THE DECLARATION OF LONDON

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIII, Issue 221, 24 January 1911, Page 5

THE DECLARATION OF LONDON

OVERSEAS DOMINIONS IGNORED. BRITISH AND COLONIAL PRESS PROTESTS. By Cable—Press Association—Copyright. Received 23, 10.40 p.m. London, January 2-3. The Daily Mail says that Australia's protest against the Declaration of London is merely a foretaste of opposition from every quarter of the Empire when the real inwardness of the new code of war and its Imperial menace is revealed. The Dominions, says the Mail, have been overlooked throughout. No provision is made for the appointment of their judges, though Greece, Columbia, and Uruguay are given the right to nominate one judge, each in various years. Yet the shipping of the Dominions is sixth in the shipping of the world. Why should Australia and New Zealand be treated as inferior states in civilisation to Columbia? j

The Chronicle says the Declaration is of transcendent importance, but its immense complexity will cause delay until the conference affords time for reflection. Article 34 is decidedly ambiguous. If articles 33 and 34 had been as explicit as Sir Edward Grey's letter to, the Glasgow Chamber of Commerce on the 13th October last, there would be no ground for misconception. It was a great gain that raw material for nearly all of Britain's industries could not be declared contraband. Capetown, January 23. The Cape Times says it is not surprised that Australia protested, and recommends the South African Union Government to consider the matter. The Times points out tliat bullion may be treated as conditional contraband, and be liable to seizure. The South African gold shipment often amounts to a million and a half, and would offer a tempting prize to a raiding cruiser.