Evening Post THURSDAY, AUGUST 21, 1924. DOMINIONS' TREATY RIGHTS

Evening Post, Volume CVIII, Issue 45, 21 August 1924, Page 4

Evening Post THURSDAY, AUGUST 21, 1924. DOMINIONS' TREATY RIGHTS

Mr. Stanley Bruce sees no reason to complain of the Anglo-Russian Treaty from the standpoint of Australian interests and very little fvorn that of Imperial propriety. The policy of which this Treaty is the outcome was, as' he says, announced immediately after the present British Government came into power. It was on the Ist February that a British Note was despatched notifying the de jure recognition of Russia, and inviting the Russian Government to send to London at the earliest moment plenipotentiaries to draft the basis of a Treaty for settling all outstanding questions. On this occasion the Dominions were not consulted, and "technically," says Mr. Bruce, "this action was not in accordance with the established practice of consultation of the Dominions upon all questions of foreign policy." But as the interests of Australia were not affected, and there seemed no possibility of her [being involved in the obligations arising from the Treaty, no objection was raised by the Commonwealth Government. Though the statement on the subject which Mr. Massey promised more than a week ago has not yet been published, our own Government has doubtless taken the same. view. "Where is the British Empire in the Russian Treaty?" asked the "Daily Express." It was just because the British Empire did not figure in the Treaty, "but only Great Britain and Ireland, that there was no need for other parts of the Empire to worry. The other question raised by the ■ 'Daily Express" — "Has Mr. Mac Donald dropped the Monarchy n. order to please the Soviet?"— raised a- much more serious issue, and this was evidently the aspect of. the matter which was exercising the Prime Minister's mind. He shares with the other Prime Ministers of the Empire a reluctance to tackle the great constitutional problems involved in the new status of the Dominions and their desire to make their' acknowledged right to share' in the control of foreign policy effectives Mr. Massey has accordingly consented to the "sine die" postponement of the special Constitutional Conference which the Imperial War Conference desired to have convened 'as soon as possible after the cessation of hostilities." But he is probably more fully alive than anyother Dominion Premier to the dangers of the present'loose, .undefined, and indeterminate system, and it hits him on a soft spot when he finds, the King ignored in a Treaty with a foreign Power, the Royal prerogative of- treaty-mak-ing infringed by some unnamed authority, and Great Britain- and Northern Ireland' setting up as a separate unit in international politics on their own account without" imitating the candour of the Soviet Socialist Republics" with whicn they are dealing and disclosing the nature of the Government hy which they are controlled. In that unique preamble to the Russian Treaty any provident Imperialist must find food for perturbing thought, and the conclusion at Tvhich Mr. Massey with the help of his legal advisers arrives should t c of service to those who do not desire to see the sovereignty and the integrity of the Empire parcelled out into a series of independent Republics.

"In regard to the general lreaty entered into," said Miv Bruce, "the procedure was entirely in accordance with the resolutions of the Imperial Conference." This reference is, at the mst glance, not a little puzzling. In nearly all the previous references .to the subject, and in all the- criticisms of the form of the agreement, mention has been made of a single Treaty only; and yesterday's Melbourne message from which we have quoted describes Mi. Bruce's speech as referring to "the Treaty recently arrived at between- Britain and the Soviet." "When after pointing out the techmual defect in the procedure adopted reguvdiug this Treaty Mr.

Bruce speaks of the procedure in the case of the ■ "general Treaty" as beyond reproach, it is natural to infer that he is referring to the ■work of the London Conference, A reference to the cabled report of the debate on the Russian settlement in the House of Commons on the 6th August shows, however, that there were really two documents, which Mr. Ponsonby described as • the commercial Treaty and the general Treaty respectively. The commercial Treaty dealt with the Soviet On the basis of its monopoly of foreign trade and "granted to a limited number of the trade delegation diplomatic immunity for themselves and for tie existing office .of the trade delegation." It was in his description of the "general Treaty" > that Mr. Ponsonby roused the laughter of the House by his reference to it as containing "a Soviet admission ol liability to bondholders and an assurance that the Soviet would negotiate with the bondholders."

Presumably, as no distinction ra S been drawn in any of the criticisms reported, both Treaties agree in omitting any reference either to the Monarchy or to the Empire. Yet Mr. Bruce's statement shows that a distinction has been drawn by the British Government in the procedure adopted towards the Dominions. They.have not been consulted in regard, to what should have been described in the report of Mr. Bruce's speech as the commercial Treaty, but in regard to the other they have been kept in close and constant touch. Speaking of the- general Treaty, Mr. Bruce says that "the Commonwealth Government had at" all times full knowledge of the subject matter and was kept fully informed of' all the developments." V' hy the same procedure was not adopted in regard to the negotiations which were proceeding between the same parties and at the same time for the kindred Treaty is not quite clear. But the British Government must be ■presumed to have seen a clearer dividing line between the two than Mr. Bruce has been able to discover! The manner in which he has expressed his dissent, his exoneration of the British Government from anything more than-a technical blunder, and his cordial acknowledgment of its correctness en the main point present a pleasant contrast to much of the criticism 'which it has had to face.