THE PREMIERS.

Taranaki Daily News, 23 June 1921, Page 5

THE PREMIERS.

PROBLEM OF THE PACIFIC. RENEWAL OF JAPANESE TREATY. SOME CHANGES SUGGESTED. PRESERVING AMERICA’3 FRIENDSHIP. By Telegraph.—Press Assn.—Copyright. Received June 22, 10.45 p.m. London, June 21. At to-day’s sitting of the Premiers’ Conference Mr. A. Meighen (Premier of Canada) said he approached the question of Japan with a full sense of responsibility, but the outlying Dominions were not disposed to attach the same importance as Britain to the paramount necessity of mitigating racial divisions. If the Conference desired the support of the Dominions they must fully inform the public regarding their proceedings. General Smuts (Premier of South Africa) stated that the South African Parliament approved his policy with reference to the Conference, which he had expounded in Parliament: therefore he proposed to Adhere to that policy and not break new ground. He advocated increased disarmament; the most fatal mistake would be competition in armaments against America. Since the war Britain and America had drifted apart, and the only pathway to safety for the Empire lay alongside America. General Smuts said the European situation was no longer of first importance; therefore they should escape from European entanglements. Undoubtedly the scene had shifted from Europe to the Far East and the Pacific, and the problem of the Pacific would probably be the greatest during the next fifty years, embracing Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Japan and America. It was in the Pacific that the next great chapter in human history would be enacted. The American Senate had already made the first great move by inviting consultation between the United States, the British Empire and Japan, and the duty of the Imperial Conference would be to help forward that movement. “If wisely guided, this Conference may become one of the greatest landmarks in history,” added General Smuts.

RIGHTS OF INDIANS. Mr. Sastri (India) said India had not yet acquired full Dominion status, but was planted firmly on the road thereto. He intended submitting resolutions demanding the equality of Indians in the Dominions, subject to Lord Sinha’s compromise at the 1918 Conference. Mr. W. M. Hughes (Australia) said he hoped the Conference would do something to convince the people that it had found a practical and sure way of bridging the apparently impassable chasm which divides the complete autonomy of several parts of the Empire from united action upon matters affecting all. “It is essential,” he added, “that we must do something if this conference is not to be the last magnificent flare of a dying illumination.” There were three outstanding problems—foreign, Japan and defence. The equality of the Dominions at the council table in dealing with these questions was accepted; but for the Dominions to have an effective voice in foreign policy they must have knowledge, which Was impossible without improved communication. Referring to the Japanese treaty, Mr. Hughes said the matter was definite and urgent. Australia’s attitude was clearly stated; the treaty cannot be renewed precisely in its present form, and it must conform to the requirements of the League of Nations. Nevertheless the case for renewal was strong, if not overwhelming. Speaking broadly, Australia favored renewal, but renewal must exclude the possibility of war with America. The treaty must guard against even a suspicion of hostility or unfriendliness towards the United States. If the treaty was renewed the Empire would be in a better position to exercise influence over Eastern policy than if Japan were a potential enemy. “We will do well for the world’s peace, for China and for the Commonwealth of British Nations to renew this treaty.” added Mr. Hughes. He suggested a conference between Britain, America and Japan regarding the renewal of the treaty; in any case, they should ascertain America’s views. QUESTION OF DEFENCE. Referring to defence, Mr. Hughes advocated international limitation of armaments, but whatever was agreed upon Australia must have naval defence adequate for her safety. The war and the Panama Canal had shifted the world’s stage to the Pacific and the world’s future drama must be played in the Pacific. He hoped for an agreement between the three great naval Powers. He admitted Britain was unable alone to continue the responsibility for the defence of the Empire, and the Dominions cannot ask to be permitted to participate in the direction of foreign policy without sharing in defence. Mr. Hughes was not prepared to say what Australia’s share would be, but he considered Australia’s share per capita should not be so great as Britain’s, because Britain defends the colonies, the dependencies and India, but whatever was Australia’s share it should apply to all the Dominions on a per capita basis. He refused to subscribe to the doctrine that the less endangered Dominions should contribute less than the more menaced Dominions. He did not believe the Dominions’ quota should be monetary; it should be expressed in terms of the Dominions’ navies. Referring to the proposed constitutional conference he confessed inability to understand what the conference could do. The position had changed since the resolution was carried by the 1917 conference and it was unnecessary, because no limitation was placed upon the Dominions, which now could even encompass their own destruction by sundering the bonds of the Empire if they desired to do so. They already possessed all the rights of self-government enjoyed by independent nations. The proposed constitutional conference was causing anxiety in Australia, for instead of giving Australia greater power it was feared it would diminish existing powers. Even this conference was in the shadow of clouds of suspicions; it was even not entitled to give itself a name, whether conference, cabinet or council, and all were questionable titles. Constitutional experiments meant treading on dangerous ground; let us leave well alone. MR. MASSEY’S SPEECH. Mr Massey (New Zealand), after eulogising Mr. Lloyd George’s speech, disagreed with the view that the Dominions ware independent nations, which

