's action is anything Hut small. Hitherto identity of foreign policy has been regarded as one of the few formal links that hind the dominions and Great Britain.