"SHABBY ACTION."

Auckland Star, Volume LXVI, Issue 268, 12 November 1935, Page 16

"SHABBY ACTION."

MINISTER OUSTED.

MR. HUGHES' RESIGNATION. PRIME MINISTER ASSAILED. (From Our Own Correspondent.) SYDNEY, November 7. When I wrote last, that large section of the population of Australia which takes a personal interest in public affairs wag concentrating its attention on Mr. Hughes, the Minister of Health, and his new book, "Australia and War To-day." The book had a great and immediate success in the popular sense; for the whole of a large first edition sold out within a week, and by last Monday there were not 50 copies loft procurable in Sydney. Of course the central feature of the book is its reiterated assertion that "sanctions mean war," and in view of tho declared policy of the Federal Government and of the debate still in progress on the Sanctions Bill, everybody waited eagerly to eee "what Lyons would do about it." The Prime Minister did not keep us long in suspense; but the methods that ho adopted have occasioned some surprise and no little public indignation. Presumably having consulted his Ministerial colleagues, Mr. Lyons sent to Mr. Hughes a telegram requesting him to resign from the Cabinet, and at the same time, before having had any reply or any personal communication with Mr. Hughes, he handed a copy of this message to tho Press for publication.

In view of the silcnco naturally maintained by the people chiefly concerned the precise course of events here is a little difficult to follow. Mr. Hughes was at Canberra last Thursday, the day on which long reviews of his book appeared in the public Prees, but no attempt wae made to detain or to interview him there, and his first notice of dismissal reached him through the newspapers. This brueque way of getting rid of a Minister who, whatever his personal peculiarities, has certainly done splendid service to Australia, has been very severely conimented upon, and many people who do not always agree with the "Bulletin" have expressed strong approval of its opinion that it was "a shabby action, shabbily performed." " Funked " An Interview. There was no visible reason why the Prime Minister, following the traditional practice, could not have interviewed Mr. Hughes personally and explained the ground for his objections or even issued an ultimatum to him. Mr. Hughes, however, after voting for the firet reading of the Sanctions Bill on Thursday, was allowed to leave Canberra for Melbourne without let or hindrance; and the many people who do not like Mr. Lyons have not been slow to draw the fairly Obvious inference that the Prime Minister, knowing how caustic and vehement "the Little Digger" can be when roused, simply "funked" a persona] interview. On Friday Mr. Lyons apparently consulted his colleagues, and that night he also left for Melbourne, ostensibly to interview Mr. Hughes, and the impression gained ground that the matter would be settled by personal discussion. But Mr. Lyons evidently changed his mind during the journey, for as soon as he stepped from the train at Melbourne he handed to the newspapers copies of the telegram demanding Mr. Hughes' resignation. Sanctions Mean War? As to the character of this communication—tho passage in Mr. Hughes' book on which Mr. Lyons has fastened as containing "the head and front of his offending" reads:—"Economic sanctions aro either an empty gesture or war." The sentiment here expressed undoubtedly strikes tho keyhole for tho greater part of the book. But it is not easy to follow the logical processes by which Mr. Lyons was led to conclude that "this i«s diametrically opposed to the Government's policy." In tho first place, though, as Sir John Latham and a great many other Australian and British authorities maintain, tho imposition of sanctions is technically an act of war, it does not necessarily follow that they will be accepted in that eenec.or that the Power aggrieved by them will be prepared to take up the challenge. But quite apart from the consequences it is possible to hold that though theoretically ''sanctions mean war," there may be no course open but to impose sanctions or allow an extremely important international question to go entirely by default. This is obviously the position in which the members of tho League of Nations stand, and even those who hate and fear war most may well believe that under existing circumstances Britain, and Australia with her, can do nothing but declare in favour of sanctions. And evidently this is the view held by Mr. Hughee, for he has voted for the Sanctions Bill already and he had declared his intention of voting for it again as soon as it reached its second reading. Taking all this into account it seems clear that Mr. Lyons had very little logical justification either for the state of nervous anxiety into which Mr. Hughes' book evidently threw him or for the measures that he subsequently adopted. It is no insult to the Prime Minister to say that he is inferior in intellect and reasoning power to Mr. Hughes, and it is quite likely that the logical distinction drawn by Mr. Hughes between his recognition of sanctions as "an act of war" and his support of the Sanctions Bill would not appeal to Mr. Lyons.

