ATTITUDE TO OATH

Rotorua Morning Post, Volume 1, Issue 181, 24 March 1932, Page 5

ATTITUDE TO OATH

(Press. Assn.—

HELD TO BE NOT MANDATORY UNDER TREATY WITH " BRITAIN , ■ O PURELY DOMESTIC CONCERN

-By Telegranh-

-Copyrlght).

LQNDON, Tuesday. Tlie Ftee State Minister in Lqpdon Mr. J. W. pulanty, ofiicially annoiuneed that he* had informed Mr. j. H. Thpmas, Secretary pf State for the Dqminions, that the Free State Minister of External Affairs, liad advised him tjjat the Free ^tate povprnment held that the oath of allegiance w^s not niaiidatory in the treaty and that it had the absoiute right to the conspujtion as the people desired.

Since the constitutipn was the people'? .constitution apything aifecting it helonged to the internal sovereignity th.e statement says. It was purely a dqmestic matter.; the paramopnt consideration was making jfche Free State's decision final and irreyocahle. It was the people who had declared their will without ambiguity. The abolition of the oath was a paramount | issue at the elections. The oath had been the cause of strife and diss.ention in the Free State ey.er sinc.e the signing' of the Treaty. The1 people, not merely the Goyernment's ' snpporters regarded it as a j relic of mediaevalism. It was a test imposed from outside under threats of j immediate and terrible war. The pew Gpvernment desired friendly reiations'with Britain and the normal develppment thereof, hut this was impossible while one side insisted on imposing an oath, and a conseience test, which was unparalleled in a treaty relationship hetweeh States.