EMPIRE TASKS.

Taranaki Daily News, 18 July 1921, Page 5

EMPIRE TASKS.

Defence and the treaty. THE PREMIERS DIVIDED. CANADA STANDS ALOOF. By Telegraph.-—Press Assn.—Copyright. Received July 17, 5.5 p.m. London, July 16. The Australian Press Association is authoritatively assured that dispassionately viewing the Premiers’ Conference, in retrospect one realises that it has' undeaignedly but inevitably fallen into three divisions, never hostile, but mutually helpful, even when apparently antagonistic. The first division included the British Ministers, who adopted a receptive rather than a prescriptive attitude, being anxious to learn the Dominions’ views rather than impose their own. Nevertheless, they are insistent in requiring the renewal of the Japanese treaty, and persistent in representing their inability a day longer to bear the whole burden of the defence of the Empire, in which all the Dominions must share in the future. The second division comprised Mr. A. Meighen and General Smuts. The former differed from the British regarding both the treaty and defence, but was predisposed to support the treaty. In the third division were Mr. W. M. Hughes and Mr. W. F. Massey. The fanner approved of the treaty, provided it was rendered inoffensive to the United States, while Mr. Massey whole-hearted-ly supported its renewal. Both regarded naval defence as a matter of life and death to Australia and New Zealand.

Mr. Meighen’s reasons for opposing the renewal of the Japanese treaty were three-fold. Firstly, the conditions which necessitated the treaty in 1911 are now non-existent; secondly, renewal would be regarded with disfavor by the United States; and thirdly, the formation of such alliances was antagonistic to the spirit of post-war times. Failing to secure denunciation he would have proposed the insertion of a clause exempting Canada until the Dominion Parliament approved. General Smuts concurred in the principle of Mr. Meighen’* arguments, but if assured that renewal was Imperially necessary he would support renewal. Mr. Meighen, also, was opposed to the Conference dealing with naval defence. He pointed out that the Canadian Government and Parliament refused to deal with Lord Jel Li cue’s report two sessions ago, because naval defence involved questions of foreign policy and constitutional control, affecting Admiralty authority on the one hand and Dominion authority on the other. Mr. Meighen advocated the suspension of the Act until the Conference decided the precise mechanism under which the Dominions would give effect |to their views on foreign affairs. General Smuts arrived at a similar concluby a different line of reasoning. He is emphatically opposed to any new de-

fence commitments as being in contravention to the spirit of the League of Nations.

A member of the conference described General Smuts as going even further than Mr. Meighen in opposition to defem??, having out-Heroded Herod.—Aus.N.Z. Cable Assn.