in case of war might refrain from taking their part. He doubted the pra<£ ticability of holding another conference next year, because the elections were due then in Australia, New Zealand and Canada. Mr. Hughes interjected: “I’m glad Mr. Massey mentioned that, because it will be impossible for me to attend next year.” Continuing, Mr. Massey said that in naval defence there was no difference between himself and Mr. Hughes in regard to its necessity for the protection of Australasia. The storm centre had changed and he feared the next naval war would be fought in the Pacific. It was necessary to maintain communications throughout the Empire, otherwise we would be faced with the possibility of disaster. He advocated a permanent shipping committee, a yearly conferences in different parts of the Empire, improved shipping communications, and cheaper freights and fares. Mr. Massey insisted that action was necessary in connection with the present unworkable system of government in the New Hebrides. He urged that British Ministers should visit the Dominions. Mr. Massey disagreed with General Smuts’ view that they Could do without alliances; he would welcome an alliance with America and he supported the renewal of the Japanese alliance.—Aus.N.Z. Cable Assn. INTEREST IN PARIS. COMMENTS BY NEWSPAPERS. 1 Received June 23, 12.10 a.m. London, June 21. The Dominions Conference has aroused interest in Paris equal to that displayed over Upper Silesia and the Rhine. French opinion considers the conference will modify the future policy of the British Empire. Le Journal says Mr. Lloyd George’s statement that the Dominion have an equal right and partnership in the dignities and responsibilities of the Empire for the first time betokens that the Dominions will formulate a common foreign policy. As Canada has the right to have an Ambassador at Washington, doubtless other Dominions will wish to do the same. To-day the Dominions are willing to act in agreement with British policy, but if fobbed off by vain promises there is a danger of a policy of separation, which may extend to India, Egypt, and Ireland. The Petit Journal says England is yielding, but not losing prestige. Le Temps considers the limitation of armamenta with America is irreconciliable with the preservation of sea power. A great danger to the world is the weakness of China, which tempts the covetousness of the Powers.—Aus.N.Z. Cable Assn. CONSTITUTION CONFERENCE. MAY BE ABANDONED. Received June 22, 10.45 p.m. London, June 21. The third day of the Premiers’ Conference will be devoted to foreign policy. Lord Curzon (Foreign Secretary) will set out the British views and the other representatives will state their case. The argument stage has not yet been reached, but it is probable the Imperial constitution conference of 1921 will be abandoned, the tenor of speeches by the Prime Minister suggesting that the proposal is unpopular. Mr. Massey and Mr. Hughes strongly criticised the proposal to hold what they described as a useless conference. OVERSEA VIEWS. SPEECHES BY THE PREMIERS. ACTION OF INDIA OFFICE. London, June 21. The conference to-day was confined to speeches dealing with Mr. Lloyd George’s address. Lord Curzon attended but did not speak. Mr. Meighan occupied, fifteen minutes, Mr. Hughes sixty, General Smuts, Mr. Massey and Mr. Sastri thirty each. It is expected Mr. Churchill will follow on behalf of the colonies.

