IRISH AFFAIRS

Hokitika Guardian, 24 March 1932, Page 5

IRISH AFFAIRS

. VALERA’S STAND

OATH REMOVAL ESSENTIAL. s (United Press Association—-By Electric Telegraph.—Copyright.) LONDON, March 23. President De Yaiera, speaking in the ■lrish Senate, said that Ireland's attitude to Ihitain was friendly. He re- ' marked : “We arc anxious about tile welfare of the Irish people and the British people. We don’t want any bitterness revived, but we have our duty towards our people, which we are going to perform. \Ve have a mandate from the. people regarding the oath, which will be carried out. The removal of the oath is essential -to peace. We will not pay land annuities.” The “Morning Post” says: There is a belief that the Statute of Westminster does give the Irish Free State somewhat wider powers and to alter the constitution than it possessed before. The British contention is that the abolition of the oath will remove the Free State from the British Commonwealth of Nations, and that its people will no longer he citizens of the British Empire. This will have a serious consequence for the Irish Free 'State. 'The “Daily Telegraph’s” political correspondent contends: There- is no possibility that tho British Govorin mewt will acquiesce in the Free State’s decision, and that, on the contrary, it will make it plain that the treaty is regarded a-s a binding instrument the consequences of a breach being clearly indicated, and that if the oath is repudiated, then the Free State will cease to he a member of the British Commonwealth of Nations and will abrogate the right to be represented at the Ottawa Economic Conference.”

THE OATH QUESTION. LONDON, March 22. Mr Dulanty officially stated that he had informed Mr J. H. Thomas, Secretary for the Dominions, that the Free State Minister of External Affairs advised him that the Government held that the oath wa s not mandatory in that the Treaty had the absolute right to modify the .constitution as 'the people desired, since the constitution was the people’s constitution. Anything affecting it belonged to internal .sovereignty, and was purely domestic. The paramount consideration making the Free States’ decision final, was irrevocable. It was the people who declared their will, without ambiguity, and the abolition of tile oath was the paramount issue at the elections. Because of the strife and dissension in the Free State since the signing of The Treaty, the people, not merely the Government supporters, regarded it as a relic of mediaevalism, and a test imposed from outside under threats of immediate, terrible war. -The new Government desired friendly relations with Britain, and the normal development .thereof, but this was impossible while one side insisted in imposing an oath, as conscience tost, which was unparalleled in 'the Treaty and relationship between the States,

THE OATH POLICY

BE VALERA’S ATTITUDE

(Received this day at 9.25 a.m)

LONDON, March 23

The “Times” Dublin correspondent says De Valera bases hi„s oatli policy cm the contention that .'the Treaty clause prescribing the form of words to be used by members of the Free State Parliament, does not- make the taking of any oath obligatory, whereas the corresponding article in the Constitution does. As regards land annuities, he says that certain lawyers advised him that the British Government had no legal right thereto. He contends that the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, allowed the Northern Government to retain land annuities, and that the Free State has an equal right to a retention. Furthermore, he alleges that the ultimate financial agreement of 1926 between British and Free States Governments was \ never ratified, and therefore has no legal force.