' Policy Not Condemned. But the fact remains that Mr. Hughes is not only honest but unanswerable when he maintains that his book does not oppose or condemn the policy of the Government as embodied in the Sanctions Bill. It may bo admitted that though Mr. Hughes had clearly formed and expressed the opinions contained in his book long before the Sanctions Bill was drafted, the publication of the book at this critical juncture was both inopportune and indiscreet. The idea that Mr. Hughes ought to be expelled from the Ministry for insisting that under certain conditions the attempt to enforce sanctions may produce war will, however, not bear criticism. Mr. Baldwin, Sir Austin Chamberlain and many other distinguished public men at Home have repeatedly said what amounts to the same thing without disrupting Cabinet or throwing the administration of the country into disorder, and the impression that Mr. Lyons' precipitate action has produced is partly that he "lost his head" in the sudden excitement that Mr. Hughes' book occasioned, and partly that, responding to the pressure persistently applied by Mr. Hughes' numerous opponents both inside and outside Parliament, lie has seized upon an unworthy pretext to get rid of a difficult and embarrassing colleague.

It is worth noting that the "Sydney Morning BferaJd," which has frequentlycriticised Mr. Hughes o* farious grounds, said editorially last week that "the readers of his book ('Australia and War') will arise fro» it with the conviction that in the main argument Mr. Hughes is absolutely right." That "main argument" is, of course, Mr. Hughes' contention that Australia must prepare to defend herself in the last resort against *11 possible emergencies, including the threat of aggressive war. This is the text round which the book is written—though apparently Mr. Lyons has not been able to understand it. But the "Sydney Morning Herald" also thinks that while Mr. Hughes is "a difficult man in a team," it is hard to understand the Prime Minister's way of dealing with him; and this mild reproof represents but a small fraction of the condemnation in which the Prime Minister's arbitrary and discourteous conduet has exposed him during the past week. Way Out of Difficulty? A great many people believe, or hope, that some way may still be found out of tho difficulty, without sacrificing Mr. Hughes, but, as the "Telegraph" has pointed out, desirable as this may be, it is not easy to see how the Prime Minister after tho "blazing indiscretion" of the telegram can "save face" for himself if Mr. Hughes is to stay in the Cabinet. At the moment it was rumoured that Mr. Hughes would refuse to resign and then it was reported that Mr. Lyons would follow the course taken by Mr. Stevens in dealing with Mr. Weaver —resignation of the Government to be followed by reconstruction of the Cabinet. However, Mr. Hughes has saved Mr. Lyons this trouble. Last Monday he had a personal interview with Mr. Lyons in Melbourne and it was reported that he had tried to argue the Prime Minister out of his decisions. Those who know "the Little Digger" best think this most unlikely; but in any case it was announced on Tuesday that the resignation of Mr. Hughes had been received. The final scene of this dramatic episode took place at Canberra on Wednesday. Mr. Hughes made his statement, analysed his book at length to explain its real meaning, and reiterated that as _ he approved of and voted for the Sanctions Bill it was absurd to charge him with opposing or condemning the declared policy of the Government. He received strong support from tho Labouritee, who though they still affect to regard Mr. Hughes as a renegade from "the movement" are naturally glad to have his approval of their favourite thesis that "sanctions mean war," and were evidently inspired by something very like admiration for his frankness and courage. "Incident" in House. The honours of the debate were certainly with Mr. Hughes and his allies; and the Prime Minister came o it of it lather badly. For whilo Jie was waiting for Mr. Hughes to appear—the "old campaigner' , knows well the value of a dramatic entry—Mr. Lyons rose to make a statement, and was at once interrupted by tho Labourites, who formally objected. They were entirely within their rights and by the rules of the House the Speaker could not give the Prime Minister leave to proceed. Mr. Lyons lost his temper, muttered something about "discourtesy" and resumed his scat, fulminating audibly against Mr. Hughes. It was an unfortunate incident and it tended to predispose the House ttill further in favour of "the prisoner at the bar," who displayed all his wonted mental agility, resourcefulness and courajrc, while speaking in his own defence. Unfortunately there seems little hope that Mr. Lyons and his colleagues will reconsider what is evidently their joint decision. But the recent course of events has tended to confirm the widespread conviction that the publication of this book has been the pretext but not the real reason for the expulsion of Mr. Hughes from the Cabinet; and it certainly sreins unfortunate that at this critical moment a Cnvprnmnnt not too bounteously provided with intellectual ability or moral stamina should dispense with the services of its ablest, most energetic, most courageous and most popular member.