Mr. Massey described Mr. Lloyd George’s speech as the most important since the war. It would strongly appeal to the Dominions, and inspire confidence throughout the Empire. fie urged that the Imperial Shipping Committee be made permanent, and proposed that future conferences be held in Britain and the Dominions alternately. It is understood that the India Office intends to side-step the Conference discussion on Indian rights by proposing that the question be referred to the existing standing committee representing the Parliament of India and the Colonial Office, of which Lord Islington is chairman.

The present powers of the committee are limited to Crown Colonies, in regard to which it has revised the regulations operating detrimentally towards Indian immigrants. Probably it will be suggested that the committee’s co-opera-tion be enlisted in an advisory capacity in reference to the status of Indians in

Mr. Meighen has broken his silence. Speaking at Grays Inn he said that the fabric of Empire was held together by vital and perfectly understandable constitutional principles. They were tne common law of Parliaments and bore something the same relation to the charter of State as the common law to statute law. They were judiciously taught by experience and matured by practice into authoritative conventions. If he must speak merely from the dictionary of law he might say that the British Parliament that passed the Canadian Confederation Act could amend that Act of its own motion. Everyone knew that such proceedings would be as far beyond the constitutional right of the British Parliament as the royal veto was beyond revival. Such a step would never be dreamed of and if taken would never be respected. The forms of law remained after the spirit has departed, but the silent voice of constitutional right kept every unit in our system in its proper place and orbit. That was why they were many nations, but one Empire that, after a thousand years, sees no western sun, but is witnessing what Victor Hugo called “La jeunesse de la vieillesse” (the youth of old age). PRESS COMMENTS. PROBLEM OF FOREIGN POLICY. London, June 21. The Conference is attracting general attention, and is more noticed than the strike. All the newspapers put up black headings and displayed bills. Mr. Lloyd George’s speech occupies two and a-half aoluams The leading articles

are all mostly appreciative. The illustrated papers print pictures of the principal members. Many newspapers publish unflattering and inaccurate biographies of the conference representativs. The conference is much discussed on buses and in the hotels and underground railways. The new epigram coined by Mr. Lloyd George is certain to become historic: “There was a time when Downing Street controlled the Empire; to-day the Empire has taken charge of Downing Street.

The delegates are deeply serious and the papers now contrast the buoyancy of last week with the unsmiling assembly, which gathered at 11 o'clock. Members, however, thawed while listening to each other’s speeches, each taking the opportunity of expressing his views frankly. The general tenor of the utterances was “all for one, and one for all.” Mr. Lloyd George and Mr. Hughes hoped that amiability would continue when the question of shouldering Empire defence is considered. The Daily Telegraph says: All the ‘members of the Conference are men who have gained the highest place in the councils of their fellow men by ability and character. The Empire is a realm unique and unparalleled, based not on force, but on liberty, justice and recognition of fundamental equality. An Empire League of Nations which stood the terrific impact of the world’s war will find no difficulty in working together for foreign policy, maritime, defence and other objects that call for co-opctation and co-ordination. The Morning Post cannot conceive of any American having any longer respect for England if we were to change our foreign policy, solely directed, as it is to our security and independence, in deference to American sensibilities. The power to protect yourself is the best guarantee for peace in this imperfect world. The Dominions are already coming to words over the proposal to transfer their powers to a sort of auper Parliament which would disturb the balance and create all manner of difficulties. The present system is not perfect, but it works. The principle issues focussed are the. policy relating to Japan and the United States and the problem of the Empire’s naval defence. In fundamentals we believe the views of the Dominions regarding them coincide with our own. The need is practical discussion in the shape of the details of policy to render harmony efficacious. Paris, June 21. M. Viviani, discussing the Imperial Conference, said it was well that England and the Dominions should seek entire agreement in their foreign policy. The Dominions realised what they owed to the Moth< ? Country and the latter knew what was due to her children.