REFERENDUM ON WAR

Dominion, Volume 16, Issue 178, 16 April 1923, Page 5

REFERENDUM ON WAR

PRINCIPLE AFFIRMED DEBATE AT VICTORIA COLLEGE

By a substantial majority the Victoria University College Debating Society affirmed at the first of its fortnightly debates on Saturday evening that ”110 Government is justified m committing New Zealand io taJee part, in uar until the approval of the people has been obtameu by reierenauin.'' mere was a large aiteuuauce, over wh.icli Mr. Jf. Maitm-smith presiuecl. In opening for the affirmative, Mr. J. W. G. Davidson acini.tied the inadequacy ot merely providing tor a rcierenuuni at the eleventh hour, but said that the motion implied the necessity lor bringmg witnni democratic control the wnoie foreign policy of the Government. It pre-supposed also an opportunity by the people to gain access to lull inlotmation, and wouid thus mark the end of secret diplomacy. Illustrating his remarks by reference to the commitments to France made by a section of the British Cabinet, now admitted, but previously denied, by Mr. Asquith and Sir Edward Grey when interrogated in Parliament, Mr. Davidson condemned “the system by wh.ch the peop.e were mere pawns in the game played by a coterie of diplomats.” Those on which the buiden of war inevitably fell were led blindfold into alliances and wars. He contended that if the couimpn people were fit to die for their country they were fit also to decide the causes for which they would make the sacrifice, If any semblance of truth and honesty was to characterise national life, democratic control must be effectively extended to the issue of peace and war. Mr. N. W. Atmore, in opposing the motion, claimed that with popular control of foreign politics it would be impossible to secure stability in alliances owing to the fickleness of public opinion. The statesmen’s impotence to bind their country would render impossible co-operation in the League of Nations. Consideration of national safety required freedom by the Government to act without delay in time of national peril, and the time lost in taking a referendum might prove fatal. This could be illustrated by the case of the late war, when the situation was saved by the British Government’s action in instantly rushing the “Old Contempt! bios’’ across the Channel. Only a small percentage of the people could be acquainted with the fine points of diplomacy, and in any case many wouid be swayed by unworthy motives m voting for or against war. The safety of the State was to be’ found in placing confidence in the patriotism and judgment of the elected representatives of th© people, rather than in depriving Parliament of its proper functions.

Mr. E. Evans supported Mr. Davidson. and stressed the fact that practically every recent war, including the Great Wgr, had been economic in origin. The referendum, involving the abolition of secret diplomacy, would reveal the real economic motive that was now concealed from the people. Mr. H. J. Butler supported Mr. Atmore, and argued that the course of action advocated was incompatible with, our place in the Empire; if we would enjoy the privileges of membership of the British Commonwealth of nations, we must be prepared' to fulfil our obligations in common with other constituent countries.

A large number of members took part in the debate, after which the motion was put to the meeting, and carried by a big majority. The judge, Mr. D. S. Smith, LL.M., placed the best speakers in the following order: Messrs. Butler, Davidson, Atmore, Campbell, and Yaldwyn. The meeting closed with a vote of thanks to Mr. Smith.