ON IMPERIAL MIGRATION

Press, Volume LXXIII, Issue 22004, 30 January 1937, Page 13

ON IMPERIAL MIGRATION

OPPOSING POINTS OF

VIEW

GENERAL SMUTS AND MR

SAVAGE

(UNITED PRESS ASSOCIATION —COPYRIGHT.)

(Received January 29, 8.57 p.m.)

LONDON, January 29,

Admitting that the Empire Settlement Act is a half measure, irritating its opponents and not satisfying enthusiasts who envision a planned economy for the whole Empire and an ideal distribution of white population throughout the Empire, “The Times’’ says in a leading article: “There is nothing more natural than that the Dominions should be determined to be masters of their own houses. Nevertheless, their determination creates a dilemma between General Smuts’s point of view that the Dominions will not play a large part in world affairs unless they greatly increase their populations, and Mr Savage’s declaration that future migrants must bring jobs with them.” “The Times” adds: “Only through a systematic development of resources, especially of secondary industries, can the Dominions be assured that newcomers will bring their own jobs. It is our business to ensure that those answering the call for more labour shall not be mere economic pawns; and for this reason the first condition is that they shall not be regarded as strangers or birds of passage. “Already a certain barrier has been established between the immigrant and the native bom; but no such danger threatens those migrating sufficiently young to grow up as good Dominion citizens—such migrants as the Settlement Bill would assist financially. Nevertheless, the Dominions must ensure that migration is linked with development if they wish the new settlers to be young and readily assimilable.”

[The Empire Settlement Bill now before the House of Commons proposes the extension of the existing Empire Settlement Act for a further 15 years after May 31. when it is due to expire. It is also proposed to alter what was an experimental figure of £1,250,000 for the cost of grants to migration schemes, to £ 1.500.000 as the maximum to be spent in any one year; and to increase the percentage grant to any particular scheme promoted by voluntary societies from 50 to 75 per cent.]