The Dominion FRIDAY, DECEMBER 28, 1917. THE REFERENDUM AND AFTER

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 80, 28 December 1917, Page 6

The Dominion FRIDAY, DECEMBER 28, 1917. THE REFERENDUM AND AFTER

It is not surprising that tho adverse result of the Conscription•Bαferendum in Australia should have led to a demand for a new leader for the National Party in place pi Me Hughes. The Commonwealth Prime Minister fought with tremendous vigour throughout the campaign; he overwhelmed his enemies and his critics with the violence and force and bitterness of .his wondorful eloquence. He won for himself the unbounded admiration of the extremists on his own side; he was carried, shoulder high by great bands of returned soldiers on more than one occasion; he was again and again accorded demonstrations by huge gatherings which would have stirred tho pride of the greatest leaders of any country. But in spite of his undoubted great qualities of leadership, he appears to have been unable' to win tho confidence and trust of many who supported the cause he advocated,, and his methods appear to have further antagonised and hardened up those in the ranks of his opponents or those wavering, in the balance whose votes it should have been his'endeavour to convert to his own side. Where it was his business to convert he too often antagonised by his swooping denunciations and his extreme language. And around hftn had grown up an atmosphere of distrust mainly duo to_ the misrepresentations and distortions of his actions arid words by his opponents, but in some measure at least due to his own extremes of speech and failures' to convert ' words into deeds. So we find the day after the polling, with the "No" majority mounting up, the beginning of a movement in ifavoiir of securing a new leader for the National Party in place of ...Mil. Hughes. In an interview published in the Sydney Press on December 21, Me. D. R. Hall/State Attorney-Gen-eral, reviewed the conduct of Mr. Hughes as Prime Minister and more especially his actions during the rceent.Beferendumcampaign, in a most uncompromising manner, concluding with these words:

"Clearly the existence of a state of war has centred supreme power in the Federal (government. . Ordinarily this menns in the Prime Minister and his colleagues. Unfortunately, in Mr. Hughes'.? case it menus, more than nnyttiing, in the Prime Minister himself. Tt becomes, then, the mors , necessary ihftt the person wiPldins this power should'be n man' sincere. in his promises, prompt 1 in his actions, and sound in his judgment. Mr. Hughes is none of these. No doubt he is inspired liy patriotic zeal; no doubt, with unequalled eloquence, lie advocates the cause in which he believes, but something move than words is wnnted. I make this appeal to members of the Nntionai Party in the Federal Parliament-.—Clicose for us another leader; one whose judgment we can trust and on whose promises we may rely." The condemnation which will prove

most damaging to Mr. Hughes is that ho is a man of words only. The fact that ho can point to much that ho has accomplished, both as a great Labour organiser and as Prinio. Minister of tho Commonwealth, might enable him to find a sufficient answer to tho charge but for the prejudice against him in those, circles in which the decision will probably bo made and but for the , further factor that ho has failed lit tho doubtful course ho chose to follow in order to secure the needed reinforcements for Australia's forces in the field. The suspicion is deeply rooted and widespread that, in spite of his knowledge of the iir-1 gent necessity of assuring that adequate reinforcements should be available for the troops in Franco, he refused to risk his political ofhee by going to the country on a Conscription issue, and that it was because of the fear of this risk that he again fell back on the Referendum. How far his colleagues share in this responsibility is not known, but the chief share of the blame undoubtedly has fallen on tho shoulders ot Me Hughes.' How the National Government will meet the crisis occasioned by tho defeat of the Conscription issue is now a matter ot the gravest concern. Mr. Hughes and some of his colleagues stated during the • Referendum campaign, that they could not carry the responsibility of continuing in oftco unlesti the' country gave them authority to secure the reinforcements necessary to enable Australia to maintain at full strength-her existing forces in the field and play an honourable part in the war. -The Government is now faced with a plain issue. The Referendum has failed as a means by which Ministers hoped and expected to secure the authority to enrol the required reinforcements. Ministers can resign office, or they can ifeek a dissolution and mako another appeal to the electors. . ~ The Government is now considering the matter, and it will be noted that a cable message to-day suggests that the balance of opinion favours reconstruction of the Cabinet witli the question of whether or not Mil. Hughes shall retain the leadership in doubt. A reconstruction of Cabinet will not meet the needs of tho situation unless there is'also an appeal to the country on a' Conscription issue. A reconstructed Government could not have any more hope of securing the needed reinforcements' under the voluntary system than .the present Government has, and in view of the result of tho k> cent Referendum it would be a dangerous thing to now attempt to introduce compulsory service without' a general election and a direct appeal-to the constituencies on the oucstion. With a new leader of the Government prepared to stake al on' the result of such an appeal there might be some hope of .the- National Party winning the day, but the outlook is by no means a bright one. There is a very real danger of the Government following splitting apart either on the question of leadership or on the question of risking seats and office by an appeal to the electors. ■