ARE PROMISES BINDING?

Evening Post, Volume CVII, Issue 26, 31 January 1924, Page 5

ARE PROMISES BINDING?

ISSU& IN SOUTH AFRICA

SMUTS DEFENDS PREFERENCE PLEA.

I (UNITED PRESS ASSOCIATION.—COPYRIGHT.) ; (REUIEK'S TELEGRAM.) (Received 31st January, 10 a.m.) CAPETOWN, 30th January. ''In the House ot Assembly the Labour Leader, Mr. Creswelß, moved to the effect that the House is of opinion that promises made by a Government at an Imperial Conference impose uo obligations on the country or Dominion con- ' cerned until they are ratified by its Parliament, and dissents from the con-1 trary view put forward •by the. Prime Minister in a public speech at Johannesburg on 14th December lagt. Mr. Creawell declared tlrat a passage in that speech challenged What was always considered an unquestionable position. -He asked General Smuts to admit his error. . General Smuts, replying, complained that it was an attempt to manufacture ■party capital, quoting a passage in the Imperial Conference's report to the effect that its, conclusions were subject to the action of the Governments and Parliaments of the various parts of the Empire. DISASTER IF WORK LOST * The Prime Minister stated that this ■was inserted at his own instance and made the constitutional position perfectly plain. In his Johannesburg speech he tj^ok the" constitutional position for granted, and merely stated his views regarding what she considered would be a great disaster in the event of .the Conference's work being lost. His whole argument was to make the British Parliament realise the gravity of the situation from the viewpoint of statesmanship and .expediency, and his speech was addressed to the people of Great Britain. Mr. Bruce (Australia) took an even more serious view of the "situation than he himself did. General Smuts expressed his pleasure that Mr. MacDonald had decided to refer the resolutions to the Britisli Parliament, and declared that he still felt strongly that the Preference resolution should be carried. EVIL OF DIVIDED OPINION He suggested that Mr. Creswell should withdraw the motion, on the first portion of which all were agreed, while the second was founded on a misunderstanding. A division would give tho British people the impression that South African opinion was divided on the question of Preference, thereby rendering a great1 disservice to South Africa. General Hertzog condemned the Prime Minister for the use of the word "must" in his Johannesburg speech. He contended that General Smuts,had evaded tho point and taken up an attitude . weakening to South Africa's constitur tional position, suggesting that the Premiers-would one day regard themselves as responsible1 to the Imperial Conference instead of to their own Parliaments. Mr. Creswell declined to Withdraw the motion, which was.. negatived by 61 -votes to -54., '