MR WATT

Southland Times, Issue 18854, 21 June 1920, Page 5

MR WATT

REPLY TO MR HUGHES. PRIME MINISTER’S INTERFERENCE. AUTHORITY OF A TELEGRAPH MESSENGER. (By Telegraph.—Press Assn. —Copyright.) (Australian and N.Z. Cable Association.) LONDON, June 18. Mr Watt informed tne Australian tress Association that he had not received the exact text of Mr Hughes’s statement in in Sydney and the cable messages in the British newspapers nearly all varied in some particulars. As Mr Hughes said that his resignation was unjustified he wished to make a brief reply. “At the commencement of my work in London I was seriously embarrassed in the negotiations on wool matters and related linance by Mr Hughes’s interference. Undeterred by the difficulties thus caused I pushed on but it soon became plain to the British authorities and myself that as Mr Hughes was cabling direct to the British Government propositions differing from those submitted by me. such important negotiations could not simultaneously be conducted by telegram with Mr Hughes in Australia and myself in person.’’

Continuing his statement, Mr Watt said; “I informed Mr Hughes that I could not proceed further with my mission until my position had been defined. His reply was not satisfactory and Mr Hughes further indicated that Cnb ; nct generally did not agree with my attitude. Therefore, after mature consideration. I felt that the on’y course open was to resign. During extensive cablegraphic correspondence other matters arose illustrating the divergences of opinion between my colleagues and myself, to one of which Mr Hughes alludes. I was advised by the Government that I had been appointed a plenipotentiary for Australia in connection with the Spa Conference, but at the same time I was naively lirected not to agree to alterations in certain matters without Mr Hughes’s authority, f replied that 1 could not assume the garb of a plenipotentiary with the powers of a telegraph messenger. Briefly I found my'elf in thi? position in matters which arose in Hiscuss : on with British Ministers and which were not on the catalogue of my mission. “I was not permitted to do anything.’’ Mr Watt concludes; “respecting the problems for which I was sent from Aus tralia to scHle. I rvas to act under directions from Melbourne. That status I could not accent, as it was that of an official, not a Minister of State. In my cable? I made it plain that on questions of finance, requiring special knowledge and swift deci--ion I could not work on a chain twelve thousand miles long. There are nicny things T may say when I return to Australia, hut f do not desire at present to indulge in a nress controversy with mv late colleagues. 1? Mr Hughes considers these remarks inaccurate or unfair. I ask* him to lay the cables before Parliament.”