THE IMPERIAL PROBLEM.

Auckland Star, Volume XLVII, Issue 207, 30 August 1916, Page 2

THE IMPERIAL PROBLEM.

(To the Editor.) Sir, —I regret that I have been unable to reply earlier to your editorial comments upon my letter on the above problem, published in your issue of Wednesday, August 23. In order to correct what I venture to say are misrepresentations of my arguments I find it necessary to i state as concisely as possible the Imperial problem as 1 understand it. I think, sir, you will admit that the present war has shown that the defence of our Empire and the maintenance of peace is an interest common to all its constituent parts. If this is so, the burden of defence should be apportioned on an equitable basis, and some effective constitutional means should be devisei of compelling payment of the quotas allotted to Great Britain and the various Dominions. Mr. Curtis has examined in his book every scheme that has been proposed for securing these ends, and he arrives by a process of exhaustion at the conclusion that the only effective scheme is an Imperial Parliament, elected by and responsible to the people, not only of Great Britain, but also of Canada, South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand. He suggests an equitable scheme for apportioning the burden of defence, and rightly insists that neither this nor any other scheme can be effective unless there is provided some constitutional machinery for compelling payment in case of default by any State of the suggested Imperial Federation. In your comments upon my letter you overlook this essential fact, that the Imperial Government suggested by Mr. Curtis, like every other responsible govern-1 ment, would devise effective machinery I for collecting such revenue as it was within its constitutional powers to levy. To take, for example, your comments upon my statement of the action of the Canadian Government in refusing, after consultation with the present Imperial Government, during a grave naval crisis, to vote JE 7,000,000 for the building of three battleships, I said in my letter, and you have not disproved my contention, that the action of Canada in 1012 shows "the futility and the injustice of the present system." In your leading article you are arguing against Mr. Curtis' federal scheme, and in favour of the present method of consultation with the Dominions. Stripped of all rhetoric, and put into plain English, your statement combined with the inference you draw from my letter amounts to this: "Mr. Mahon has shown that the action of Canada, in refusing to vote £7,000,000, alter consultation with. ..the present ImI perial Parliament, proves that, the pre--1 sent' method of consultation is futile and. unjust. In this Mr. Mahon has supplied, |us with an argument Tin" favour" - of con- ' sulfation." I leave it to any impartial reader to say how far the manner in which you presume to confute mc out 'of my own mouth is either just or logical. You go on to ask how such a proposal, !if adopted by Mr. Curtis' Imperial Cabinet, could conceivably have been enforced. The answer, is perfectly simple. I The Imperial Government suggested by Mr. Curtis would be elected by and responsible to Canada as well as Great ! Britain and the other self-governing ! Dominions. If it decided that Canada's quota towards the cost of Imperial defence was £7,000,000, Canada would pay it Otherwise, Mr. Curtis' Imperial Parliament would put into operation the constitutional machinery provided for enforcing the payment. In your argument you overlook the fact that in Mr. Curtis' scheme Canada would have what ,she has not at present—responsible government for defence and foreign affairs. There are, however, two points .brought out in your leader with which I j think everyone will agree—that the present system of relations between Britain .and the Dominions in regard to Imperial foreign policy is not wholly satisfactory, and that an Imperial Convention should be summoned as soon as possible after I the war to consider how these relations (may be improved—l am, etc., H. J. D. MAHON. Epsom, August 26.