REFFERENDUM ON WAR

Evening Post, Volume CV, Issue 90, 16 April 1923, Page 5

REFFERENDUM ON WAR

DEBATE AT VICTORIA COLLEGE

By a substantial majority the Victoria Unlverßity- College Debating Society offirmed at, the first of its regular fortnightly debates on Saturday evening that."no Government is justified in committing New Zealand to take part in war until the approval of the people had been obtained by referendum." There was a large attendance, over which Mr. P. Martin-Smith presided. In opening for the affirmative, Mr. J. W. G. Davidson admitted the- inadequacy of merely providing for a referendum at the eleventh hour, but the motion implied the necessity for bringing within democratic control the whole foreign policy of a Government. It presupposed also an opportunity by the people to gain access to full information, and would 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 trenchantly condemned the system by Which the people were mere pawns in the game played by a coterie of diplomats. Those on whom the burden of war inevitably fell were led blindfold into alliances and wars— "theirs was not to reason why." He contended that if the common people were fit ito die for their country, they were fit also to decide the cause for which they would make the sacrifice If any semblance of truth and honesty were to characterise our national life, democratic control must be effectively extended to the issue of peace and war. Mr. N. W. Atmqre, in opposing the motion, claimed that with popular conItrol 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. Considerations 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-, ibles across the Channel. Only a small percentage of the people could be acquainted with the fine points of diplomacy, and in any case many would be awayed by unworthy motives- in 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 the people, rather than in depriving Parliament of i its proper functions.

Mr. E. Evans supported Mr. Davidson, and stressed the fact that practically every recent war, including the Great War, 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 peopl*.

Mr. H. J. Butler seconded 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 beaprepared 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 hi the following order:—Messrs. Butler, Davidson, Atmore, Campbell, and Yaldwyn. The meeting closed with a vote of thanks to Mr. Smith.